American Council on Exercise Responds to Time Magazine Article

Fri, Aug 21, 2009

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to our email list for free updates on this topic!

The American Council on Exercise has now also released a statement about the Time magazine article, and are just as mistaken in most of their points as the American College of Sports Medicine in their response. The following is their editorial (inset) along with my comments:

Editorial: Why Time Magazine’s Article on Exercise and Weight Loss Could Be Harmful to Your Health

By Cedric X. Bryant, Ph.D., F.A.C.S.M., Chief Science Officer, American Council on Exercise

The cover story of the August 9, 2009, issue of Time magazine featured an article entitled, “Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin.” In this piece, author John Cloud made several inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims regarding the value of exercise, particularly as it relates to weight loss. What follows is a summary of some of the most misleading assertions made in this highly publicized article, as well as the American Council on Exercise’s response to these assertions:

? First and foremost, the article categorically implies that exercise has no meaningful role in weight loss. Such a conclusion is as false as it is reckless. The author’s “evidence” is the fact that he has “gut fat that hangs over his belt when he sits,” despite maintaining a regular exercise habit. In all likelihood, his unwanted abdominal girth is probably a by-product of genetics and/or consuming more calories than he expends.

? Weight loss and maintenance are a matter of simple accounting that is dependent upon energy balance. In order for weight loss to occur, individuals must burn more calories than they consume. Regrettably, many individuals who regularly exercise are unable to meet their weight-loss goals because they eat too much. In reality, however, their “personal weight situation” and overall health profile would be far worse were it not for the extra calories they expend while exercising.

? An overwhelming body of scientific evidence exists that confirms the positive role that exercise plays in weight loss and maintenance (Hill and Wyatt, 2005; Jakicic and Gallagher, 2003; Jakicic et al., 2001). These findings refute the notion (advanced by the author) that exercise impairs weight-loss efforts by substantially and uncontrollably increasing appetite. Recent research suggests that appetite may be suppressed for 60-90 minutes following vigorous exercise by affecting the release of certain appetite hormones. It also appears that aerobic exercise is more effective at suppressing appetite than non-aerobic forms of exercise (Broom et al., 2009). In general, individuals who participate in moderate exercise tend to eat approximately the same number of calories (or only slightly more) than they would if they did not exercise. Elite-level athletes typically consume high volumes of food after their exercise workouts, but they almost always expend more calories than they consumed (Blundell and King, 1999). It is important to keep in mind, however, that appetite is influenced several factors and is a very complex process making it difficult to generalize the impact of exercise on appetite. The bottom-line is that exercise and diet go hand-in-hand with successful weight management.

? Surprisingly (and disappointingly) the author failed to mention the tremendously important role that exercise plays in the maintenance of weight loss. According to data from the renowned National Weight Control Registry, consistent exercise participation is the single best predictor of long-term weight maintenance. In others words, if individuals want to be successful in getting off the weight-loss rollercoaster (i.e., repeatedly losing weight and regaining it), they need to regularly engage in physical activity.

? Another particularly bothersome portion of the article was the misleading comments regarding children and physical activity. A preponderance of evidence shows that kids are often less active after school, not more active as the article implies. As such, community-based youth fitness programs and high-quality school physical education programs are much needed. The available statistics support the fact that well-designed fitness programs aimed at encouraging children to be more active and maintain a healthy body weight remain a significant priority (HHS, 2008).

Needless to say, readers of this article in Time are likely to conclude that exercise is of little to no benefit to them, which makes its publication in such a high profile and respected magazine so disappointing—and possibly even dangerous. Given the enormous economic costs associated with obesity (approximately $147 billion annually), we should be promoting and advocating scientifically proven healthful behaviors like regular exercise participation whenever and wherever we can. Beyond its weight-control benefits, regular exercise provides a plethora of health benefits, including the treatment and prevention of a wide variety of chronic illnesses (heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, certain types of cancer, to name a few), an enhancement of psychological health and well-being, and an improvement in the overall quality of life throughout the human lifespan.

References

Blundell, J.E. & King, N.A. (1999). Physical activity and regulation of food intake: Current evidence.Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 31, 11 Suppl., S573-S583.

Broom, D.R. et al. (2009). Influence of resistance and aerobic exercise on hunger, circulating levels of acylated ghrelin, peptide YY in healthy males. American Journal of Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 296, 1, R29-35.

Hill, J.O. and Wyatt, H.R. (2005). Role of physical activity in preventing and treating obesity.Journal of Applied Physiology, 99, 765-770.

Jakicic, J.M. & Gallagher, K.I. (2003). Exercise considerations for the sedentary, overweight adult.Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 31, 2, 91-95.

Jakicic, J.M. et al. (2001). ACSM position stand on the appropriate intervention strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33, 2145-2156.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008). 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services.

Editorial: Why Time Magazine’s Article on Exercise and Weight Loss Could Be Harmful to Your Health
By Cedric X. Bryant, Ph.D., F.A.C.S.M., Chief Science Officer, American Council on Exercise
The cover story of the August 9, 2009, issue of Time magazine featured an article entitled, “Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin.” In this piece, author John Cloud made several inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims regarding the value of exercise, particularly as it relates to weight loss. What follows is a summary of some of the most misleading assertions made in this highly publicized article, as well as the American Council on Exercise’s response to these assertions:
First and foremost, the article categorically implies that exercise has no meaningful role in weight loss. Such a conclusion is as false as it is reckless. The author’s “evidence” is the fact that he has “gut fat that hangs over his belt when he sits,” despite maintaining a regular exercise habit. In all likelihood, his unwanted abdominal girth is probably a by-product of genetics and/or consuming more calories than he expends.

First off, I should clarify most people’s goal is not indiscriminate weight loss, but improved body composition. This means improving the ratio of muscle to fat, and in most people’s case requiring a significant reduction in fat while minimally maintaining muscle mass. If a person lost 10 pounds of muscle they’d have lost weight, but would look worse and be weaker and less fit. So while ACE use the term weight loss, I’m going to write fat loss, because that’s what people really want.

Second, while genetics plays a role, with a few very rare exceptions it is not an excuse for being fat. Being fat is almost entirely a matter of overeating, and not, as Bryan partly implies in the phrase “…consuming more calories than he expends” that low expenditure is the problem.

I got ripped for a bodybuilding competition doing one high intensity strength training workout per week consisting of only one set each of a few exercises, and lasting around 15 to 20 minutes. Other than that, I was training clients, attending classes or labs, or studying, and actually went out of my way to be less active, as part of the point of entering the contest was to demonstrate it could be done without “cardio”. Clients who follow my nutritional advice consistently lose bodyfat without doing any exercise or increasing their activity levels beyond the one or two weekly workouts they do with me.

