Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds

Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds

Story Highlights• Eating less, exercising more equally good at helping take
off pounds, study finds
• Research adds to evidence that adding muscle mass does not boost
metabolism
• Dieting alone also did not appear to cause loss of muscle mass along with
fat

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally good at
helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a study that
challenges many of the popular tenets of the multibillion dollar diet and
fitness industry.

Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie, whether
lost by dieting or by running, they said.

They found there is no way to selectively lose belly fat, for instance, or
trim thighs. And their carefully controlled study added to evidence that
adding muscle mass does not somehow boost metabolism and help dieters take
off even more weight.

"It's all about the calories," said Dr. Eric Ravussin of the Pennington
Biomedical Research Center, part of Louisiana State University in Baton
Rouge.

"So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat weight, and
abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."

Ravussin said the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology
& Metabolism, is one of the few done under controlled conditions that can
& actually demonstrate what happens to a human body while dieting and
& exercising.

Ravussin's team has been testing volunteers for another reason -- to see
whether taking in fewer calories helps people live longer. Strict diets
have been shown to help animals from worms to dogs live longer, but it
takes longer to study monkeys and humans.

They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who
dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.

The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced
their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity
to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.

An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was provided by the
university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.

The volunteers in both groups lost about 10 percent of their body weight,
24 percent of their fat mass, and 27 percent of their abdominal visceral
fat. Visceral fat is packed in between the internal organs and is
considered the most dangerous type of fat, linked with heart disease and
diabetes.

The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either approach
-- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot reducing", Ravussin
said in a telephone interview.

This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat storage
in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot easily be
overcome," he added.

Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that
exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.

"If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn
fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.

Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle
mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.

"There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose less of
your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this is true.

Ravussin believes exercise is crucial to health, however.

"For overall health, an appropriate program of diet and exercise is still
the best," he said.

His team found some small suggestion that cutting 25 percent of calories by
either diet or diet and exercise might extend life.

"We found that 2 of the biomarkers of aging were improved -- core
temperature was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C less," he said. "Insulin, which has
been shown to be a biomarker of aging, was reduced," Ravussin said. That
finding was published in the Journal of the American Medical Associaton
last April.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....ise.reut/index.
html

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2007-01-27 Morgan napisa³(a):
> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>
> Story Highlights• Eating less, exercising more equally good at helping take
> off pounds, study finds
> • Research adds to evidence that adding muscle mass does not boost
> metabolism

Written this way, it's simply nonsense. For two people of the same
weight, the one who exercises eats more, so this person metabolises
more.

> • Dieting alone also did not appear to cause loss of muscle mass along with
> fat

Appearances can vary. From study to study.

> "So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat weight, and
> abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."

No. If a person starts a muscle building program, this person will
lose way less muscles than a sedentary dieter.

> Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that
> exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.
>
> "If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn
> fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.

Sure. They burn about the same *at rest*. 300 lbs person and 200 lbs
person will burn roughly the same amount of calories at rest, but if
they move around, heavier person will burn more. Muscles are weight
which looks good and by carrying it around one will burn extra calories
(and look better too).

> Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle
> mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.

Strange.

> "There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose less of
> your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this is true.

Depends which kind of exercises one does.

