Calories and Exercise "don't matter" ?

[Eddie Friedman]

Hi Folks,

I am reading GCBC by Taubes and enjoying it. I take it from Dr. M. Eades' blog that he considers favorably the information contained in Mr. Taubes' book.

Sincerely, I need help to understand the ideas that reducing calories and increasing activity for fat/weight loss are mere "memes", ie; accepted as truth/conventional wisdom, but never actually substantiated.

There are so many people who have lost fat/weight by doing exactly that, ie; "eat less, move more."

Will someone please help me understand ?

TIA

[maxlharris]

Hi,

I think Taubes is completely clear on his understanding in his book. But the core of his argument is roughly as follows:
1- moving more increases your energy needs
2- greater energy needs present as hunger
3- the typical response to hunger is to eat more.
4- typically, people eat a lot more than they have burned in the process of the exercise.

Now, here's where this gets tricky:
There has never been a study demonstrating that just exercising more while holding calories constant causes people to lose weight.
This doesn't really mean that it doesn't work. It simply means that it has yet to be proven (despite many attempts) in a controlled setting.

Now, if you work Protein Power the whole way, you will probably wind up eating less. And you will do some exercise. And you will lose weight. Now, what caused the weight loss? The diet or the exercise? Or both together? Or the hormonal changes wrought by one or the other? Or the caloric element? Taubes is pretty convinced that it's mostly the hormonal aspect of the macronutrients you eat. I think, at some point, calories do matter. But for most people who are starting the plan, not so much.

I would be interested to see how others respond. I haven't read Taubes since it came out (It is almost too unwieldy to read while commuting, and that's where I do most of my reading). Others have reread it.

[kevindill]

To add to what max said, The studies that Taubes cites are all endurance training studies, and not strength or interval training.

IMNSHO.....I think exercise is probably more important in maintenance phase then the loss phase. And just because it may not increase weight loss does not mean that there is not a benefit. People who combine the two often find that the discipline to stick to a diet re-reinforces the discipline to stick to an exercise plan and vice-versa.

[gitfiddle]

I agree with both of you.

[Ammy]

I never paid attention to calories until I had lost 100lbs...it's then that I seemed to get "stuck". Once I cut the calories down 200-300, then I started losing again. It's slower because I'm closer to goal (down 120, have 20 to go), but I do have to pay attention to calories.

NEVER did when first losing.

[maxlharris]

I forgot.

Taubes has been very clear on this. Just because there is not weight loss benefit to exercise in studies he has seen (which as KD notes, are almost entirely endurance type exercise), does not mean that he believes it is a waste of time. He works out. He has said so many times. The health benefits go beyond any meme of weightloss.

[laughingW]

There are so many people who have lost fat/weight by doing exactly that, ie; "eat less, move more."
There are also so many people who have NOT lost weight by doing exactly that.

Taubes is questioning, if it's not everyone has the same outcome, then that means the formula is not proven.

Also, Taubes is talking about the quality and quantity of the research. If the "eat less / move more" meme is true, why doesn't all the research end up supporting it? That's what happens when a hypothesis gets proven.

Instead, the research is all over the place.

Here's just one:
Surprising finding from calorie-weight study
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20090007025156data_trunc_sys.shtml

I think people who have success with "eat less / more more" get incensed about Gary's conclusion, "not proven," because they think he is saying, "not true." He is just saying, when there are so many studies that come out so many ways, there must be other factors going on than simple math of calories.

[S Bear]

1) Plenty of people have lost large amounts of weight on carb-restricted diets without exercising.

2) Plenty of people have lost large amounts of weight on low-fat diets with calorie restriction and increased exercise. (I was one of those, many years ago, and of course I developed gallstones. We now know that fat consumption protects against gallstones--see Dr. Eades' post on the topic (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/carbohydrates-and-gallstones/)and click through and read the journal article if you're interested. What I did was almost a recipe for gallstones, but it was what my doctor at the time recommended!)

3) But plenty of people have restricted calories and increased exercise without losing much weight.

It's ridiculous to say that calories and exercise "don't matter." But the point people are trying to make is that the model of the body as an internal combustion engine doesn't work; it's a vastly more complicated system. It's the Weight Change = Calories in - Calories Expended formula just plain doesn't work.