Just yesterday I performed skinfold measurements on a client who lost over 17 lbs of fat while gaining over 5 lbs of muscle since June 15 – just a little under ten weeks. He performs two high intensity strength training workouts per week lasting less than 20 minutes each, and does no other exercise. He’s invested about as much of his time working out over the past 10 weeks as organizations like ACE recommend doing in one. He is successful because he is strict with his diet. (Keep it up, Chris!)

It is neither necessary, effective, or an efficient use of time to exercise for the sake of burning calories. No kind of exercise burns enough calories to make a significant difference. Following a proper diet is far a more effective, efficient and safer way of creating a negative energy balance. Aerobics, or “cardio” is probably the biggest time and money wasting sham perpetrated by the fitness industry ever. Rather than help anyone, Ken Cooper is responsible for wasting billions of hours of people’s time, billions of dollars of people’s money, and wrecking a whole lot of joints and spines by popularizing aerobics. So is the American Council on Exercise.

Bryant is correct about exercise having a meaningful role in weight loss, but it is not calorie burning. The biggest benefit of exercise to a person trying to lose fat is the maintenance of muscle while fat is lost. A high intensity strength training program can prevent the loss of muscle while fat is lost, maintaining metabolic rate while improving strength, cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning and other aspects of fitness and health.

Weight loss and maintenance are a matter of simple accounting that is dependent upon energy balance. In order for weight loss to occur, individuals must burn more calories than they consume. Regrettably, many individuals who regularly exercise are unable to meet their weight-loss goals because they eat too much. In reality, however, their “personal weight situation” and overall health profile would be far worse were it not for the extra calories they expend while exercising.

Fat loss is not as simple as calories in versus calories out. While energy balance is arguably the most important factor, the effect of macronutrient ratios on hormones, metabolic rate, and maintenance of lean body mass is also important.

The extra calories people expend during exercise don’t amount to much. People tend to overestimate this, most likely because people selling exercise or exercise equipment as a way to burn calories exaggerate it.

An overwhelming body of scientific evidence exists that confirms the positive role that exercise plays in weight loss and maintenance (Hill and Wyatt, 2005; Jakicic and Gallagher, 2003; Jakicic et al., 2001). These findings refute the notion (advanced by the author) that exercise impairs weight-loss efforts by substantially and uncontrollably increasing appetite. Recent research suggests that appetite may be suppressed for 60-90 minutes following vigorous exercise by affecting the release of certain appetite hormones. It also appears that aerobic exercise is more effective at suppressing appetite than non-aerobic forms of exercise (Broom et al., 2009). In general, individuals who participate in moderate exercise tend to eat approximately the same number of calories (or only slightly more) than they would if they did not exercise. Elite-level athletes typically consume high volumes of food after their exercise workouts, but they almost always expend more calories than they consumed (Blundell and King, 1999). It is important to keep in mind, however, that appetite is influenced several factors and is a very complex process making it difficult to generalize the impact of exercise on appetite. The bottom-line is that exercise and diet go hand-in-hand with successful weight management.

I have not yet read the studies mentioned and can’t comment on them, specifically, but where there is a disconnect between the “science” and experience, I tend to trust experience, and in my experience most people who do any kind of intense physical activity work up an appetite in the process.

Surprisingly (and disappointingly) the author failed to mention the tremendously important role that exercise plays in the maintenance of weight loss. According to data from the renowned National Weight Control Registry, consistent exercise participation is the single best predictor of long-term weight maintenance. In others words, if individuals want to be successful in getting off the weight-loss rollercoaster (i.e., repeatedly losing weight and regaining it), they need to regularly engage in physical activity.

I suspect, as is the case with a lot of studies or surveys on exercise or physical activity and other factors of health, they have confused correlation with causality, or cause and effect. Perhaps the activity isn’t a predictor of long-term weight maintenance so much as people who are a healthier weight tend to be more active because it is easier and more enjoyable for them to do so.

Another particularly bothersome portion of the article was the misleading comments regarding children and physical activity. A preponderance of evidence shows that kids are often less active after school, not more active as the article implies. As such, community-based youth fitness programs and high-quality school physical education programs are much needed. The available statistics support the fact that well-designed fitness programs aimed at encouraging children to be more active and maintain a healthy body weight remain a significant priority (HHS, 2008).

Improving the body composition of children is more a matter of teaching proper nutrition to the children and parents than getting kids to be more active. While there are benefits of regular physical activity for children, it is not a significant factor in achieving or maintaning a healthy weight.

Youth fitness and physical education programs aren’t going to make any difference if the kids are going home to fast-food dinners, pantries full of junk food and a fridge full of soda.

Needless to say, readers of this article in Time are likely to conclude that exercise is of little to no benefit to them, which makes its publication in such a high profile and respected magazine so disappointing—and possibly even dangerous. Given the enormous economic costs associated with obesity (approximately $147 billion annually), we should be promoting and advocating scientifically proven healthful behaviors like regular exercise participation whenever and wherever we can. Beyond its weight-control benefits, regular exercise provides a plethora of health benefits, including the treatment and prevention of a wide variety of chronic illnesses (heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, certain types of cancer, to name a few), an enhancement of psychological health and well-being, and an improvement in the overall quality of life throughout the human lifespan.

The correct conclusion would be aerobics or “cardio” is of little benefit, and exercising to burn calories is an inefficient waste of time. What organizations like the American Council on Exercise and the American College of Sports Medicine should be promoting is strength training – which provides all the fitness and health benefits mentioned – and better nutrition.

I have no comments on the references at this time, but here they are in case anyone would like to look them up.

References
Blundell, J.E. & King, N.A. (1999). Physical activity and regulation of food intake: Current evidence.Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 31, 11 Suppl., S573-S583.
Broom, D.R. et al. (2009). Influence of resistance and aerobic exercise on hunger, circulating levels of acylated ghrelin, peptide YY in healthy males. American Journal of Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 296, 1, R29-35.
Hill, J.O. and Wyatt, H.R. (2005). Role of physical activity in preventing and treating obesity.Journal of Applied Physiology, 99, 765-770.
Jakicic, J.M. & Gallagher, K.I. (2003). Exercise considerations for the sedentary, overweight adult.Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 31, 2, 91-95.
Jakicic, J.M. et al. (2001). ACSM position stand on the appropriate intervention strategies for weight loss and prevention of weight regain for adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33, 2145-2156.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008). 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Washington, D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services.

Share, Print or E-mail:

aerobics, body composition, cardio, Fat Loss, high intensity training, weight loss

This post was written by:

Drew Baye - who has written 105 posts on Drew Baye’s High Intensity Training.