--
Andrzej Rosa

What's with all the crossposting lately?
Will~

"Morgan" <morgan-s13@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:R2PLZNAX39109.5312037037@anonymous.poster...
> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>
> Story Highlights. Eating less, exercising more equally good at helping
> take
> off pounds, study finds
> . Research adds to evidence that adding muscle mass does not boost
> metabolism
> . Dieting alone also did not appear to cause loss of muscle mass along
> with
> fat
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally good
> at
> helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a study that
> challenges many of the popular tenets of the multibillion dollar diet and
> fitness industry.
>
> Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie, whether
> lost by dieting or by running, they said.
>
> They found there is no way to selectively lose belly fat, for instance, or
> trim thighs. And their carefully controlled study added to evidence that
> adding muscle mass does not somehow boost metabolism and help dieters take
> off even more weight.
>
> "It's all about the calories," said Dr. Eric Ravussin of the Pennington
> Biomedical Research Center, part of Louisiana State University in Baton
> Rouge.
>
> "So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat weight, and
> abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."
>
> Ravussin said the study, published in the Journal of Clinical
> Endocrinology
> & Metabolism, is one of the few done under controlled conditions that can
> & actually demonstrate what happens to a human body while dieting and
> & exercising.
>
> Ravussin's team has been testing volunteers for another reason -- to see
> whether taking in fewer calories helps people live longer. Strict diets
> have been shown to help animals from worms to dogs live longer, but it
> takes longer to study monkeys and humans.
>
> They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who
> dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.
>
> The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced
> their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity
> to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.
>
> An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was provided by
> the
> university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.
>
> The volunteers in both groups lost about 10 percent of their body weight,
> 24 percent of their fat mass, and 27 percent of their abdominal visceral
> fat. Visceral fat is packed in between the internal organs and is
> considered the most dangerous type of fat, linked with heart disease and
> diabetes.
>
> The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either approach
> -- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot reducing", Ravussin
> said in a telephone interview.
>
> This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat storage
> in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot easily be
> overcome," he added.
>
> Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that
> exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.
>
> "If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn
> fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.
>
> Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle
> mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.
>
> "There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose less of
> your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this is true.
>
> Ravussin believes exercise is crucial to health, however.
>
> "For overall health, an appropriate program of diet and exercise is still
> the best," he said.
>
> His team found some small suggestion that cutting 25 percent of calories
> by
> either diet or diet and exercise might extend life.
>
> "We found that 2 of the biomarkers of aging were improved -- core
> temperature was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C less," he said. "Insulin, which has
> been shown to be a biomarker of aging, was reduced," Ravussin said. That
> finding was published in the Journal of the American Medical Associaton
> last April.
>
>
> Find this article at:
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....ise.reut/index.
> html
>
>

On 27 Jan 2007 19:44:56 -0000, morgan-s13@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:

>Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds

lose 150 pounds by shooting a troll. Keep this stupidity out of SSFA.

LV

"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."

---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>
> Depends which kind of exercises one does.

I bet they only had them do cardio which as we know burns off muscle if done
to excess with no weight traning. The best thing is to have a cardio and
weight days not on the same day.

Someone started it and now it's like a plague...GG
"Willow Herself" <willowkinda@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote in
message news:NaRuh.36070$QU1.13492@newssvr22.news.prodigy. net...
> What's with all the crossposting lately?
> Will~
>
> "Morgan" <morgan-s13@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:R2PLZNAX39109.5312037037@anonymous.poster...
>> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>>
>> Story Highlights. Eating less, exercising more equally good at helping
>> take
>> off pounds, study finds
>> . Research adds to evidence that adding muscle mass does not boost
>> metabolism
>> . Dieting alone also did not appear to cause loss of muscle mass along
>> with
>> fat
>>
>> WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally good
>> at
>> helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a study that
>> challenges many of the popular tenets of the multibillion dollar diet and
>> fitness industry.
>>
>> Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie, whether
>> lost by dieting or by running, they said.
>>
>> They found there is no way to selectively lose belly fat, for instance,
>> or
>> trim thighs. And their carefully controlled study added to evidence that
>> adding muscle mass does not somehow boost metabolism and help dieters
>> take
>> off even more weight.
>>
>> "It's all about the calories," said Dr. Eric Ravussin of the Pennington
>> Biomedical Research Center, part of Louisiana State University in Baton
>> Rouge.
>>
>> "So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat weight, and
>> abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."
>>
>> Ravussin said the study, published in the Journal of Clinical
>> Endocrinology
>> & Metabolism, is one of the few done under controlled conditions that can
>> & actually demonstrate what happens to a human body while dieting and
>> & exercising.
>>
>> Ravussin's team has been testing volunteers for another reason -- to see
>> whether taking in fewer calories helps people live longer. Strict diets
>> have been shown to help animals from worms to dogs live longer, but it
>> takes longer to study monkeys and humans.
>>
>> They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who
>> dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.
>>
>> The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced
>> their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical
>> activity
>> to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.
>>
>> An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was provided by
>> the
>> university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.
>>
>> The volunteers in both groups lost about 10 percent of their body weight,
>> 24 percent of their fat mass, and 27 percent of their abdominal visceral
>> fat. Visceral fat is packed in between the internal organs and is
>> considered the most dangerous type of fat, linked with heart disease and
>> diabetes.
>>
>> The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either
>> approach
>> -- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot reducing", Ravussin
>> said in a telephone interview.
>>
>> This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat
>> storage
>> in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot easily be
>> overcome," he added.
>>
>> Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that
>> exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.
>>
>> "If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn
>> fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.
>>
>> Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle
>> mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.
>>
>> "There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose less of
>> your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this is true.
>>
>> Ravussin believes exercise is crucial to health, however.
>>
>> "For overall health, an appropriate program of diet and exercise is still
>> the best," he said.
>>
>> His team found some small suggestion that cutting 25 percent of calories
>> by
>> either diet or diet and exercise might extend life.
>>
>> "We found that 2 of the biomarkers of aging were improved -- core
>> temperature was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C less," he said. "Insulin, which has
>> been shown to be a biomarker of aging, was reduced," Ravussin said. That
>> finding was published in the Journal of the American Medical Associaton
>> last April.
>>
>>
>> Find this article at:
>> http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....ise.reut/index.
>> html
>>
>>
>
>

