PDA

View Full Version : exercise doesn't work for fat people with bad diets


Ben D
December 2nd 04, 09:12 AM
duh

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4059695.stm


Exercise 'may benefit some less'
There may be an explanation for why those gym workouts seem not to have
any effect - US experts suggest some people benefit less from exercise.
Louisiana University researchers put 742 people through a strenuous
20-week endurance training programme.

Measures such as oxygen consumption improved in some, but not in others,
New Scientist magazine revealed.

UK sports experts said people did differ - and that was why they should
have tailored exercise programmes.

The researchers selected the volunteers from 213 families,

None of the participants had undertaken regular physical activity for
the previous six months.

All were asked to use exercise bikes. By the last six weeks of the
study, they were exercising for 50 minutes, three times a week, at 75%
of the maximum output they were capable of before the study.

Differences

Previous research had suggested that people do vary in their
"trainability" - how much improvement is likely to be seen after an
exercise regime.

In this study, the researchers found training improved maximum oxygen
consumption, a measure of a person's ability to perform well, by an
average of 17%.

But the most "trainable" participants improved by 40% - and the least
showed no improvement at all.

Similar patterns were seen when other fitness measures such as cardiac
output, blood pressure, heart rate were checked.

When the researchers looked at insulin resistance, a marker of risk for
heart disease and diabetes, they found it had improved in 58% of
participants following the exercise regime but stayed the same, or even
fell, in 42%.

The team also compared the eight who showed the highest improvement in
insulin sensitivity and the eight who had least.

The study was presented to the Australian Health and Medical Research
Congress in Sydney.

Claude Bouchard, who led the research, said: "There is an astounding
variation in the response to exercise.

"The vast majority will benefit in some way, but there will be a
minority who will not benefit at all."

Kathryn North of the Institute of Neuromuscular Research at the
Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, said: "It's negative, but it's
true. Some people slog away and don't get any improvement."

Mark Hargreaves, of Deakin University, Melbourne, added: "We need to
recognise that, although on average exercise may have clear benefits, it
may not work for everyone.

"Some people may do better to change their diet."

But Sam Howells, senior sports physiologist at Lilleshall Sports Injury
and Human Performance Centre, said: "It would be worrying if these
findings deterred people from exercising.

"What this study shows is that everyone is unique.

"That's why fitness programmes should be tailored to an individual's needs.

"But everyone should do something to try to stay fit."

Liz
December 2nd 04, 06:00 PM
Ben D > wrote in message >...
> duh
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4059695.stm
>
>
> Exercise 'may benefit some less'
> There may be an explanation for why those gym workouts seem not to have
> any effect - US experts suggest some people benefit less from exercise.
> Louisiana University researchers put 742 people through a strenuous
> 20-week endurance training programme.
>


Where & what is "Louisiana University"?? Was this maybe Southeastern
Louisiana University? I don't think Bouchard is on the faculty there,
but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I'd be willing to go waaay out on a limb and suggest that
maybe exercise hardly benefits ANYone who's eating a typical Louisiana
diet. It's a **** in the ocean. Try that same experiment somewhere
else.

-Liz in Louisiana

Matthew Venhaus
December 2nd 04, 09:02 PM
Liz > wrote in message
om...
> Ben D > wrote in message
>...
> > duh
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4059695.stm
> >
> >
> > Exercise 'may benefit some less'
> > There may be an explanation for why those gym workouts seem not to have
> > any effect - US experts suggest some people benefit less from exercise.
> > Louisiana University researchers put 742 people through a strenuous
> > 20-week endurance training programme.
> >
>
>
> Where & what is "Louisiana University"?? Was this maybe Southeastern
> Louisiana University? I don't think Bouchard is on the faculty there,
> but I could be wrong.

LSU (Baton Rouge)

Kevin J. Coolidge
December 3rd 04, 01:42 PM
"Ben D" > wrote in message
...
> duh
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4059695.stm
>
>
> Exercise 'may benefit some less'
> There may be an explanation for why those gym workouts seem not to have
> any effect - US experts suggest some people benefit less from exercise.
> Louisiana University researchers put 742 people through a strenuous
> 20-week endurance training programme.
>
> Measures such as oxygen consumption improved in some, but not in others,
> New Scientist magazine revealed.
>
> UK sports experts said people did differ - and that was why they should
> have tailored exercise programmes.
>
> The researchers selected the volunteers from 213 families,
>
> None of the participants had undertaken regular physical activity for the
> previous six months.
>
> All were asked to use exercise bikes. By the last six weeks of the study,
> they were exercising for 50 minutes, three times a week, at 75% of the
> maximum output they were capable of before the study.
>
> Differences
>
> Previous research had suggested that people do vary in their
> "trainability" - how much improvement is likely to be seen after an
> exercise regime.
>
> In this study, the researchers found training improved maximum oxygen
> consumption, a measure of a person's ability to perform well, by an
> average of 17%.
>
> But the most "trainable" participants improved by 40% - and the least
> showed no improvement at all.
>
> Similar patterns were seen when other fitness measures such as cardiac
> output, blood pressure, heart rate were checked.
>
> When the researchers looked at insulin resistance, a marker of risk for
> heart disease and diabetes, they found it had improved in 58% of
> participants following the exercise regime but stayed the same, or even
> fell, in 42%.
>
> The team also compared the eight who showed the highest improvement in
> insulin sensitivity and the eight who had least.
>
> The study was presented to the Australian Health and Medical Research
> Congress in Sydney.
>
> Claude Bouchard, who led the research, said: "There is an astounding
> variation in the response to exercise.
>
> "The vast majority will benefit in some way, but there will be a minority
> who will not benefit at all."
>
> Kathryn North of the Institute of Neuromuscular Research at the Children's
> Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, said: "It's negative, but it's true. Some
> people slog away and don't get any improvement."
>
> Mark Hargreaves, of Deakin University, Melbourne, added: "We need to
> recognise that, although on average exercise may have clear benefits, it
> may not work for everyone.
>
> "Some people may do better to change their diet."
>
> But Sam Howells, senior sports physiologist at Lilleshall Sports Injury
> and Human Performance Centre, said: "It would be worrying if these
> findings deterred people from exercising.
>
> "What this study shows is that everyone is unique.
>
> "That's why fitness programmes should be tailored to an individual's
> needs.
>
> "But everyone should do something to try to stay fit."