Contact the author

36 Responses to “American Council on Exercise Responds to Time Magazine Article”

Fred Hahn Says:
21. August 2009 at 7:48 pm

Hey Drew! Good post. What ACE also failed to mention is this:

From the AHA/ ACSM paper titled: Physical Activity and Public Health. Updated Recommendation for Adults From the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association (page 7):

“It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures would be less likely to gain weight over time, compared with those who have low energy expenditures. So far, data to support this hypothesis are not particularly compelling.”

These people are knuckleheads. They don’t even read their own papers.

Drew Baye Says:
21. August 2009 at 8:30 pm

Fred,

Thanks for the quote. Sadly, I have come to expect this kind of nonsense from ACE, ACSM, NSCA and the like.

James Krieger, M.S., M.S. Says:
21. August 2009 at 11:05 pm

Many claims are made in your post which simply are not supported by any scientific data.

First, your claim that the biggest benefit of exercise is muscle maintenance to “maintain metabolic rate” is simply not true. First, the contribution of muscle to overall metabolic rate is quite small. Many people think muscle contributes heavily to metabolic rate because they confuse fat-free mass and muscle. However, additional muscle does not make a significant contribution to overall metabolic rate. Resting metabolic rate is primarily driven by internal organs, which is why there is such a strong relationship between metabolic rate and fat-free mass.

In fact, the data is quite strong that there is no relationship between resting metabolic rate and success with weight loss or weight regulation. For example, it’s been shown that people with low metabolic rates are no more likely to gain weight than people with high metabolic rates.

However, the data on total daily energy expenditure and physical activity and its relationship to weight regulation is quite strong. Your post here is rife with confirmation bias and selective quoting. For example, your claim that only correlational relationships have been shown between activity and weight maintenance is incorrect. There are a number of controlled studies showing that post-obese individuals maintain their weight better with higher daily energy expenditures. There is also a large body of work on non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) and its relationship to weight regulation.

Drew Baye Says:
21. August 2009 at 11:36 pm

James,

I’d love to see this research and data. Speaking of confirmation bias, many researchers see what they want to when interpreting the results, and often whether papers are published has more to do with whether the stated conclusions (as opposed to an objective evaluation of the data) support the existing paradigm or beliefs of the review board. Like the NSCA publishing meta-analysis claiming superiority of multiple-sets which ignore all the research to the contrary. Talk about selective quoting

Over the past 15 years I have trained a few hundred people, most with the primary goal of losing fat. The majority of these people had previously failed to lose fat or maintain this fat loss following typical recommendations like those made by the ACSM and ACE, usually performing 30 to 60 minutes or more of “cardio” daily. The “cardio” simply does not make that much of a difference. I have never had a client fail to lose fat when they were strict with their diet, despite spending far less time exercising.

David Landau Says:
22. August 2009 at 9:19 am

The American College of Sports Medicine and ACE have had it “their” way too good, too long. Finally Someone challenges their Specious claims. It’s About Time! Let’s Keep it Rather Simple. If One Increases their Said Activity, the Energy Used up will Take its Toll Later On. We are Not talking about Mechanized Machines, we are Talking about Human Physiology, where the Supply and Demand works as a Scale. If One is Active Early, the Body will Retire Earlier. Activity has a Negative Effect on the Body (makes it tired) and If Closely Scrutanized the Number of so called calories burned is not significantly more, unless you believe the Fairy Tales the have been Suggested by the Manufacturers of Treadmills and Ellipticals/ the Perpetrators of Activity Classes, ETC. Also, the Fat Burning Hype that has been Suggested by these Organizations for Decades is a Major Fraud, it simply doesn’t exist in real Physiology as has been scoffed at Recently by Major University Physiologists. This is a Marketers Dream with False Hopes and Empty Promises. Dietary Intervention is the 100% Factor Period, otherwise all you have left for those “overweight” are just FAT ACTIVE PEOPLE.

Todd Sauter Says:
22. August 2009 at 2:16 pm

Nice post Drew,
James…despite the wonderful achievement of earning mutiple master’s degrees, listing the exact same credential twice after your name on a blog does not in fact lend itself to further credibility, the redundancy only makes you look silly and insecure

Don Matesz Says:
22. August 2009 at 11:30 pm

Bryant claims:

“Recent research suggests that appetite may be suppressed for 60-90 minutes following vigorous exercise by affecting the release of certain appetite hormones. It also appears that aerobic exercise is more effective at suppressing appetite than non-aerobic forms of exercise (Broom et al., 2009). In general, individuals who participate in moderate exercise tend to eat approximately the same number of calories (or only slightly more) than they would if they did not exercise.”

My response:
1. Suppressing appetite for 60-90 minutes post-exercise is different from reducing overall caloric intake. You could have a reduced appetite for 60-90 minutes after exercise yet have a greater appetite later (I have experienced this).
2. In the last sentence he admits that people may eat slightly more if they exercise than if they don’t. Moreover, it could very well be that people don’t eat more than if they did not exercise simply because they already eat more than they need (regardless of whether they participate in regular exercise or not.)
3. What these people ignore is that if a person increases activity, say on a treadmill daily, s/he may very well decrease activity in some other way. No change in appetite would then reflect no overall change in energy expenditure, even though participating in daily “exercise.”

There is no doubt the body is self regulating. If it moves more in one activity, it either wants more food or, if more food is not available, it cuts activity in some other place. The idea that you can reduce appetite by increasing energy expenditure is ludicrous from an evolutionary perspective. Any organism that spontaneously ate less in response to increased activity would lose body mass and reproductive capacity, and natural selection would weed such organisms out of any population.

I agree with Drew, the driver of appetite and body weight lies in diet, not exercise. Appetite increases if cells are experiencing an energy deficit, it decreases if they are experiencing influx of energy. Insulin controls this flow, and carbohydrate in the diet determines insulin levels. If insulin is high, it blocks release of fat from adipose, which starves lean tissues of energy (since they prefer to burn fat), and this increases appetite. If insulin is low, the opposite. Exercise only temporarily increases the release of fat, resulting in post-exercise reduction of appetite (the 60-90 minutes), but unless an elite athlete expending thousands of calories daily in “aerobics,” s/he can easily out-eat the energy expenditure.

Fred Hahn Says:
23. August 2009 at 9:36 am

Drew –

If these naysayers would just pick up Gary Taubes book and read it instead of reading Lyle McDonald (who actually isn’t too bad), T-Nation and Tom Venuto’s stuff, they wouldn’t be posting these comments here.