In article <R2PLZNAX39109.5312037037@anonymous.poster>,
morgan-s13@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:

> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds

It would be hard to even count how many things are wrong with this study,
or how Reuters reported on it. Some times it's not the study that is
fu*&^, but the way the media reports on it. Regardless, the bulk of the
data out there is counter to this silly study. For something of a counter
point to this stdy, see:

A Unified Theory of Nutrition

http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...catid=3&aid=18

Willow Herself wrote:

> What's with all the crossposting lately?

This information is on topic for all the groups it was posted to.

> Will~
>
> "Morgan" <morgan-s13@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:R2PLZNAX39109.5312037037@anonymous.poster...
> > Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
> >
> > Story Highlights. Eating less, exercising more equally good at
> > helping take
> > off pounds, study finds
> > . Research adds to evidence that adding muscle mass does not boost
> > metabolism
> > . Dieting alone also did not appear to cause loss of muscle mass
> > along with
> > fat
> >
> > WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally
> > good at
> > helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a
> > study that challenges many of the popular tenets of the
> > multibillion dollar diet and fitness industry.
> >
> > Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie,
> > whether lost by dieting or by running, they said.
> >
> > They found there is no way to selectively lose belly fat, for
> > instance, or trim thighs. And their carefully controlled study
> > added to evidence that adding muscle mass does not somehow boost
> > metabolism and help dieters take off even more weight.
> >
> > "It's all about the calories," said Dr. Eric Ravussin of the
> > Pennington Biomedical Research Center, part of Louisiana State
> > University in Baton Rouge.
> >
> > "So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat
> > weight, and abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."
> >
> > Ravussin said the study, published in the Journal of Clinical
> > Endocrinology
> > & Metabolism, is one of the few done under controlled conditions
> > that can & actually demonstrate what happens to a human body while
> > dieting and & exercising.
> >
> > Ravussin's team has been testing volunteers for another reason --
> > to see whether taking in fewer calories helps people live longer.
> > Strict diets have been shown to help animals from worms to dogs
> > live longer, but it takes longer to study monkeys and humans.
> >
> > They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12
> > who dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.
> >
> > The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers
> > reduced their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their
> > physical activity to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.
> >
> > An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was
> > provided by the
> > university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.
> >
> > The volunteers in both groups lost about 10 percent of their body
> > weight, 24 percent of their fat mass, and 27 percent of their
> > abdominal visceral fat. Visceral fat is packed in between the
> > internal organs and is considered the most dangerous type of fat,
> > linked with heart disease and diabetes.
> >
> > The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either
> > approach -- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot
> > reducing", Ravussin said in a telephone interview.
> >
> > This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat
> > storage in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot
> > easily be overcome," he added.
> >
> > Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that
> > exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.
> >
> > "If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they
> > burn fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.
> >
> > Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose
> > muscle mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.
> >
> > "There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose
> > less of your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this
> > is true.
> >
> > Ravussin believes exercise is crucial to health, however.
> >
> > "For overall health, an appropriate program of diet and exercise is
> > still the best," he said.
> >
> > His team found some small suggestion that cutting 25 percent of
> > calories by
> > either diet or diet and exercise might extend life.
> >
> > "We found that 2 of the biomarkers of aging were improved -- core
> > temperature was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C less," he said. "Insulin,
> > which has been shown to be a biomarker of aging, was reduced,"
> > Ravussin said. That finding was published in the Journal of the
> > American Medical Associaton last April.
> >
> >
> > Find this article at:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet.....exercise.reut
> > /index. html
> >
> >

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:31:21 -0800, "Gary G"

<mrhiggins1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Someone is determined that they are going to shove this drek down our
throat.

Lose weight-shoot a troll.

LV

"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."

