Exercise is waste of time?

Well, this is kind of Taubes' kick--he's everywhere the last few weeks, as he has a new book on this topic. I think he's minimizing the work of other scientists who've long argued against the "thermodynamic box" model, and he's also limiting his sights by focusing so much on insulin and refined carbohydrates. For example, I've blogged several times on the role microbes such as gut flora play in weight. Likely there are many factors that play a role in weight besides simple diet and exercise.

Oh, and just because exercise may not make you lose weight, there are still benefits--such as cardiovascular health.

and what is the relationship between diet and stress? and depression? and between stress and exercise? and why don't people stick to good diets?

Too simplistic, to say it is all just about diet.

My alarm bells went off when I read this:

This would explain the slew of recent clinical trials demonstrating that dieters who restrict carbohydrates but not calories invariably lose more weight than dieters who restrict calories but not necessarily carbohydrates.

What slew? Invariable? Bovine feces. This is not exactly my primary area of expertise, but the studies I've seen have demonstrated no such thing. Absent sources, I find his claim incredible. I also find this part amusing:

As for those people who insist that exercise has been the key to their weight-loss programs, the one thing we�d have to wonder is whether they changed their diets as well. Rare is the person who decides the time has come to lose weight and doesn�t also decide perhaps it�s time to eat fewer sweets, drink less beer, switch to diet soda, and maybe curtail the kind of carb-rich snacks�the potato chips and the candy bars�that might be singularly responsible for driving up their insulin and so their fat.

Rare, perhaps, but I am one such. When I first decided I needed to lose weight, I made changes in both areas. Since then I've had my ups and downs in both areas, but I've kept track of the results. My weight has consistently stayed low when I'm exercising, even if I am simultaneously eating poorly, and has consistently risen when I've been unable to exercise, again regardless of diet. Such an anecdote proves absolutely nothing about the population in general, but the most significant empirical information for me is information about me. Whether or not Taubes's statement is true in general - and I doubt it - it clearly is not true for me.

Seriously? How can you take the author seriously when he claims, "all living organisms are ruled by biology, not thermodynamics." Ridiculous. My alarm bells have shattered. As someone who lost 50+ lbs and has kept it off for 10 years, I get seriously annoyed with the "I try and try but to no avail!" crowd. They delude themselves into thinking they're doing something to affect change, while any reasonable outside observer is shocked by the persistent self-sabotage of mental and physical laziness.

"Bovine feces" could well become my new favorite epithet. :)

Congrats to runnerrudite for losing and keeping off weight, but you're falling into the trap of assuming everyone must be like you. Do overweigh people self-sabotage? Sure. So do alcoholics. Self-rationalization is a big part of human nature. And absolutely, Americans especially eat far too much of unhealthy foods and don't get enough exercise. Usually, they are completely unware of just how much they are eating (and how little they're exercising). I see the phenomenon in my own family all the time. (One relative complained to me about how hard it was for her to lose weight and expressed envy over my own slim build... while stuffing herself with chips. But they had no trans fats! They were organic!)

But, but, but.... poeple who've succeeded on low-carb diets are just as zealous in their "calories don't matter, just carbs" arguments. Of course calories matter, and so does exercise, but Tara's right that there are all kinds of factors that affect weight (genetics, stress, medications, the kinds of food ones eats, and how one exercises), and the right balance might be a bit different for different people. So it's a bit unfair to judge EVERYONE harshly because "I did it, why can't they?" People are wired differently, genetically speaking, and do seem to have a set weight range beyond which it is very difficult to lose or gain weight. Surely there's a balance somewhere we can strike that allows for individual differences without condemnation, yet doesn't excuse the grossly obese of their own responsibility for their condition.

Here's why anecdotal arguments are unwise: my example would lend credence to the "exercise doesn't matter" argments (not that I buy into them): the heaviest I have ever been was when I was in the best shape of my life, training for my black belt test in jujitsu and exercising 3-4 hours a day. The catch? I was eating considerably more -- mostly as a deliberate attempt to bulk up. Took me a year and a half to drop all the muscle mass/excess weight I'd gained once the test was over, and while part of that was due to a different training regimen (more cardio less weights), I dropped the last bit of weight with no exercise at all, just a sharp cut in calories. Basically, I needed to find the right balance of factors to reset my metabolism to my normal weight. But it's not a magic formula, and it won't work for everyone.