It amazes me how poorly educated so many fitness professionals are. They’ve probably never even read the DRI reports yet will argue in favor of complex carbs as a necessary component of a person’s diet.

One guy on my site said that Gary Taubes’ research in GCBC was “handpicked.” I almost fell off my chair in laughter. I don’t think these folks could get past the first chapter in Taubes’ book as the vocabulary would overwhelm then.

You’ve got to read the stuff that is being posted in the comments section on my blog Drew RE my last blog post Lean Times.

OK I’ll stop…but seriously….man oh man! That’s why I sometimes want to just get a job as a craftsman in carpentry. Math, science and art rule. The fitness industry is so flooded with nincompoops it is staggering. Like Jillian Michaels on The Biggest Loser. As Bugs Bunny would say: “What a maroon! What a tar-ra-ra-goondeeay!”

Don’t we WANT people to get lean and be healthy? It’s funny when people see folks like you, Dave Landau and others get ripped up by exercising for 20 minutes of total exercise a week, no aerobics and eating a decent amount f cals from meat and fat and STILL do the opposite even though what you’ve all done is what they want! Friggin amazing!

Don Matesz Says:
23. August 2009 at 12:19 pm

In 1989, Janssen et al reported the results of their experiment wherein they took 18 previously sedentary people (9 male, 9 female) and over 18 months trained them to run a marathon. Men lost five pounds, women showed no change in body composition. Int J Sports Medicine May: 10(1 suppl): S17-21.

Men were 16.5% fat at baseline, 13.4% 18 months later. Women were 25% fat at baseline, 24% fat 18 months later. For neither group did changes in body weight, body mass index, or body fat percentage reach statistical significance. Women did not reach a “lean” condition (17-21% body fat). Men did reach “lean” (10-15%).

Men increased their energy intake by 131 to 159 KJ/Kg/d. Women showed no significant change in energy consumption. However, both males and females significantly increased their intake of carbohydrate. Men increase CHO from 280 to 346 g/d, and women increased from 239 to 283 g/d.

Training involved running on an average of 4 to 5 days weekly (compared to less than 2 hours of activity weekly before hand).

The authors explained the lack of change in female body composition as a result of an increase in food efficiency under conditions of energy restriction “as the body seeks to protect and replenish its energy stores.”

Exactly. As these people increased their energy expenditure in exercise, they all ate more carbohydrate, men ate more total, and women either reduced their other activities or reduced their metabolic rates, or all three. The increased carb intake coupled with reduced expenditure in metabolism or other activities countered the energy expenditure pretty thoroughly in women. And for men, 4-5 hours of exercise weekly for 18 weeks resulted in non-significant body composition changes. This is a clinical trial so it trumps any epidemiological association between energy expenditure and body composition.

James Krieger, M.S., M.S. Says:
23. August 2009 at 12:51 pm

***********
James,

I’d love to see this research and data.
**************

There are numerous papers examining the effects of resting metabolic rate on weight loss and weight maintenance. Weinsier is one author who has done numerous papers on this. A few of these papers:

Weinsier et al. Do adaptive changes in metabolic rate favor weight regain in weight-reduced individuals? An examination of set-point theory. Am J Clin Nutr 72(5):1088-1094, 2000.

Weinsier et al.. Low resting and sleeping energy expenditure and fat use do not contribute to obesity in women. Obes. Res. 11(8):937-944, 2003.

There are numerous other papers in this area.

Regarding the relationship between total daily energy expenditure and physical activity and weight regulation, there is a large volume of work on this, and they almost all point to larger total energy expenditures leading to improved weight maintenance after weight loss. Here are some examples:

Weinsier et al. Free-living activity energy expenditure in women successful and unsuccessful at maintaining normal body weight. Am J Clin Nutr 75(3):499-504, 2002.

Wang et al. Weight regain is related to decreases in physical activity during weight loss. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40(10):1781-1788, 2008.

Schoeller et al. How much physical activity is needed to minimize weight gain in previously obese women? Am J Clin Nutr 66(3):551-556, 1997.

Maclean et al. Regular exercise attenuates the metabolic drive to regain weight after long-term weight loss. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Jul 9 2009 (Epub ahead of print)

Jeffery RW, et al. Physical activity and weight loss: does prescribing higher physical activity goals improve outcome? Am J Clin Nutr 78(4):684-689, 2003.

This is just a fraction of the papers that are out there.

Regarding the body of work on NEAT and weight regulation, Jim Levine has done a number of papers on this. A good review paper:

Levine et al. Non-exercise activity thermogenesis: the crouching tiger hidden dragon of societal weight gain. 26:729-736, 2006.

Levine also did a good paper looking at spontaneous physical activity in obese people after weight loss. Spontaneous physical activity did not increase, which contradicts your claims that the reason an association is observed between physical activity and weight maintenance is because lighter people are more likely to move around.

Levine et al. Interindividual variation in posture allocation: possible role in human obesity. Science. 307(5709):584-586, 2005.

**************************
Speaking of confirmation bias, many researchers see what they want to when interpreting the results,
*****************

A blanket statement for which you have no evidence.

****************************
and often whether papers are published has more to do with whether the stated conclusions (as opposed to an objective evaluation of the data) support the existing paradigm or beliefs of the review board.
****************************

This is false, and it is obvious to me that you have never published any papers and thus do not understand the process. While there certainly are limitations to the peer-review process, papers are published all the time that may conflict with the views of scientific organizations. Here is one example. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has often been viewed as a journal “biased” against low-carbohydrate diets. This was a claim made by many people (possibly bitter researchers whose research may have been rejected for good reasons). However, I had a study favoring low carbohydrate diets published in this journal. In fact, there have been a number of papers favoring these diets published in this journal. The claims made that this journal is biased is not supported by the evidence.

************************
Like the NSCA publishing meta-analysis claiming superiority of multiple-sets which ignore all the research to the contrary.
*************************

Another false claim. I’m not sure if you are referring to the one by Wolfe et al, or if you are referring to mine which will appear in print in the next issue. Either way, these papers came to their conclusions simply because the weight of the evidence favored multiple sets. In fact, JSCR did not accept my paper on the first submission, which goes against your assertion that this journal is eager to publish anything that supports their viewpoint. In fact, there have been issues of this journal where a study favoring multiple sets (Kraemer) and a study not favoring multiple sets (Ostrowski) were published in the very same issue.

It is the job of a scientific organization to be “biased” towards the weight of the evidence. If the weight of the evidence supports multiple sets, then the organization should take that stand. This is not evidence of some sort of conspiratorial bias on the part of the organization. In fact, you have no evidence of bias on the part of these organizations. To support your assertion, you would need to provide evidence that these journals more often reject studies that don’t support the organization’s viewpoint, and that these rejections aren’t due to sound methodological reasons.