---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:12:32 -0500, willbrink@comcast.net (Will Brink)
wrote:

>In article <R2PLZNAX39109.5312037037@anonymous.poster>,
>morgan-s13@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:
>
>> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>
>It would be hard to even count how many things are wrong with this study,
>or how Reuters reported on it. Some times it's not the study that is
>fu*&^, but the way the media reports on it. Regardless, the bulk of the
>data out there is counter to this silly study. For something of a counter
>point to this stdy, see:
>
>A Unified Theory of Nutrition
>http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...catid=3&aid=18


The most thought-provoking nutrition advice I've come across in a
while is in an article by Michael Pollan in this Sunday's New York
Times Magazine entitled "Unhappy Meals."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/ma...l?ref=magazine

The most thought-provoking article on exercise and fat loss I've come
across in a while is in an article by Kurt Wilkens entitled
"Endurance Training: Intervals vs. Long-Slow/Steady-Distance
For Heart Health, Fat Loss, and Physical Performance."
http://www.dragondoor.com/cgi-bin/ar...&articleid=392

It is highly unlikely that I will follow the advice offered by either
of these guys. I note them as a favor to those of you who, unlike me,
are serious about what you eat and how you train.

On 27 Jan 2007 19:44:56 -0000, morgan-s13@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:

>The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either approach
>-- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot reducing", Ravussin
>said in a telephone interview.
>
>This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat storage
>in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot easily be
>overcome," he added.

Most of the article sounds like crap but I thought this conclusion was
the most narrow minded. Yeah the weight comes off evenly throughout
the body. But that doesn't mean it always packs on the same way.
Which means genetics isn't the only factor in where the fat gets
stored.

In news:vvUuh.3218$yB5.433@trndny03,
Manco <manco_dollars@net2blah.com> typed:
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>
>> Depends which kind of exercises one does.
>
> I bet they only had them do cardio which as we know burns off muscle
> if done to excess with no weight traning. The best thing is to have a
> cardio and weight days not on the same day.

Why do you say that?

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

Will Brink <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote:
> morgan-s13@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:
>> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>
> It would be hard to even count how many things are wrong with this
> study, or how Reuters reported on it. Some times it's not the study
> that is fu*&^, but the way the media reports on it. Regardless, the
> bulk of the data out there is counter to this silly study. For
> something of a counter point to this stdy, see: A Unified Theory of
> Nutrition
> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...catid=3&aid=18

They said that their study is unique in that it was done under
controlled conditions which allowed to demonstrate what happens to a
body while dieting and exercising. Any specific critique of the
design? Here is a link to the original study (free access) -
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/rap...006-2184v1.pdf

["Followup-To:" header set to misc.fitness.weights.]
Dnia 2007-01-29 DZ napisa³(a):
> Will Brink <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote:
>> morgan-s13@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:
>>> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>>
>> It would be hard to even count how many things are wrong with this
>> study, or how Reuters reported on it. Some times it's not the study
>> that is fu*&^, but the way the media reports on it. Regardless, the
>> bulk of the data out there is counter to this silly study. For
>> something of a counter point to this stdy, see: A Unified Theory of
>> Nutrition
>> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...catid=3&aid=18
>
> They said that their study is unique in that it was done under
> controlled conditions which allowed to demonstrate what happens to a
> body while dieting and exercising. Any specific critique of the
> design? Here is a link to the original study (free access) -
> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/rap...006-2184v1.pdf

Exercise was supposed to consume 12.5% of daily consumed calories.
They wrote that women expended 405 kcal on average and men 569 kcal.
It turns out that an average overweight woman eats around 3300 kcal and
man 4500 kcal. It's quite a lot.

--
Andrzej Rosa

On Jan 29, 9:39 am, DZ <2...@33114800.834111461.6517.26520.32355>
wrote:
> Will Brink <willbr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > morgan-...@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:
> >> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>
> > It would be hard to even count how many things are wrong with this
> > study, or how Reuters reported on it. Some times it's not the study
> > that is fu*&^, but the way the media reports on it. Regardless, the
> > bulk of the data out there is counter to this silly study. For
> > something of a counter point to this stdy, see: A Unified Theory of
> > Nutrition
> >http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...d=3&aid=18They said that their study is unique in that it was done under
> controlled conditions which allowed to demonstrate what happens to a
> body while dieting and exercising. Any specific critique of the
> design? Here is a link to the original study (free access) -http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/rapidpdf/jc.2006-2184v1.pdf

Where to start? We know that all studies are inherently flawed, just
some better than others.

I would start, without even reading the paper with the sample size. We
are going to make definitive statements about the entire human race
based on the weight loss differences between two groups of 12 people?
A total of 24? In terms of margin of error, I don't know that you can
say much about anything (besides 24 people) with 24 people. This alone
makes it pretty hard to swallow.

Now, lemme look at the methodology.
First: We are looking at things in a calorie-is-a-calorie sense of the
universe. The fact of the matter is that this view is not consistent
with the second law of thermodynamics. That's not my opinion. I'm not
that smart. That's what this paper says:
http://proteinpower.com/forum/attachment.php?
attachmentid=7&d=1141961325
Now, I'm not one to play with fundamental laws of physics, but
apparently the authors of the study are.