Excercise replaces being active in our society, or at least for some. Many
are "busy" but have sedentary jobs. If an obese person starts to excercise
and isn't gaining weight, they are doing pretty good. Sure not what they
want to be doing, but I go to work every day, and I don't seem to be getting
richer. If at the end of the week, I'm not further in debt, it's not a bad
week.

pduck
December 4th 04, 02:56 AM
In article >,
Ben D > wrote:

> duh
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4059695.stm
>
>
> Exercise 'may benefit some less'
> There may be an explanation for why those gym workouts seem not to have
> any effect - US experts suggest some people benefit less from exercise.
> Louisiana University researchers put 742 people through a strenuous
> 20-week endurance training programme.
>
> Measures such as oxygen consumption improved in some, but not in others,
> New Scientist magazine revealed.
>
> UK sports experts said people did differ - and that was why they should
> have tailored exercise programmes.
>
> The researchers selected the volunteers from 213 families,
>
> None of the participants had undertaken regular physical activity for
> the previous six months.
>
> All were asked to use exercise bikes. By the last six weeks of the
> study, they were exercising for 50 minutes, three times a week, at 75%
> of the maximum output they were capable of before the study.
>
> Differences
>
> Previous research had suggested that people do vary in their
> "trainability" - how much improvement is likely to be seen after an
> exercise regime.
>
> In this study, the researchers found training improved maximum oxygen
> consumption, a measure of a person's ability to perform well, by an
> average of 17%.
>
> But the most "trainable" participants improved by 40% - and the least
> showed no improvement at all.
>
> Similar patterns were seen when other fitness measures such as cardiac
> output, blood pressure, heart rate were checked.
>
> When the researchers looked at insulin resistance, a marker of risk for
> heart disease and diabetes, they found it had improved in 58% of
> participants following the exercise regime but stayed the same, or even
> fell, in 42%.
>
> The team also compared the eight who showed the highest improvement in
> insulin sensitivity and the eight who had least.
>
> The study was presented to the Australian Health and Medical Research
> Congress in Sydney.
>
> Claude Bouchard, who led the research, said: "There is an astounding
> variation in the response to exercise.
>
> "The vast majority will benefit in some way, but there will be a
> minority who will not benefit at all."
>
> Kathryn North of the Institute of Neuromuscular Research at the
> Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, said: "It's negative, but it's
> true. Some people slog away and don't get any improvement."
>
> Mark Hargreaves, of Deakin University, Melbourne, added: "We need to
> recognise that, although on average exercise may have clear benefits, it
> may not work for everyone.
>
> "Some people may do better to change their diet."
>
> But Sam Howells, senior sports physiologist at Lilleshall Sports Injury
> and Human Performance Centre, said: "It would be worrying if these
> findings deterred people from exercising.
>
> "What this study shows is that everyone is unique.
>
> "That's why fitness programmes should be tailored to an individual's needs.
>
> "But everyone should do something to try to stay fit."


Is it possible that 20 weeks isn't enough time to see an effect for
those not improving? I know that's a long time, but maybe if you're
starting from ground zero, you may not start to see improvement for a
little while longer.

--
To reply, remove .nojunk from my email address.

Justin Case
December 4th 04, 03:12 AM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 02:56:44 GMT, pduck >
wrote:

>
>>
>> "But everyone should do something to try to stay fit."
>
>
>Is it possible that 20 weeks isn't enough time to see an effect for
>those not improving? I know that's a long time, but maybe if you're
>starting from ground zero, you may not start to see improvement for a
>little while longer.

5 months??!! C'mon now.

Michael Siemon
December 4th 04, 03:13 AM
In article
>,
pduck > wrote:
....

> Is it possible that 20 weeks isn't enough time to see an effect for
> those not improving? I know that's a long time, but maybe if you're
> starting from ground zero, you may not start to see improvement for a
> little while longer.

If you're starting from zero, almost _anything_ should have a
noticeable impact within 4-6 weeks. If there's nothing by then
in a half-way sensible program, then the "raw material" for it
just may not _be_ there.

Per Elmsäter
December 4th 04, 02:17 PM
Ben D wrote:
> All were asked to use exercise bikes. By the last six weeks of the
> study, they were exercising for 50 minutes, three times a week, at 75%
> of the maximum output they were capable of before the study.

Here's where the whole research went out the window. If people who weren't
very fit to start out with were made to exercise at 75% of their initial
output, that would mean really holding many of them back. A lot of these
people probably would have made tremendous gains if they had been allowed to
exercise at let's say 75% of their current output. Which means they would
increase their output every week instead of keeping it constant.

We all know how strong we get if keep lifting the same weights every time.
All this shows is that the researchers don't know diddley squat about
exercise physiology.

--
Perre
I gave up on SPAM and redirected it to hotmail instead.