I understand it is possible to restrict carbs and yet eat so much that there is no weight loss. This seems to be rare, but there's people out there who've managed it. You ask what they're eating, and it turns out they're chowing down 3,500 calories a day.

I restrict carbs, not calories. But I find that when I eat enough protein and fat, my caloric consumption drops anyway; I'm just not hungry. So in my case--and I tend to drop weight rather rapidly--I'm sure that turning down my insulin levels makes me lose weight. But I'm also sure I lose weight faster because I'm eating less calories. The point is that calories aren't the main driver of the process in overweight people; they are a secondary factor that modifies the speed of the body's readjustment.

As to exercise, when I don't exercise at all my plateaus are longer, and there's nothing like a good jolt of intense exercise to get the weight loss movng again. I don't think this is because of energy expended, since I don't do endurance exercise any more. I've been sedentary lately because I can't avoid it--I have a sprained ankle--but I've lost eight pounds in the last three weeks without watching calories or being able to walk without a cane. (And, no, that doesn't include the initial rush of water-weight loss--that was before.)

As to exercise making people eat more, I think that varies with the type of exercise and the individual. Swimming and surfing tend to make people ravenous, and so do some endurance exercises. I sometimes do Bikram yoga (the kind done for 90 minutes in a hot room), and there is nothing like that to give your appetite a major setback (afterwards water seems like a great idea, but food is unappealing for some time). And I don't think a half-hour of weightlifting or interval training affects most people's appetites one way or another!

I think Taubes is clear enough. But he thinks like a scientist. He isn't rushing to form a conclusion; most of his book is devoted to showing that the prevailing hypotheses of how the body works have been proven wrong again and again. Calories and exercise alone aren't enough to predict outcomes.

[Eddie Friedman]

I forgot.

Taubes has been very clear on this. Just because there is not weight loss benefit to exercise in studies he has seen (which as KD notes, are almost entirely endurance type exercise), does not mean that he believes it is a waste of time. He works out. He has said so many times. The health benefits go beyond any meme of weightloss.

Thank you Max...I was aware that this is Mr. Taubes' position and I was not questioning whether exercise is beneficial, just the role in weight/fat loss, along with caloric reduction.

[maxlharris]

To Taubes many studies, the first time we talked about this issue, I remember finding a study from U-Conn, where they do a TON of exercise research and diet research and ketogenic diet research with exercise.

Ignoring the ketogenic dieting aspect, they found weight loss to be similar across sedentary dieters, endurance + diet and weight + endurance + diet. As I said, they lost similar amounts of weight. I think the ED people maybe lost a pound more.

Where the big mojo happened was in what they actually lost. The S group lost their 20 lbs, and about 40-45% of it was muscle! The ED group lost about 25% muscle and the WED group lost maybe 5% muscle, if that. Now, remember, they all lost the same weight.

[maxlharris]

Have found a little more, actually:
GROUP +++++++++++ WT LOSS + FAT LOSS + MUSCLE + OR -
Low-Carb Diet Only ++ 16.5 ++++ 14.7 +++++ -2.0
Low-Carb Diet + WT + 15.4 ++++ 16.9 +++++ +2.2
Low-Fat Diet Only +++ 9.5 +++++ 8.1 ++++++ -0.2
Low-Fat Diet + WT ++ 5.2 +++++ 7.7 ++++++ +4.0
All numbers are pounds. Study was small and short (12 weeks). Was not published as of 11/5/07. But here's what I see:
If you want to lose weight, do the LC. If you want to move the scale the most, 12 weeks of LC > 12 weeks of LF.

If you want to lose FAT, you will lift. Your scale will not move as fast, but I'm betting the belt will move faster.

Here's another study, same UConn.
Abstract:
http://www.ta.gd/ (http://www.ta.gd/%EE%B8%BA)
or
http://tinyurl.com/ddb68v
http://rodale.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/10/24/0704_burn_blubber.jpg
That's at 1500 calories a day for 12 weeks.
Here, the aerobic exercise seems to inhibit weight loss (surprising) but be more protective of LBM than just reducing calories (unsurprising).