Next: I might quibble with the findings: Their observation, based on a
very small sample that might skew the results is that cal restriction
works as well as 1/2 cal restriction and 1/2 exercise increase (from a
caloric POV), is that they lost the same amount of weight +/- .8 lbs.
It could be the same, it could be 1.6 lbs different. Ditto fat mass
(where their observation is actually 5.8 +/- .6 for CR and 6.4+/- .6
for CR+EX, a possible difference of up to 1.8 whatevers. The units are
not explained well). Also ditto for VAT.

Next: For about 40% of the trial period (10 weeks out of 24), the
study participants used food journals to report their caloric input. I
hope I don't have to explain the problems with that.

The Last Thing I'm gonna look at is: The type of exercise. They did
"slow cardio." What they did was pick a cardio exercise (treadmill,
stairmaster, stationary bike), and ramp up over 6 weeks to the level
of caloric burn they should be up to. They looked at them with heart
monitors (Polar s-610), and figured out how long they should be on the
treadmill (et al) given their caloric output need. Why this is flawed?
Couple things:
1- EVERYBODY knows that "slow cardio" is not the way to lose weight.
Well, maybe not everybody, but anyone who is up on the literature
knows that, if you are looking to lose weight and see "improved
metabolic effects" you should be doing some kind of High Intensity
Intervals. You get the effects of running for 10.5 hours a week with
only 2.5 hours per week according to a British study (all the effects,
plus you get 8 hours back to do whatever with). This type of workout
creates the "afterburn" where you continue to burn more calories for
up to 48 hours, post workout. "Slow Cardio" fails to do this, thus,
the extra 8 hours of steady state road running.

2- NOBODY expects to build muscle or significantly alter body
composition with Cardio. Well, maybe not NOBODY, but no one who is up
on the literature. Building muscle takes resistance exercises.
Stationary bike is not resistance exercise, no matter how high you
crank the resistance (I suppose if you could theoretically push it to
like 50, but you would lose the cardio effects, right?). A better
study might have them do some weight lifting, burn something like 10%
of their calories with resistance, and eat the goofy AHA diet, but at
the full caloric requirement. See who builds more muscle and burns
more fat. Or, replace the cardio with Sprint Intervals, and see who
burns more fat.

After reading this portion of the description, I am not surprised that
they found what they found. It's what the study was designed for. It
takes NONE of the knowledge that is easily available regarding muscle
building or efficient cardio training and it takes none of the
knowledge on efficient dieting or nutrition. Let's design a better
study. Design each diet from the ground up with the proper strategy.
An example:

We are going to see if Diet and Exercise take off equal pounds, VAT,
body fat. So, we want to do a traditional diet, like the AHA 25% cal
restriction they used in this goofy study. For the exercise model, we
are going to try to build muscle and jack metabolism. So, the workouts
will look like this: Big muscle targeting circuit workouts, with a
couple days of sprint intervals. What kind of diet is going to support
muscle building? I would suggest something like the Zone or Protein
Power. Something with a real dose of protein and reduced carbs. Enough
fat to burn for energy. Yeah. If you want controls, we can have four
groups, one AHA 25% Cal Reduction, one AHA with 25% Cal Expend in
smarter workouts, one PP no exercise, and one PP with smarter
workouts. Then, you might be able to say something for real. This
study, as it is, is at best, ignorant, and at worst, willfully so.

-Hollywood, who loves junk science.

Hollywood <maxlharris@gmail.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> They said that their study is unique in that it was done under
>> controlled conditions which allowed to demonstrate what happens to a
>> body while dieting and exercising. Any specific critique of the
>> design? Here is a link to the original study (free access) -
>> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/rap...006-2184v1.pdf
>
> Where to start? We know that all studies are inherently flawed, just
> some better than others.
>
> I would start, without even reading the paper with the sample size. We
> are going to make definitive statements about the entire human race
> based on the weight loss differences between two groups of 12 people?
> A total of 24? In terms of margin of error, I don't know that you can
> say much about anything (besides 24 people) with 24 people. This alone
> makes it pretty hard to swallow.

You cannot talk about the "margin of error" in terms of the sample
size alone. In other words, a small sample size can either be
sufficient or not depending on the problem and the underlying
distribution.

I would still be interested if they for example thoroughly followed
just a SINGLE pair of identical twins and made conclusions about those
twins only. In fact I know a pair of twin scientists (geneticists) who
have been living on two drastically different diets for many years. In
this case, "sample size" (the amount of observations on this pair) is
quite large, and there is certainly something to learn from
experiments like that that concerns other humans.

