Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin - TIME

Has this been posted on here before? I think this article has been floating around time.com as one of the most popular for a while.

I think the writer is really off mark with their interpretation of the studies she is looking at, and her opinion.


"In short, it's what you eat, not how hard you try to work it off, that matters more in losing weight. You should exercise to improve your health, but be warned: fiery spurts of vigorous exercise could lead to weight gain. I love how exercise makes me feel, but tomorrow I might skip the VersaClimber — and skip the blueberry bar that is my usual postexercise reward."

She should be telling people to have more self control and not eat as an reward for exercising... Not totaly give up!

Eat as an reward for exercising...??

"In short, it's what you eat, not how hard you try to work it off, that matters more in losing weight."

Isn't that part pretty much true?

I think that is partly true. What really is the deciding factor is the "energy gap". I think that is the term she used.. Input calories VS output calories. Which ever way you choose to adjust that ratio will result in weight loss. I lost 80lbs mostly changing my output through exercise.

When she goes to the gym and has deep fried french fries afterwards, her ratio is not changing much, perhaps even in the wrong direction. Which is her point in the article(which I don't get, I don't feel hungry after a gym trip unless it is lunch or supper time).

It's true due to simple math. It's a lot harder to burn off the same amount of fat than to put it on. For example:

To gain one pound of fat:
(Assuming the average person burns off 2000 calories just breathing)

1) Go to a Chinese buffet and eat 5.5 plates of food (approx 1000 cal each) = 5500 cal.
2) This brings you up to 3500 cal past what you burn off in a day. (5500 - 2000 = 3500 excess cal).
3) Since 1 lb of fat = 3500 cal, you've gained a pound of fat.


To lose a pound of fat:
1) The average person burns off 100 cal per every mile ran.
2) 3500 cal / 100 cal per mile = 35 miles must be ran to burn off that single pound of fat.

So if you think you're going to burn off those calories you ate by pigging out at the buffet by only running for an hour, you're sorely mistaken. You won't even come close.

However, every little bit helps. So while it might not equal the calories that you just put in your body, it will certainly help chip away at them.

I think the problem with the premise of the article is that anyone who exercises is going to eat like a pig. Therefore, exercise doesn't help with weight loss.

Except, that's a pretty damn big assumption.

I myself experimented by eating just a tad above maintenance, and increasing my exercise by a small amount every day. Guess what? Where before I had been slowly gaining with that amount of food, low and behold I was slowly losing! Because... while yes, it's much easier to eat 2000 calories of food than it is to burn 2000 calories, that doesn't mean it hurts your weight loss goals to burn an extra 100 calories a day through exercise.

Just don't assume that working out 'all the time' means you can eat like a pig. If exercise makes you hungry, make sure to plan your meals around that. Show self control. Planning and self control are both supposed to be things that human beings are capable of.

Food is probably the bigger part of the energy balance equation, but something like "Exercise won't make you thin" is just a sensationalist title to sell copies. Picking a title like "Why exercise may not be enough to make you thin" would have been more accurate, but not as attention grabbing

+1. I couldn't have said it better.

I wrote a post about this when the article first came out, but I can't find it right now.

Basically his premise is that exercise makes you hungry, so you eat back the calories you burned. Except he then goes on to say things like this:

So basically because the author doesn't understand the difference between eating a healthy, low calorie, high nutrient meal to assuage hunger after working out and stuffing french fries and pizza into his face, he writes a scare-tactic article about how exercise is useless for weight loss. And then he follows up the whole thing with the ultimate bit of self-justification BS:
There's so much more in that article that is bad that I could quote ... but it would take more time than it's worth.

Bottom line is that the author did the most cursory research in order to support his point of view and never bothered to address the more pressing issue of making healthy choices in ALL areas of your life - both exercising and eating.

Well he did say "might" have the energy. Which implies he really didn't do any of those things before he started exercising. Instead he just turned exercise into the giant scape goat for every unhealthy decision he makes.

I bet Freud would love this guy

And for the record, while I may not feel like sprinting a mile after working out, I find I have more inclination to be on my feet rather than eating a greasy burrito on the couch. If you overtrain to the point where you're exhausted all the time... you're doing something wrong.

Very true and same here.

If you look at the first two paragraphs, you get a very plain view of how the author views and manages exercise. He talks about working out "to the point that I am dizzy" and pushing himself "in hateful ways for an hour" and how his run is "grueling" ... and then says: "I have exercised like this — obsessively, a bit grimly — for years"

Uh .. yeaaaahhhhh.

Nice healthy, neutral, reasoned basis to start his article from, right?

Well, if his goal was to get people talking about his article... clearly he was successful! Even if his logic was abysmal.