**************************
Over the past 15 years I have trained a few hundred people,
**************************

And over the past 4 years the company that I worked for treated over 400 obese patients *per year*. Our mean weight loss was nearly 40 pounds over a 6 month period. We did the things that you claim shouldn’t be done, which included a large increase in physical activity.

I will respond to the comments of others here when I get the opportunity.

Drew Baye Says:
23. August 2009 at 1:31 pm

James,

Interesting, but none of it is consistent with what I’ve seen or experienced over the past 15 years, nor has it been the experience of a large number of professionals I’ve discussed it with, many with far more experience than me. Exercising to burn calories is a very slow and inefficient way to lose fat compared with diet, and makes a minor contribution at best.

A weight loss of only 40 pounds over six months for obese subjects is not that impressive. I recently had a client lose 34 pounds (from 263 to 229) in only two months and another lose 17 in a little over two months while gaining over 5 pounds of muscle, both doing no more than 20 minutes of high intensity strength training twice a week. Last year I had a woman lose 128 pounds in 13 months (from 245 to 117), also with just high intensity strength training. Not only is this a better rate of fat loss, I would bet the total exercise time is far below what your company’s patients invested for the same results.

I’m not claiming the strength training caused the fat loss – it was definitely the diet – but mention it to illustrate how little exercise was performed.

Following a very brief, low frequency high intensity strength training program and a paleo/zone style diet a person can expect to lose more fat, more quickly, with less time invested than with conventional approaches involving several hours of “cardio” weekly, and while maintaining or even gaining muscle.

James Krieger, M.S., M.S. Says:
23. August 2009 at 6:18 pm

***************
Exercising to burn calories is a very slow and inefficient way to lose fat compared with diet, and makes a minor contribution at best.
****************

That’s not what this debate is about. Exercise *alone* certainly is not an effective way to lose large amounts of fat, and I never made such a claim. However, it is well demonstrated that it is quite necessary for long-term weight *maintenance*. Also, you have been making unsupportable claims that exercise will stimulate appetite. The vast wealth of literature shows the opposite….that physically active people have better appetite regulatory mechanisms than sedentary people.

************
A weight loss of only 40 pounds over six months for obese subjects is not that impressive. I recently had a client lose 34 pounds (from 263 to 229) in only two months and another lose 17 in a little over two months while gaining over 5 pounds of muscle, both doing no more than 20 minutes of high intensity strength training twice a week. Last year I had a woman lose 128 pounds in 13 months (from 245 to 117), also with just high intensity strength training. Not only is this a better rate of fat loss, I would bet the total exercise time is far below what your company’s patients invested for the same results.
**********************

Anybody can give testimonials. They are about as worthwhile as an infomercial. We had numerous clients lose well over 100 pounds in only 3 months on our program. When I say 40 lbs, I’m talking that this is the mean weight loss of over 2000 clients. The majority of that loss was in the first 3 months, and then loss was more gradual during the second 3 months of the program (the “Phase II” of the program).

James Krieger, M.S., M.S. Says:
23. August 2009 at 6:28 pm

*************
If One Increases their Said Activity, the Energy Used up will Take its Toll Later On. We are Not talking about Mechanized Machines, we are Talking about Human Physiology, where the Supply and Demand works as a Scale.
****************

David, this is an overly simplistic view of human physiology. Regulation of human energy balance is quite complex. First, mechanisms to regulate energy balance tend to be more efficient with energy deficits than energy surpluses. This explains the human tendency to gain weight in today’s environment….the human body has not evolved the mechanisms to resist today’s environment which encourages an energy surplus. However, humans do have highly efficient mechanisms for correcting for energy deficits. But, this response is highly variable. While some people may show very efficient mechanisms for resisting and correcting for an energy deficit, others will not….hence the differing abilities of people to lose weight and maintain weight. This likewise holds true for conditions of energy surplus. Some people are better at resisting and correcting for an energy surplus than others, explaining why some people are able to resist weight gain in the same environment as other people who gain weight easily.

**************
Activity has a Negative Effect on the Body (makes it tired)
***************

A claim for which you have no evidence to support.

*************
Dietary Intervention is the 100% Factor Period,
**************

Another claim for which you have no evidence to support. While dietary intervention certainly is necessary, there is a wealth of data showing the importance of activity in appetite regulation as well as long-term weight maintenance.

James Krieger, M.S., M.S. Says:
23. August 2009 at 6:30 pm

*********
listing the exact same credential twice after your name on a blog does not in fact lend itself to further credibility, the redundancy only makes you look silly and insecure
***************

Todd, this is nothing more than a thinly disguised ad hominem….generally the tactic of someone who doesn’t have solid evidence. If you have evidence contradicting my assertions, then please provide it.

James Krieger, M.S., M.S. Says:
23. August 2009 at 6:55 pm

*****************
1. Suppressing appetite for 60-90 minutes post-exercise is different from reducing overall caloric intake. You could have a reduced appetite for 60-90 minutes after exercise yet have a greater appetite later (I have experienced this).
****************

The data shows that, on average, there is no increase in appetite even later on in the day. A few relevant papers:

Hubert et al. Uncoupling the effects of energy expenditure and energy intake: appetite response to short-term energy deficit induced by meal omission and physical activity. Appetite. 31(1):9-19, 1998.

King et al. High dose exercise does not increase hunger or energy intake in free living males. Eur J Clin Nutr. 51(7):478-483, 1997.

*****************
If it moves more in one activity, it either wants more food or, if more food is not available, it cuts activity in some other place.
******************

Again, as I mentioned in another post, this view is overly simplistic and does not reflect the reality of what happens. First, it has been established that appetite regulatory mechanisms are better in physically active people than sedentary people. Second, the response of a person to an energy deficit is highly variable. In some cases, yes, people may reduce spontaneous physical activity in response to activity. In other cases, they don’t. This requires awareness of the individual of this phenomena and actions to correct it if it happens.

*************
Insulin controls this flow, and carbohydrate in the diet determines insulin levels. If insulin is high, it blocks release of fat from adipose, which starves lean tissues of energy (since they prefer to burn fat), and this increases appetite. If insulin is low, the opposite.
**************

This is not a correct view of how insulin works.

First, carbohydrate is not the only macronutrient that determines insulin secretion. Protein is also insulinemic (a fact forgotten or ignored by many posters here who subscribe to the carbs make you fat ideology). In fact, there are some proteins that can be just as insulinemic as carbohydrates.