I would still be interested if they had ZERO humans instead of the 24,
and did a similar experiment using 10,000 rats.

> Now, lemme look at the methodology.
> First: We are looking at things in a calorie-is-a-calorie sense of the
> universe. The fact of the matter is that this view is not consistent
> with the second law of thermodynamics. That's not my opinion. I'm not
> that smart. That's what this paper says:
> http://proteinpower.com/forum/attach...7&d=1141961325
> Now, I'm not one to play with fundamental laws of physics, but
> apparently the authors of the study are.

No, the paper you quote is saying that a calorie-is-a-calorie doesn't
need to be the case, and perhaps never is, when measured well enough
to detect even most minuscule differences. That doesn't mean that a
certain diet containing X cals cannot approximately counterbalance X
cals spent through a certain exercise mode.

> Next: I might quibble with the findings: Their observation, based on a
> very small sample that might skew the results is that cal restriction
> works as well as 1/2 cal restriction and 1/2 exercise increase (from a
> caloric POV), is that they lost the same amount of weight +/- .8 lbs.
> It could be the same, it could be 1.6 lbs different.

No, they lost what they lost. Apparently you're trying to use the
sample variability or the confidence limits to directly reflect
uncertainty about the population mean. This is a a statistical mistake
(technically, this would only work with "flat priors" on the
population variance). In the frequentist setup like in the above, the
population parameter is a fixed value. You cannot say that it is
likely to be between X and Y. It's the sample interval that is random
and has uncertainty about it.

> The Last Thing I'm gonna look at is: The type of exercise. They did
> "slow cardio."

....snip...

I'm with them. Do and understand simple things first. Go from there.

> This study, as it is, is at best, ignorant, and at worst, willfully
> so.
>
> -Hollywood, who loves junk science.

Perhaps you failed to show that it is ignorant and/or junk.

In article <484@154547063.2381815900.32499.20824.7165>, DZ
<25075@33114800.834111461.6517.26520.32355> wrote:

> Will Brink <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote:
> > morgan-s13@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:
> >> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
> >
> > It would be hard to even count how many things are wrong with this
> > study, or how Reuters reported on it. Some times it's not the study
> > that is fu*&^, but the way the media reports on it. Regardless, the
> > bulk of the data out there is counter to this silly study. For
> > something of a counter point to this stdy, see: A Unified Theory of
> > Nutrition
> > http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...catid=3&aid=18
>
> They said that their study is unique in that it was done under
> controlled conditions which allowed to demonstrate what happens to a
> body while dieting and exercising. Any specific critique of the
> design?

I have the study in front of me. What happens when a person is put on a
low protein (15%), low cal diet and does aerobics as their only form of
exercise? A loss of fat and FFM is the result. It's not exactly earth
shattering news. Form of exercise matters, macro nutrient ratio matters,
etc, etc. The study does a great job of confirming what some have known
for a long time, and research has confirmed.

Will Brink <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> Will Brink <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> morgan-s13@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:
>>>> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>>>
>>> It would be hard to even count how many things are wrong with this
>>> study, or how Reuters reported on it. Some times it's not the study
>>> that is fu*&^, but the way the media reports on it. Regardless, the
>>> bulk of the data out there is counter to this silly study. For
>>> something of a counter point to this stdy, see: A Unified Theory of
>>> Nutrition
>>> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...catid=3&aid=18
>>
>> They said that their study is unique in that it was done under
>> controlled conditions which allowed to demonstrate what happens to a
>> body while dieting and exercising. Any specific critique of the
>> design?
>
> I have the study in front of me. What happens when a person is put on a
> low protein (15%), low cal diet and does aerobics as their only form of
> exercise? A loss of fat and FFM is the result. It's not exactly earth
> shattering news. Form of exercise matters, macro nutrient ratio matters,
> etc, etc. The study does a great job of confirming what some have known
> for a long time, and research has confirmed.

If the media paints it as Earth-shattering that is not exactly
researcher's fault. A lot of the usual Internet critique, like this
study received, often comes in the form: "we already knew that X
causes Y". But confirming studies add quantification to the
process. How much X and Y, the duration, etc. That can be usefully
used later to build new knowledge upon. Also, the simplest possible
model is likely to be wrong/non-realistic, but reducing the amount of
sophistication can aid in understanding and serve as a point of
comparison. We will have to wait and see the number of citations in
peer-review this study receives in a few years.