Again, if you want to lose the stuff that you really want to lose (unless you are like the guy in Pi or a Beautiful Mind and just obsessed with numbers and need the scale to read something), weight training helps burn the fat and keep the stuff you don't want to lose (unless you are actually muscle bound and immobile from your massive muscles... I haven't met that guy yet).

Yeah, I gotta get back into moving heavy stuff around.

[Roadstr]

Consider the "Lemonade Diet" that reached main stream media with Beyonce's (http://therawfoodsite.com/beyonce.htm) preparation for "Dreamgirls". I bring this up because the diet is a 1,200 calorie diet, yet weight loss is pretty well known as quick and so the diet is considered extreme. Although, a 1,200 calorie diet can hardly be considered extreme.
I bring this up because it shows that a combination of the right food and ketosis can have a dramatic effect on fat loss. I have done the Master Cleanse diet a few times and after the 4-5th day your in ketosis. I always make sure I'm in ketosis before I start the diet and shorten the typical duration of 10 days. This way muscle loss is minimized with the protein in PP and fat loss is maximized into the MC. Most muscle loss going into ketosis is lost the first few days.
This is really funny... I was telling my neighbor about the MC diet and one thing that happens after a few days is the sense of smell becomes incredible... I mean think of Superman's sense of smell and I'm not exaggerating... anyway my neighbors response was, "OF COURSE! Your starving and your body needs food!"
I only bring the MC diet up because it's another perspective on fat loss and an exception on what most people think... add weight lifting and most fat loss theories are, well, better off not written because like PP it will be proven wrong at the grass roots level; i.e. your experience.

[André]

Research shows that the ability to burn fat improves with endurance training. Now that sounds good! Exercising costs energy, one way or the other, endurence or resistance. And that energy must come from somewhere.

I think the trick is if training has also an effect on what you eat. But that is really your own choise, no magic there. If you think you deserve that piece of chocolatecake after you have done 15 minutes of slow endurence, don't exercise.

When you are focussed and commited, and really want to lose that weight, exercising helps.

In a sense it is true : if you burn more than you consume, you lose weight. Biochemically you can't generate energy out of thin air.

The trouble is : it is not a static system; it is dynamic. But it all involves your own choises. I read something about 'setpoints' and 'setllepoints'. It seems like your brain has a mind of it's own when you try to lose weight. And hunger is the way your brain will try to get you to eat.

I'm on intermittent fasting now. I can train on a fasting day without getting hungry. But that can be different for everybody else.

So, it is really up to you. If you want exercise to work, it will work. If don't want it to work it won't. It's that simple. And remember : observational studies prove.......nothing!

[maxlharris]

The fasting probably helps with the not getting hungry on training days.

If you do flat cardio, for long periods of time, you will build the leptin. The leptin makes you hungry. This turns it from a natural energy deficit achieved through the hunger reducing aspect of ketogenic diets and the metabolic advantage of ketogenic diets. When you do IF, you also get a natural hunger reduction, which creates a similar energy deficit. Not well versed enough to know if it produces a metabolic advantage on it's own, but I suspect it does not, since the body will tend to conserve in periods of caloric depletion, and straight IF, without ketogenic carb levels, shouldn't generate much in the way of metabolic advantage.

When you do the flat cardio, on a normal diet, it turns it from a question of metabolic advantage and harmonious caloric deficit into a question of will. In the long run, most everyone loses when they fight their own body's demands.

It's never as simple as "if you want X to work, it will work." There's gotta be some explanation beyond, "I really wanted it to work."

[animalcule]

Calories and exercise do matter for me. I think they're somewhat secondary to macronutrient proportions, but I have seen very clear and visible changes in my body and weight from eating different amounts of calories and doing varying amounts/kinds of exercise, all while eating a low carb, high fat diet with plenty of protein.

This is said as someone who is underweight and a hard gainer, who has spent years counting calories and tracking her measurements and weight.

I am currently gaining about a pound a month eating VLC, roughly 2000-2500 calories per day. Since I weigh about 100 lbs I really don't need all that much to maintain - I don't lose weight even when I eat 1200 cals per day (which happens when I am anxious and majorly lose my appetite), but I don't gain either until I go over 2200 per day on a regular basis. That's a pretty wide range. I'm a hardgainer but I'm sure not like those people Taubes mentioned who could be fed 6,000 calories per day and only put on a few pounds. But 2500 is really my limit for my own health - I get indigestion if I eat more than that.