It is true that insulin inhibits lipolysis. However, this occurs at very low insulin concentrations. Thus, there is always inhibition of lipolysis going on (unless you are Type I diabetic and are completely devoid of insulin). Thus, this concept that lowering carbohydrate helps you lose fat because of insulin’s effect on lipolysis is not correct.

Also, it is false that high insulin increases appetite. In fact, the opposite is true…high insulin tends to feed back on the appetite regulatory centers of the brain and signal satiety. This makes sense because high insulin typically represents a fed state.

The problem is not insulin….it’s *insulin resistance*. Insulin resistance is known to disrupt appetite regulatory mechanisms. One example is through causing leptin resistance in the brain. There are numerous papers on the disruptive effects of insulin resistance on appetite regulatory systems. This is also why physical activity tends to improve appetite regulatory systems….because physical activity reduces insulin resistance.

James Krieger, M.S., M.S. Says:
23. August 2009 at 7:02 pm

*********
If these naysayers would just pick up Gary Taubes book and read it instead of reading Lyle McDonald (who actually isn’t too bad), T-Nation and Tom Venuto’s stuff, they wouldn’t be posting these comments here.
**********

Fred, this comment shows that you make assumptions and jump to conclusions on little to no evidence. I don’t read T-Nation, or Tom Venuto, or Lyle McDonald. I read the scientific papers themselves. In fact, I am willing to bet I am much more versed on the energy balance literature than any of you posting here. I also have my own publications, and I personally know some of the authors of these papers that I’ve referenced (like Jim Levine).

Drew Baye Says:
23. August 2009 at 9:22 pm

James,

Increased activity levels are not necessary for long term maintenance and make a minor contribution at best. So long as a person is not overeating they will maintain their weight loss.

As for literature showing a correlation between physically active people having better appetite regulatory mechanisms, again, consider these people may be more active because they are in better shape because they have better appetite regulatory systems, rather than the other way around. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that physically fit people are more active than people who are out of shape – not because being active in and of itself is an effective way to get or stay in shape, but physical activity is more enjoyable to fit people for whom it is not nearly as demanding, while someone who is out of shape probably does not enjoy the relatively higher demand and discomfort of similar activities.

While these results sound more impressive, the fact that they were achieved with your program is not proof the same or better results could not have been achieved with diet alone or diet and a much lower weekly volume of training or physical activity than what was probably performed. I’d be willing to bet they could have accomplished the same or better with the same diet and one or two brief, high intensity strength training sessions per week.

David Landau Says:
23. August 2009 at 9:53 pm

James: Simple? Simple is when You have to site “research” papers for your evidence? Observations of People that do Daily Activity (I’ve seen thousands of examples) to My Couch Potato LifeStyle, and Guess What James, I’m about 4.2% Body Fat and the Daily Activity People, well they are still FAT and Tired. The Tendency for People to Gain Weight is do to The Richest (Caloric) Food Supply in our Nation’s History, where I’m told by many from other Countries that they can’t believe the amount of Food Americans Eat and have Access to. Again, I don’t have to site “research” papers in order to see the Forrest for the Sake of the Trees and I don’t have to site some “so called” expert that wrote a book. Yes, there is a wealth of “data” but the situation remains the same. The Article in Time was Rather Weak, he should have gone for the Juggler. Activity done for “weight loss” is a BAD idea. Now that’s Simple.

James Krieger, M.S., M.S. Says:
23. August 2009 at 11:00 pm

*************
Increased activity levels are not necessary for long term maintenance and make a minor contribution at best.
**************

Drew, this statement shows your confirmation bias. I referenced a controlled (not observational) study by Jeffery (and others as well) which clearly showed that higher prescribed energy expenditures resulted in significantly better weight maintenance than lower energy expenditures. In fact, in the Jeffery study, the lower energy expenditure group regained half of their weight, while the higher energy expenditure group regained only about 20%. This is not a “minor contribution”. This is only one study of a body of both animal and human data that supports this. Holding up your hands to your ears and saying “Lalalalala” does not change this.

******************
As for literature showing a correlation between physically active people having better appetite regulatory mechanisms, again, consider these people may be more active because they are in better shape because they have better appetite regulatory systems, rather than the other way around.
*******************

Once again, you are demonstrating that you have not read any of this literature. In this statement, you have ASSUMED that all of this literature is simply observational data and only shows correlations. This is not even close to being the truth.

For example, Martins et al. (2007, Br J Nutr) showed, in a controlled study, that food intake regulation was improved in a group of sedentary men when put on a 6-week exercise program. In another paper published in the Journal of Endocrinology in 2007, these same authors showed exercise (again, in a controlled study) to increase peptide YY, glucagon-like peptide-1, and pancreatic polypeptide levels…..all three are key hormones in increasing satiety.

In another controlled trial, Tsofliu et al (Int J Obesity, 2003) reported moderate exercise to increase satiety in obese women compared to being sedentary.

*******************
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that physically fit people are more active than people who are out of shape – not because being active in and of itself is an effective way to get or stay in shape, but physical activity is more enjoyable to fit people for whom it is not nearly as demanding, while someone who is out of shape probably does not enjoy the relatively higher demand and discomfort of similar activities.
************

Again, you are showing confirmation bias by showing that you ignored a very well designed study by Jim Levine that I referenced. Specifically, he took obese people and had them wear specially designed underwear which determined their posture allocation (sitting, standing, or moving around). He had the obese people lose weight, to see if they would become more spontaneously active since they had less weight to carry around and it was easier to move around. He found that this wasn’t the case…..they continued to adhere to their habitual activity levels, and sat and lied down just as much as they did when they were obese.

You also fail to understand the concept of “convergence of evidence”……the popular skeptical writer Michael Shermer has written extensively about this concept. Basically, when you have multiple sources of data, from a variety of sources, all pointing the same conclusion, then you can reasonably ascertain that the conclusion is highly reliable. In the case of exercise and appetite control, you have a body of both controlled and observational studies showing improvements in energy intake regulation with physical activity, in both lean and obese subjects. Also, you have controlled studies showing improvements in appetite-regulatory hormones. You then have a large body of data showing improved long-term weight maintenance with increased physical activity levels. You also have animal and human data showing how insulin resistance impairs appetite regulation and related hormones, and you have data showing exercise to improve insulin resistance. This totality of evidence points to one conclusion. For your assertions to be correct, you have a very large body of data you would need to refute….which is why it doesn’t surprise me when you and others on this board resort to sweeping generalizations about a body of work for which you have not closely inspected….the inevitable conclusion of all of this data doesn’t match with your preformed beliefs.