In article <29772@61007439.1933217257.32178.15431.14461>, DZ
<4756@96675050.845718032.17495.14162.19205> wrote:

> Will Brink <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote:
> > DZ wrote:
> >> Will Brink <willbrink@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> morgan-s13@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:
> >>>> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
> >>>
> >>> It would be hard to even count how many things are wrong with this
> >>> study, or how Reuters reported on it. Some times it's not the study
> >>> that is fu*&^, but the way the media reports on it. Regardless, the
> >>> bulk of the data out there is counter to this silly study. For
> >>> something of a counter point to this stdy, see: A Unified Theory of
> >>> Nutrition
> >>> http://www.brinkzone.com/articledeta...catid=3&aid=18
> >>
> >> They said that their study is unique in that it was done under
> >> controlled conditions which allowed to demonstrate what happens to a
> >> body while dieting and exercising. Any specific critique of the
> >> design?
> >
> > I have the study in front of me. What happens when a person is put on a
> > low protein (15%), low cal diet and does aerobics as their only form of
> > exercise? A loss of fat and FFM is the result. It's not exactly earth
> > shattering news. Form of exercise matters, macro nutrient ratio matters,
> > etc, etc. The study does a great job of confirming what some have known
> > for a long time, and research has confirmed.
>
> If the media paints it as Earth-shattering that is not exactly
> researcher's fault.

Thus I said above "Some times it's not the study that is fu*&^, but the
way the media reports on it"



>A lot of the usual Internet critique, like this
> study received, often comes in the form: "we already knew that X
> causes Y". But confirming studies add quantification to the
> process. How much X and Y, the duration, etc. That can be usefully
> used later to build new knowledge upon. Also, the simplest possible
> model is likely to be wrong/non-realistic, but reducing the amount of
> sophistication can aid in understanding and serve as a point of
> comparison. We will have to wait and see the number of citations in
> peer-review this study receives in a few years.

And see the many letters to the editor I suspect will arrive at the
journal from other researchers who will see the short comings of this
study.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:09:08 -0600, Lady Veteran <armyvet@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>On 27 Jan 2007 19:44:56 -0000, morgan-s13@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:
>
>>Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>
>lose 150 pounds by shooting a troll. Keep this stupidity out of SSFA.
>
>LV
>

STFU Blobbie, No one put out a call for the resident Doofus to
comment . Also your suggestions regarding murder are not appropriate
for SSFA. You are a really sick puppy.

I wonder if this suggestion for murder meets the agenda of our
resident net cop, Gandalf.

Robert Johnson

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 09:50:44 -0800, rajns@x-privat.org wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:09:08 -0600, Lady Veteran <armyvet@bigfoot.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 27 Jan 2007 19:44:56 -0000, morgan-s13@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:
>>
>>>Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>>
>>lose 150 pounds by shooting a troll. Keep this stupidity out of SSFA.
>>
>>LV
>>
>
>STFU Blobbie, No one put out a call for the resident Doofus to
>comment . Also your suggestions regarding murder are not appropriate
>for SSFA. You are a really sick puppy.

Prove it, fuckup-read the charter.
>
>I wonder if this suggestion for murder meets the agenda of our
>resident net cop, Gandalf.
>
Human beings are murdered. You don't even remotely qualify, fuckup.

>Robert Johnson
>

>
>
You can sit in the corner and rot. No one will miss you-promise.

LV

"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."

---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones

Morgan wrote:

>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally good at
> helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a study that
> challenges many of the popular tenets of the multibillion dollar diet and
> fitness industry.
>
> They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who
> dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.
>
> The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced
> their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity
> to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.
>
> An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls.


A typically bad experimental design, typical for medicine.

The problems, typically, are two:

1) far far too few people

2) not taking into account that different people may react
differently. Properly done, you must not just use averages,
you need to attempt to see if, for example, some people
lose more fat with just diet, and others lose more with
diet and exercise, possibly by running the tests for some time
one way, then switching, or by doing large numbers of people
and do complicated analysis with many variables.

Doug McDonald

Yeah, I'd noticed it too. Interesting!



