Bunkum (Score 2, Interesting)

There a few points which should be made about the first story and the Denver study (didn't bother reading the second).

Firstly, they did lose weight. On average about 3kg (7 pounds) over 12 weeks.

Secondly these folk were obese when they started out. Presumably they haven't been exercising much and on average their hearts, muscles and bones aren't that strong. 55% HR could probably be achieved just by raising themselves up out of a chair. If these people kept exercising for longer than the 12 weeks they would start to see physiological changes: 1. a stronger heart pumping a higher volume of blood per stroke 2. a higher volume of blood 3. stronger muscles and bones 4. more capillaries and mitochondria in muscle tissues etc .

A year later these people would be able to sustain much higher work rates at the same percentage of maximum heart rate, they would also be capable of exercising for longer periods and more often. The weight loss would quicken over time until their bodies came to reflect their new lifestyles.

Thirdly this stuff about low intensity leading to maximum weight loss because it's in the high "fat burning zone" is utterly wrong. Whilst the percentage of of calories taken from fat is higher at lower intensities, the total energy used at high intensities is so much greater that more fat is burnt overall (i.e 40% of 1000 is more than 80% of 300). Also it's really the total energy spent that matters.

The point is exercise DOES work. A little exercise only works a little. If you want big results you need to build up to higher intensity and more frequent workouts. Running is the best exercise for weight loss and general health. Cycling and swimming are also great.

The author of this article probably should read this study: Reduced disability and mortality among aging runners: a 21-year longitudinal study