**************I’d be willing to bet they could have accomplished the same or better with the same diet and one or two brief, high intensity strength training sessions per week.
***************

Now you are making absurd claims. Our clients were on 1200-1800 kcal/d, high protein, moderate carb diets. They were exercising (combo of cardio & strength training) for 75 minutes for a minimum of 5 days per week. You are essentially claiming that you would achieve higher energy deficits on a dramatically reduced exercise volume. Logic dictates that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” But I highly doubt you have any solid empirical data to support the absurd claim that you would achieve higher energy deficits on such reduced volume.

James Krieger, M.S., M.S. Says:
23. August 2009 at 11:04 pm

**********
Simple is when You have to site “research” papers for your evidence?
***********

Empirical data is by far a superior source of evidence to anecdotal claims and personal belief.

************
I’m about 4.2% Body Fat
***********

By what measure? All 2-compartment models for determining body composition (including DEXA and hydrostatic weighing) are extremely inaccurate, particularly at extreme ranges such as this. I highly doubt your true body fat % is even close to that number.

**********
I don’t have to site “research” papers in order to see the Forrest for the Sake of the Trees
************

Translation: I don’t need evidence

***********
Activity done for “weight loss” is a BAD idea.
***********

Repeating something ad nauseam doesn’t make it so. If you don’t have evidence, your assertions are empty.

Drew Baye Says:
24. August 2009 at 12:58 am

James,

I have not had time to check your references. I will when I do. I am reporting what I have observed in the people I have worked with, and the numerous trainers I have discussed this with over the years, and frankly, I have never seen an example where increased activity made that much of a difference in either losing or maintaining weight, especially compared to diet. While I don’t doubt your clients lost a significant amount of weight, it had far more to do with the diet than the activity. We use similar kcal/d ranges with our clients, also high protein, low to moderate carb, and they experience significant weight loss with only 10% the weekly exercise time as yours (less than 40 minutes compared to 375 or more). Most of these people have previously failed losing weight with “cardio”. I don’t believe, as you suggest, that the increased activity actually makes that much of a contribution to energy deficit. If this was the case, we wouldn’t be getting the results we are. Diet is the key.

Even if the results were equal, why spend 900% more time exercising weekly? Spending upwards of six hours a week just moving to burn a few calories is a tragic and unnecessary waste of time. In 1995 I trained a man who lost almost 90 pounds – dropping from around 310 to 220 – in about six months. He worked out once weekly, performing one set to failure of six exercises, with a total workout time of around 12 minutes per workout (about 90 to 120 seconds per exercise, rushing between exercises). His total exercise time for the entire six months was less than what your clients perform in a single week. It simply is not necessary for people to spend a lot of time doing any kind of activity for the sake of burning calories, and not a very efficient or effective way to do so. Again, the biggest factor by far in fat loss is diet, and the biggest benefit exercise can provide to a fat loss program is maintenance of lean body mass while fat is lost, because it certainly doesn’t seem to make a big difference in energy deficit.

David Landau Says:
24. August 2009 at 8:00 am

James: I will be in Seattle Thursday, so you can come over and measure my Body Fat Percentage. My Empirical Observation for well over 30 years concludes opposite to your “studies.” Agenda Anyone? The Body is a Terrible thing to waste through the pursuit of “planned canned” activity and when the thought of Such BS crosses your mind, lay down until the thought goes away. “You Don’t Have to ‘Exercise’ – Rest Begins at Forty” – Great Classic by Peter J. Steincrohn

Fred Hahn Says:
24. August 2009 at 8:49 am

“Fred, this comment shows that you make assumptions and jump to conclusions on little to no evidence.”

Really? Little to no evidence for what exactly? Increased appetite after exercise? You’ve already read what I said to Mike on my blog where he used research to prove that appetite did not increase after energy expenditure – and in several of the studies he posted apetite either decreased, increased or there was no change.

Take a read of Dr. Walter Willet’s EPI book.

The fact is this: Modern research on the subject seems to be all over the place on the hunger after exercise issue. The experiments are hard to do because of all the psychological factors that could confound them — i.e., if the people think they might lose weight in the experiment, they might consciously or even unconsciously try to eat less. This is why these experiments are actually better off being done in animals and that literature also shows a scattered response.

The other stuff is just the epidemiological observations that are in Dr. Willett’s nutritional epi book, that the more people expend in their jobs, the more they eat. And then, of course as Drew mentions, common sense. This effect can also be more significant in people who tend to put on fat, than in people who are chronically lean mainly due to insulin resistance or the lack thereof. I was a chronically lean person until years of low fat high carb abuse had my triglycerides in the 300 range and putting on fat out of seemingly nowhere even though I went to 5 martial arts classes a week and left with my GI soaked. After 4 hours of martial arts I and my wife and training partners were starving. All we would do for 2 hours was eat after class. We were never fatter than then.

“I don’t read T-Nation, or Tom Venuto, or Lyle McDonald. I read the scientific papers themselves. In fact, I am willing to bet I am much more versed on the energy balance literature than any of you posting here.”

That is doubtful if you are including me in the picture, but perhaps it could be. Even if you are well versed this does not mean that you are comprehending what you read thoroughly.

“I also have my own publications, and I personally know some of the authors of these papers that I’ve referenced (like Jim Levine).”

Cool. What are your publications? Personally knowing the authors doesn’t mean much. I personally know many experts like Dr, Richard Feinman, Dr. Jeff Volek, Dr. Mary Vernon, Gary Taubes (he is a friend and a client), and scores of others but this doesn’t mean I’m right – about anything. It’s nice to know folks but how does knowing people matter? They can be just as deluded or biased as anyone, right?

Have you read Gary’s book in it’s entirety?

And do you agree with the following statement:

“High blood glucose elicits the release of insulin, which speeds the uptake of glucose by tissues and favors the storage of fuels as glycogen and triaglycerols, while inhibiting fatty acid mobilization in adipose tissue.”

Fred Hahn Says:
24. August 2009 at 9:12 am

Here’s the abstract on the Levine NEAT ob study:

“Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) is the energy expenditure of all physical activities other than volitional sporting-like exercise. NEAT includes all the activities that render us vibrant, unique, and independent beings such as working, playing, and dancing. Because people of the same weight have markedly variable activity levels, it is not surprising that NEAT varies substantially between people by up to 2000 kcal per day. Evidence suggests that low NEAT may occur in obesity but in a very specific fashion. Obese individuals appear to exhibit an innate tendency to be seated for 2.5 hours per day more than sedentary lean counterparts. If obese individuals were to adopt the lean “NEAT-o-type,” they could potentially expend an additional 350 kcal per day. Obesity was rare a century ago and the human genotype has not changed over that time. Thus, the obesity epidemic may reflect the emergence of a chair-enticing environment to which those with an innate tendency to sit, did so, and became obese. To reverse obesity, we need to develop individual strategies to promote standing and ambulating time by 2.5 hours per day and also re-engineer our work, school, and home environments to render active living the option of choice.”