There's a lot of confusing information out there. The sad thing is, we focus overmuch on weight and weight loss, and not on just making broad changes to foster health.

I have to wonder, along with Runnerudite, just how living organisms got their exemption from the laws of thermodynamics.

Exercise (and weightlifting) improve insulin sensitivity if I recall correctly. I don't put much stock in anyone who tries to seperate diet and nutrition as if they aren't interweaving factors.

Whenever someone asks me about diet and nutrition I recommend Walter Willet's Eat, Drink,and Be Healthy. That's a great general guide to nutrition.

Diet and exercise, I meant.

Jennifer makes some great points. Wish I had more time to elaborate sometimes.

And folks, try to read a little more carefully. The author of the New York mag piece was not implying that people don't obey on the laws of thermodynamics. Of course we all obey the laws of thermodynamics. But the simplistic description of energy in = energy out, which is sometimes used to justify the believe that exercising more MUST result in weight loss, doesn't adequately explain what happens when you also taken into account how the body processes food energy.

Perhaps people need to be clearer about the aspect of weight loss they're talking about.

There IS a physical component and it's counterproductive to claim otherwise. Fact: if you eat less energy than you burn, you will lose weight. Sure there are individual differences in the way this happens, but physics trumps biology every time.

There is, however, also a behavioral component: if you eat less energy than you burn, you'll feel hungry (duh). If you choose to respond to that feeling by eating more energy, you won't lose weight. Simple carbohydrates often make people feel hungrier; fats and proteins satiate. So if you have trouble controlling your eating, avoid sugar and starch. That's why low-carb diets work.

But ultimately, losing weight simply requires the self-discipline to live with hunger for a while. Nobody likes to admit that they lack self-discipline. So some people try to rationalize their failure to lose weight by claiming there's a magical biological mechanism which means that their bodies (but, strangely, not the bodies of successful dieters or Third World children) somehow override the laws of physics.

Obesity is an issue of personal responsibility, not a scientific problem to solve. Much of the research in this area is counterproductive because it promotes the myth that weight loss is mysterious when in fact it's very simple - just very uncomfortable. People should feel that their weight is something they can control - because it is! If you tell people that a problem they have is outside their control, the natural response is helplessness and depression. The more clearly people are told that their weight is their choice, the less obesity you'll see in society.

"Humans, rats, and all living organisms are ruled by biology, not thermodynamics."

I have reread this pretty carefully. It still says the same thing.

I'm not of the scientifically intelligent mind as many of you are - and so will refrain from making any bold scientific statements. But in regards tot he myth that all fat folks are lazy I can offer up the life story of my sister and myself. I have for the most part been a lethargic sloth of a human being who avoids the gym like the plague and eats ice cream and chocolate for breakfast while my sister has always been a very responsible person with the foods she eats and runs a few miles almost every day, often competes in mini-marathons and hikes up nature trails most weekends. Guess which one of us has always battled weight and which is the scrawny bastard? That's right, the lazy glutton doesn't have an inch to pinch but my poor sister has struggled with weight since adolescence.

Blaming all fat folks for their weight issues is just plain lazy thinking.

There may be differences in how individuals metabolize food they eat and fat they already have. Perhaps some metabollisms are more efficient and therefore burn less fat for the same amount of energy. But the fact remains that if an organism expends energy, it must come from somewhere. If you burn more calories than you take in, you must lose weight. Biology isn't magic. It has to follow the same rules as every other physical object.

I hear that exercise can help you with your insulin... which leads to the new claim that weight lifting - not just aerobics, can help.

But the old saying is "run a mile, and eat a donut, and you're even." Even when i was able to run enough miles to make a difference, it didn't in fact, make any difference. According to the math, if you run 30 miles a day (which i did, every day for 14 weeks), that's over 4,000 calories consumed (at the speeds i was going). That's considerably more than my intake was. Fortunately, weight loss wasn't a goal at the time.