Amy Berger's podcast and link about study of low cal aerobic exercise

(Bob M) #1

I have not listened to this yet, but it’s in my list of upcoming podcasts:

However, this link is listed in the show notes:

https://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/0026-0495(88)90011-X/fulltext

Egad. They had a control group with no exercise and a group with low calorie AND exercise. And after 4 weeks, no weight loss for the exercise group relative to the control. And their markers of resting energy expenditure went down.

Double egad.

I’ll report more once I get a chance to listen to the episode.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #2

So wait a minute—you’re telling me that eating less and moving more doesn’t work??!!??!!

(Butter Withaspoon) #3

I listened to that ep recently. Listened a few times to the outcomes of the study. Truly an interesting study! It’s why I worry when sometimes new ketoers want to pull all the levers as hard as possible from day 1. You can end up with calorie reduction diet problems al over again.
KCKO for the win

(Bob M) #4

I just listened this morning, and this was part of the new “Boolcrap” (or whatever it is called) section. I also did not realize Dr. Phinney was one of the authors (sorry, I generally ignore the list of authors, at least initially).

It would be nice to see the entire study, as Richard and Carl discussed more details that aren’t evident in the small part listed at the link.

Anyway, this study seemed really egregious. Every time I review studies with exercise and/or calorie restriction, I’m always amazed at how bad they are. (And yet we still have “eat less, exercise more”?) The vast majority of them come nowhere close to 3,500 calories = 1 pound.

But this one seemed even worse than normal. I expected SOME weight loss benefit to those exercising with low cals, but there was none. Yet, the study appeared to be well done and well thought-out.

(Mark Rhodes) #5

This is something marathon runners often exhibited and we dealt with. I made very efficient use of my energy sources while running and in fact I believe in those days I was also ketogenic often running without eating.

What becomes interesting is how the body divides the rest of the energy for REE. It seems the body downshifts all the other functions as the energy draw of the exercise is so great it “preps” itself in case it has to run again…or cycle or whatever.

(Bob M) #6

There’s also this:

Where the Hazda (hunter-gatherers) have the same calorie output as much more sedentary Westeners.

On the one hand, it makes sense. On the other hand, I can’t wrap my head around it.

(BuckRimfire) #7

Seems like it’s not the study that’s egregious, but the fact that it’s completely ignored in the CICO paradigm

(Bob M) #8

Sorry, “egregious” might not have been the best word. Maybe “shocking” (to me)?

I agree with you about the CICO-verse. Tons of data and studies indicate this model is either wrong or very incomplete.

(Mark Rhodes) #9

I believe that was Richard’s point in bringing up such an old study. It also highlights what Fung pointed out about calorie restriction, that doing so over time decreases calorie output thereby creating the opposite of what was intended.

(Bob M) #10

Too bad they didn’t have three arms: control; calorie restriction only; calorie restriction plus exercise. Maybe it’s the combination of exercise and calorie restriction that’s worse than calorie restriction alone (or at least that’s what makes sense to me)?

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #11

We forget to our peril that we evolved to be able to cope with a variety of conditions, from famine to plenty. It makes sense that our body would try to maintain itself in the best possible situation to meet various possible conditions. I like what Richard says about sending signals to our body: lifting heavy things causes our arm and back muscles to grow to meet the challenge, running sends a signal to our leg muscles, and so forth.

I like the notion that exercise is useless for losing weight—that certainly seems to be my experience. It makes sense that the main value of exercise is to promote health. I certainly feel better during periods when I am more active (I loved working in New York, because it meant doing a lot of walking), but I have a real abhorrence for exercising simply for the sake of exercising. (Anyone else remember the Cathy cartoon where everyone is taking elevators and escalators to the gym so they can use the stair machines?)

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #12

The study doesn’t say that calorie restriction doesn’t cause weight loss, only that adding exercise to calorie restriction didn’t enhance weight loss. Both groups lost some weight, but the weight loss was not statistically significant between the two groups.

The problem with the CICO paradigm is that “eating less and moving more” works just well enough for just long enough for people to think that it works over the long term.

(Bob M) #13

Oh, I misread it. BOTH groups had calorie restriction. I did not realize that.

(Robin) #14

So freaking true! Master keto first.

#15

What a ridiculously bad quality study! 4 weeks (fetish duration of mediocre “studies”), 12 subjects (who can 12 people possibly represent?), less than 800 Kcal a day (aren’t bodies supposed to be actually hurt by so low?)… “exercising” 2 h a day (about 120 b/m heart rate?)… said to have supported it well… sure they did! Who feels well with 800 Kcal a day? It feels better exercising, right? Make it 2h a day and you’ll feel great!

Then they’re surprised the people who were consuming only 800 Kcal AND spending more exercising weren’t better off. So, if they were using 500 KCal with workouts, it leaves 300 for the rest of their bodies needs… and they aren’t better than the others at the end of 4 weeks… why would they be? After having to survive on so little, of course the stress has hurt them! Where were the proteins for recover, for instance? Who builds a brick wall without bricks?

Write down the name of the authors, so next time you see another “study” by them, you don’t lose your time reading.

These are the people who don’t understand basic stuff like the thing about not being able to build a brick wall without bricks. More so for people on 300 Kcal/day left for their brain and rest of the body than for those on 800 Kcal/day available for their brain and rest of the body.

Put two teams of people to see who can build the tallest wall. One expert and one completely inexperienced. Give team expert only water to build the wall, but team inexperienced bricks, mortar, and everything else. Be surprised team expert loses! Lol

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #16

I’m not sure what you are complaining about. The study seems pretty well constructed to me, and the conclusion, “The lack of objective benefits from aggressive aerobic exercise concurrent with a severely restricted diet suggests that these therapeutic modalities be employed sequentially, rather than simultaneously, in the multidisciplinary approach to obesity,” seems reasonable and not motivated by pre-conceptions.

You are right, however, that an experiment done on twelve subjects is not very high-powered. On the other hand, it’s very difficult to find enough people to experiment on, and the cost is very high, so if you want an RCT, this is how you have to do it. That, or rely on epidemiological methods, which are incapable of determining cause and effect.

This study was done fairly early in Dr. Phinney’s career, but it was supervised by Elliot Danforth, a respected researcher, and it’s not the only one showing that exercise is not very helpful for fat loss.