[S Bear]

Calories and exercise do matter for me. I think they're somewhat secondary to macronutrient proportions, but I have seen very clear and visible changes in my body and weight from eating different amounts of calories and doing varying amounts/kinds of exercise, all while eating a low carb, high fat diet with plenty of protein.

...but I don't gain either until I go over 2200 per day on a regular basis. That's a pretty wide range. I'm a hardgainer but I'm sure not like those people Taubes mentioned who could be fed 6,000 calories per day and only put on a few pounds. But 2500 is really my limit for my own health - I get indigestion if I eat more than that.

I've never tried deliberately stuffing myself, and gaining weight hasn't been one of my goals. But I don;t do portion control, and calories at the varying rates that I consume them don't seem to have much effect. So I'm like you in that macronutrient proportions seem to be the most important factor.

Exercise made a big difference, too, back when I was trying to shed pounds; exercise really seemed to speed my wieght loss. But I'm one of those people who diesn't get much of an appetite boost from exercise, even from aerobic exercise. Clearly this works very differently for some other people...

[Materialguy]

Success and Failure - Weight Loss from Exercising More

I backpack occasionally. I like to do 100 to 400 mile trips at about one per summer. My favorite place is the Appalachian Trail because the details of resupply of food and rest breaks are pretty well documented.

In a typical month, I will lose about 15 or so pounds -- starting a little pudgy. I eat only about 2500 to 3000 calories per day and probably use a little over 4000 calories on backpacking days.

So, of course I lose weight.

The favorite types of places to eat are known as AYCE, and a hiker used that as his trail name. All You Can Eat. It was common for me to use three plates for dinner. So, there was some Hunger from all of that exercise.

A rest day or a rest stop of more than a day would begin to replenish the calorie deficit. When I hiked through the Shenandoah National Park, there were a lot of good eating places, and I went slowly and didn't lose much weight in that section. I wasn't excessively hungry, but I made no attempt to stick to low carb eating while hiking, and I never do. I need the energy too badly, and low carb backpacking isn't that easy to plan for, especially for a long trip.

So, I might finish the trip with 10 to 30 pounds of weight loss.

Man, it seems impossible to keep the weight off when I come back, even; low carbing. In a month or so, I have regained most of it. Or all of it. Rarely do I rebound to a higher weight, but I have been scared of doing so.

Then, I am back to normal.

So, exercise works to knock off the weight. YES. Exercise raises appetite and you eat more . YES. Exercise to lose weight doesn't mean that you are going to be able to maintain the weight loss.

Your mileage may vary.

See you on the trail. I'm the silver/brown haired guy with a blue pack and International Orange baseball cap.

[S Bear]

I've come to believe that what you eat and when have a great deal to do with the balance between exercise and weight gain.

I'm now in one of the later phases of Volek's TNT diet; at present, I'm not trying to lose weight, but rather to swap some remaining fat for muscle. The TNT plan demands some high-carb meals once a week so the insulin spike can help drive nutrients into the muscles.

Here's what I've found: Eat your carby meals on a day when you have really slammed your big muscles with a gym workout, and your muscles will really pump up.

Do the same thing on a day when you have gone for a ten-mile run, and you may get a very different effect--I will be hungrier, will hold more water weight the next day (probably because my glycogen stores are being reloaded), and feel as if more of what I eat has been aimed at fat than at muscle.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not knocking cardio. I actually think that the healthiest mix for me is some of each: Endurance cardio, interval training, resistance training, and flexibility training. But I think each of these may interact with diet in somewhat different ways.

As far as I know, no one has ever researched this problem in any detail. Heck, there aren't even very many good studies of macronutrient effects alone, much less macronutrients and different exercise modalities...

[robrobin10]

I think its not so simple basically.

You need to watch what you eat and you do need to exercise. I know maybe I'm just parroting conventional wisdom, but I would say that you do this because changing your diet allows you to dictate roughly the amount of mass you need to be dealing with in terms of body size but the exercise is what helps make sure that it is just useless fat.

Frankly Ive seen people who way 9-10stone but still have big fat bellys, so you know its not just one or the other.