BBC tests spot reduction

Four groups of fatties tried to lose belly fat.

Group #1 tried exercising.
Group #2 tried "spot-reduction", with only sit-ups.
Group #3 drank one liter of milk every day.
Group #4 went on a diet that only reduced their portions and cut out all the snacks between meals.

The exercise group didn't lose any fat, but saw massive improvements in their health.
The "spot reduction" group didn't lose any fat, but their waistline got 2cm thinner.
The 1L of milk group didn't see any change at all. They didn't gain weight because they were too full to eat.
The diet group lost 3.6kg (8.2lb) each on average over 6 weeks. Waistlines were down by 5cm. They lost fat. Their health also improved.
bbc.com/news/magazine-36763102

Well yeah, calories in/calories out.

CALORIES IN N OUT

Wow groundbreaking discoveries, alert the fitness community, we had it all wrong!

we know that for something like 30 years....

> The 1L of milk group didn't see any change at all. They didn't gain weight because they were too full to eat.

BREAKING NEWS, GOMAD COMFIRMED BULLSHIT

That doesn't explain why exercise ( calories out ) doesn't make you lose weight.

...

Trumpfish has the cute to what ails this thread

>I deserve this extra snack because I worked out
Could be that.

>the exercise group didn't lose any fat, but saw massive improvements in their health

that's actually really interesting. It's like, yea you can not be a fat shit by eating less, but the exercise shouldn't be for losing weight, it should be to make yourself just healthy.

Which may sound obvious but people think that being not fat is the only thing when it comes to health.

>move more
>get hungry more
>eat more
>suddenly rippetoe-style gains

These studies are a fucking joke, user.
I refuse to believe any nutrition study that isn't done on at least 10k people kept in cages under 24h surveilance, like we do in animal nutrition.
Oh, and cut holes in a few hundred of them to insert bags, just to check the digestion % at different points of the digestive tract.

Not that's a proper study, if done on the minimal required amount of subjects. An actual proper study should have 1% of the population involved.

carbs

This isn't surprising at all? Lose fat by dieting. Get big again by working out.
No shit.

the first group literally walked a little more, that's not exercise. what I hate about all these studies claiming exercise doesn't promote fat loss is that by exercise, they always mean sub-1 hour moderate cardio, not hiit or strength training, which really do help burn fat

being alive is 70% of the calories out dayly, or more, the other 30% is exersise and food digestion, exersising doesnt increase calories out to much. Also, excersise makes you hungry, thet probably ate more.

Because exercise for the most part does not expend a large amount of calories. Cardio expends the most and even running for 10 minutes will only expend a few hundred calories if that - that's less than you'd get in a large french fries. Strength training expends even less. In fact, you could even think of strength training as just a means to signal to the body "use energy to build muscle, not store as fat."

Diet is the key to weight loss. Cutting out the equivalent an order of large fries a day will do you more good toward that goal than exercise.

>hour of cardio: -400 calories
>one McDouble: +400 calories
GEE I WONDER

Why even milk group?

An hour of cardio is 400 calories?

Exercise per hour doesn't vary as much as people believe.
If you walk an hour you can burn 200-400 calories
If you run an hour you can burn 300-400 calories
Lifting is something like 320 calories unless you do circuit training (HIIT) it moves closer to 400+.

All of that can be negated by drinking one cola (170-250 calories) even on the high end you have a deficit of only like another 100 calories.
Meaning it would take you more than a month to lose 1 lb of fat if you did only 1 hour of exercises and changed nothing about your diet.
Granted there is a small passive conversion of fat to muscle if you change zero about your diet and started lifting, but it's minimal.
6 weeks is not enough to notice a difference with exercise unless you go to an extreme of exercising for multiple hours.

It varies, but generally people burn around 100 calories per mile run. Someone running a very light jog might burn 400 in an hour, but I would say most people would burn more than that.

Fuck man I can't stand running for longer than 45 minutes. I got my 5 mile run down to 36minutes.

Also to mention one punch man. All his exercises he did faster each day until he could complete each one instantly.

You don't burn that many calories with exercise and you body makes you hungrier to you usually eat more to accommodate.

we've actually known diet and exercise makes you healthy and lose weight for 2500 years

i was talking about the "exercice don't make you loose fat"and "the spot reduction" part

wutface. exercise does make you lose fat

>The exercise group didn't lose any fat, but saw massive improvements in their health.
ok
>The "spot reduction" group didn't lose any fat, but their waistline got 2cm thinner.
didn't lose any fat based on what? and that is still exercising
>The 1L of milk group didn't see any change at all. They didn't gain weight because they were too full to eat.
the point of this was what?

>what is gaussian distribution

>spot reduction
>crunches
I want to punch in the face whoever came up with this troll exercise

found the guy who still doesn't know the correct way to crunch in the year 2016 with internet access

lets all point and laugh at him

>f you walk an hour you can burn 200-400 calories
>If you run an hour you can burn 300-400 calories

You can't be serious