On Jan 27, 2:44 pm, morgan-...@yahoo.com (Morgan) wrote:
> Diet, exercise take off equal pounds, study finds
>
> Story Highlights· Eating less, exercising more equally good at helping take
> off pounds, study finds
> · Research adds to evidence that adding muscle mass does not boost
> metabolism
> · Dieting alone also did not appear to cause loss of muscle mass along with
> fat
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Eating less and exercising more are equally good at
> helping take off the pounds, U.S. researchers said Friday in a study that
> challenges many of the popular tenets of the multibillion dollar diet and
> fitness industry.
>
> Tests on overweight people show that a calorie is just a calorie, whether
> lost by dieting or by running, they said.
>
> They found there is no way to selectively lose belly fat, for instance, or
> trim thighs. And their carefully controlled study added to evidence that
> adding muscle mass does not somehow boost metabolism and help dieters take
> off even more weight.
>
> "It's all about the calories," said Dr. Eric Ravussin of the Pennington
> Biomedical Research Center, part of Louisiana State University in Baton
> Rouge.
>
> "So long as the energy deficit is the same, body weight, fat weight, and
> abdominal fat will all decrease in the same way."
>
> Ravussin said the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology
> & Metabolism, is one of the few done under controlled conditions that can
> & actually demonstrate what happens to a human body while dieting and
> & exercising.
>
> Ravussin's team has been testing volunteers for another reason -- to see
> whether taking in fewer calories helps people live longer. Strict diets
> have been shown to help animals from worms to dogs live longer, but it
> takes longer to study monkeys and humans.
>
> They tested 24 people, 12 who ate a calorie-restricted diet, and 12 who
> dieted and also exercised five times a week for six months.
>
> The dieters ate 25 percent less than normal, while the exercisers reduced
> their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity
> to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories.
>
> An additional 10 volunteers acted as controls. All food was provided by the
> university in carefully measured portions for most of the study.
>
> The volunteers in both groups lost about 10 percent of their body weight,
> 24 percent of their fat mass, and 27 percent of their abdominal visceral
> fat. Visceral fat is packed in between the internal organs and is
> considered the most dangerous type of fat, linked with heart disease and
> diabetes.
>
> The distribution of the fat on the body was not altered by either approach
> -- helping prove that there is no such thing as "spot reducing", Ravussin
> said in a telephone interview.
>
> This suggests that "individuals are genetically programmed for fat storage
> in a particular pattern and that this programming cannot easily be
> overcome," he added.
>
> Ravussin has published other studies that also dispute the idea that
> exercise builds muscle that helps people lose weight.
>
> "If anything, highly trained people are highly efficient, so they burn
> fewer calories at rest," Ravussin said.
>
> Dieting alone also did not appear to cause the volunteers to lose muscle
> mass along with fat, Ravussin's team found.
>
> "There is a concept that if you exercise, you are going to lose less of
> your muscle," he said. But his team found no evidence this is true.
>
> Ravussin believes exercise is crucial to health, however.
>
> "For overall health, an appropriate program of diet and exercise is still
> the best," he said.
>
> His team found some small suggestion that cutting 25 percent of calories by
> either diet or diet and exercise might extend life.
>
> "We found that 2 of the biomarkers of aging were improved -- core
> temperature was 0.4 to 0.5 degrees C less," he said. "Insulin, which has
> been shown to be a biomarker of aging, was reduced," Ravussin said. That
> finding was published in the Journal of the American Medical Associaton
> last April.
>
> Find this article at:http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/diet....exercise.reut/....
> html

On Jan 28, 2:20 pm, gedal...@thisguy.com wrote:
>
>
>
> The most thought-provoking nutrition advice I've come across in a
> while is in an article by Michael Pollan in this Sunday's New York
> Times Magazine entitled "Unhappy Meals."http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?ref=...
>
> The most thought-provoking article on exercise and fat loss I've come
> across in a while is in an article by Kurt Wilkens entitled
> "Endurance Training: Intervals vs. Long-Slow/Steady-Distance
> For Heart Health, Fat Loss, and Physical Performance."http://www.dragondoor.com/cgi-bin/articles.pl?rm=mode3&articleid=392
>
> It is highly unlikely that I will follow the advice offered by either
> of these guys. I note them as a favor to those of you who, unlike me,
> are serious about what you eat and how you train.


Thanks for the refs. I try to be "serious," but cannot trust a lot of
the suggestions. Study after study contradict one another. I think
the safest thing to do is to listen to oneself. The human body is too
weird!

Prisoner at War wrote:
>
> What's the big deal? Why do people make a stink out of it?? SPAM or
> something totally unrelated I can understand, but what's wrong with x-
> posts?

Lady Veteran comes to mind...

Stephen N.--->'tis enough...

What's the big deal? Why do people make a stink out of it?? SPAM or
something totally unrelated I can understand, but what's wrong with x-
posts?


On Jan 27, 6:24 pm, "Willow Herself"
<willowki...@somethingkikeseamountains.net> wrote:
> What's with all the crossposting lately?
> Will~

On Feb 3, 5:48 pm, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
> A typically bad experimental design, typical for medicine.
>
> The problems, typically, are two:
>
> 1) far far too few people

The more the better, it's true, but there are procedures like the
famous T-Test for small samples which make them not totally useless.

> 2) not taking into account that different