HUGE assumption.

This is yet another example of the GIGANTIC bias of calories used = weight gain. It presupposes that:

1. The obese are obese because they sit too much and
2. If they moved more they’d lose weight

I’ve asked everyone to produce ONE controlled study where significant body fat was lost from exercise alone. Can anyone produce one? James you are admittedly more well read on the subject of energy balance correct? Can you cite the study and the abstract?

Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. Excess fat is accumulated when calories get stored as fat rather than used as energy. This happens then their is a hormonal disorder, specifically a disorder in the hormone insulin and that disorder is excess secretion and insensitivity.

Fat people are not fat because they move less. They move less because they are strong energy as fat and thus it is not available to them for energy.

There are many lean sedentary people who eat a lot. There are many over fat, active people, who don’t eat that much. It’s WHAT they are eating and how insulin insensitive they are that causes obesity.

Until we start obeying biochemistry and releasing ourselves from the paradigm paralysis of ‘a calorie is a calorie’ / exercise more to lose fat.’ this nation will continue to become fatter and more diabetic.

Todd Sauter Says:
24. August 2009 at 9:55 am

****************
Todd, this is nothing more than a thinly disguised ad hominem….generally the tactic of someone who doesn’t have solid evidence. If you have evidence contradicting my assertions, then please provide it.
*****************
Actually it is a blatant ad hominem with no attempt for disguise whatsoever. Your credentialing technique is akin to the optometrist who lists “Dr. I. Kantsy, O.D., Doctor of Optometry” on his/her shingle, or, closer to this discussion, the personal trainer who fills 2 lines of paper listing the certification of every pseudo-professional exercise organization following his/her name. If you must, list your highest earned degree once, and your certification/fellowship by a respected professional organization once, and be done with it. Anything more smacks of someone seeking attention and actually takes away from many of your excellent contributions to this thread.

Fred Hahn Says:
24. August 2009 at 10:30 am

BTW James, your paper titled:

“SINGLE VERSUS MULTIPLE SETS OF RESISTANCE EXERCISE: A META-REGRESSION”

Not to change the subject or highjack the thread, but did you account for intensity of effort in your analysis? Seems quite odd that 1 set was as good as 4-6 sets but inferior to 2-3 by a whopping 46%. Did this 46% relate to increased lean mass in the 2-3 set group?

Perhaps we could start a thread about this on my discussion forum http://seriousstrength.yuku.com/

Sorry Drew but while I had James attention I wanted to address this.

David Landau Says:
24. August 2009 at 10:58 am

James: If I can, I may have access to a Dexa in Olympia if I can get down there.

Don Matesz Says:
24. August 2009 at 2:50 pm

If anyone thinks we have no evidence that research is biased and rife with error, s/he needs to read this:

WHy Most Published Research Findings Are False by John P.A. Ioannidis

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Some quotes:

“It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.”

“REsearch is not most appropriately represented by p-values….”

“The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.”

“If the true effect sizes are very small in a scientific field, this field is likely to be plagued by almost ubiquitous false positive claims. ”

“There is strong evidence that selective outcome reporting, with manipulation of the outcomse ans analysise reported, is a common problem even for randomized trials [25].”

“Scientists in a given field may be pregudiced purely because of their belieif in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.”

“Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28].”

“Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.”

“Highly prejudiced stakeholders may even create a barrier that aborts efforts at obtaining and disseminating opposing results.”

“Conversely, a meta-analytic finding from inconclusive studies where pooling is used to “correct” the low power of single studies, is probably false if R ? 1:3.”

“As shown, the majority of modern biomedical research is operating in areas with very low pre- and post-study probability for true findings. Let us suppose that in a research field there are no true findings at all to be discovered. History of science teaches us that scientific endeavor has often in the past wasted effort in fields with absolutely no yield of true scientific information, at least based on our current understanding. In such a “null field,” one would ideally expect all observed effect sizes to vary by chance around the null in the absence of bias. The extent that observed findings deviate from what is expected by chance alone would be simply a pure measure of the prevailing bias.”

This paper proves that most research findings, including most cited by James, are false.

As Drew pointed out, what point in exercising 5 hours a week if we can get the same results with a decent diet and two 20 minute strength training sessions or less. In my case, I have less than 10% body fat and my vigorous exercise amounts to, usually, not more than 20 minutes per week of HIT. I attribute it to my diet.

Oh, and if you want to learn how and why insulin increases appetite, read GCBC. Talk about selective citation…..

Drew Baye Says:
25. August 2009 at 9:35 am

I recommend those who want to continue this discussion accept Fred Hahn’s invitation to do so on his forum at http://seriousstrength.yuku.com/ – which will be more efficient. Comments here are held for review before posting to minimize spam, so the pace of a discussion is limited by when I have time to moderate the posts.

James Krieger, M.S., M.S. Says:
25. August 2009 at 3:09 pm

I have responded to various people’s posts here over on the seriousstrength board.

HE Says:
5. October 2009 at 5:05 pm

Here’s the abstract on the Levine NEAT ob study:

HUGE assumption.

This is yet another example of the GIGANTIC bias of calories used = weight gain. It presupposes that:

1. The obese are obese because they sit too much and
2. If they moved more they’d lose weight

Fat people are not fat because they move less. They move less because they are strong energy as fat and thus it is not available to them for energy.

fred hahn Says:
5. October 2009 at 5:48 pm

HE is spot on correct.

Mike Says:
20. April 2010 at 3:43 pm

Interesting related article at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/magazine/18exercise-t.html

david barton Says:
8. June 2010 at 7:52 pm

Your all mad!! Surely the old phrase of “variety is the spice of life” is what is needed. Good overall diet with the odd treat. I agree with the HIT training method of weights etc but surely a good bit of cardio, i.e Bike riding outdoors, some light-medium jogging, rowing will benefit your heart and lungs.
Doing both HIT weight training with some added cardio…all coupled with a good balanced healthy diet. For me its about common sense…agree?

Drew Baye Says:
20. August 2010 at 10:05 am

David,

High intensity training will do more for your cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning than “cardio” like jogging or rowing, and it will do so more quickly and efficiently and without undermining your long-term joint health. If you’re doing HIT, you are doing cardio.

Fred Hahn Says:
20. August 2010 at 10:15 am

Is that THE David Barton? Cardio is overrated and unnecessary for health if one is strength training properly. However, if you love to run, run. I do not like aerobic activity at all. And at almost 50, reading and writing are far more attractive yet I have the health and body of a 30 year old.