The Myth About Exercise

[Jeff Lebowski]

Anyone read this article in Time?

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...914857,00.html

Pretty depressing. But I can't help but believe that the author was exaggerating and slanting the facts a bit to support a bold premise.

The argument is that exercise is actually detrimental to weight loss because people who exercise end up eating more. Furthermore, if you do intense workouts, you are more likely to sit around and be lazy the rest of the day (this one is particularly hard for me to believe).

Thoughts?

[pelagius]

Furthermore, if you do intense workouts, you are more likely to sit around and be lazy the rest of the day (this one is particularly hard for me to believe).

Thoughts?

I thought the underlying study didn't have support for this hypothesis. My understanding is the experiment found that non formal exercise activity (at least those picked up by a pedometer) weren't different across the groups (control to high exercise) . Did I misread that aspect of the results?

[CardiacCoug]

Anyone read this article in Time?

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...914857,00.html

Pretty depressing. But I can't help but believe that the author was exaggerating and slanting the facts a bit to support a bold premise.

The argument is that exercise is actually detrimental to weight loss because people who exercise end up eating more. Furthermore, if you do intense workouts, you are more likely to sit around and be lazy the rest of the day (this one is particularly hard for me to believe).

Thoughts?

I will say this: One of my pet peeves is when patients that are extremely overweight say something like, "I really need to start exercising."

My response is usually something like: "The main thing you need to do is start eating less. Exercise is good for you, but for you it's not going to be a good method for losing weight."

Another point against exercise: People who are extreme, high-impact exercisers in their younger years often end up destroying their joints to the point that they are pretty disabled in their retirement years. I'm not sure the trade-off of extreme cardiovascular fitness in your 20s through 40s is worth needing knee and hip replacements and having very limited mobility in your 60s through 80s.

[UtahDan]

I will say this: One of my pet peeves is when patients that are extremely overweight say something like, "I really need to start exercising."

My response is usually something like: "The main thing you need to do is start eating less. Exercise is good for you, but for you it's not going to be a good method for losing weight."

Another point against exercise: People who are extreme, high-impact exercisers in their younger years often end up destroying their joints to the point that they are pretty disabled in their retirement years. I'm not sure the trade-off of extreme cardiovascular fitness in your 20s through 40s is worth needing knee and hip replacements and having very limited mobility in your 60s through 80s.

This may sound like a really stupid comment, but isn't there something to the idea that people who are in good shape in their younger years have a lot better shot of making it to their 60s-80s? I know I worry about what running is doing to my joints, but given the medical history in my family I think I'm going to chance bad joints for the opportunity to be alive.

[TripletDaddy]

Anyone read this article in Time?

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...914857,00.html

Pretty depressing. But I can't help but believe that the author was exaggerating and slanting the facts a bit to support a bold premise.

The argument is that exercise is actually detrimental to weight loss because people who exercise end up eating more. Furthermore, if you do intense workouts, you are more likely to sit around and be lazy the rest of the day (this one is particularly hard for me to believe).

Thoughts?

This article is disappointing, esp from a generally-respected rag like Time.

My thoughts on the author is that she is as she claims to be: overweight. She appears to use food as a coping mechanism, therefore it is no surprise that she can never seem to shed pounds.....life will always be throwing you one curveball after another.

In an article about the efficacy of exercise, she is posting about emotional issues: self-medicating, self-denial about how much she claims to exercise vs. how much she actually exercises, etc.

Also, she seems to be creating a strawman. The real enemy is not exercise, it is lousy eating habits. Of course we all get hungry when we exercise....that is where proper diet comes into play. It is incumbent on each individual to educate himself or herself about what to eat and what to avoid. Clearly, those hitting up Starbucks after the gym are not serious about weight loss. Those going home and eating an apple and some grilled salmon for lunch likely are serious about losing weight.

We don't inherently "crave sugary drinks." We train ourselves to want them by drinking them all the time. Again, with our without exercise, people drink soda.

Weight loss is a mental war as well as a physical war. If you want to shed pounds, it is hard work. VERY hard work. It requires discipline, self-sacrifice, more discipline, and then toss in some more hard work. I think the author of this piece is disillusioned because she apparently seems to have dramatically different expecations. Maybe she thought weight loss would be easy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Another point against exercise: People who are extreme, high-impact exercisers in their younger years often end up destroying their joints to the point that they are pretty disabled in their retirement years. I'm not sure the trade-off of extreme cardiovascular fitness in your 20s through 40s is worth needing knee and hip replacements and having very limited mobility in your 60s through 80s.

Define "extreme" and "high-impact". Is this really common?

[Jeff Lebowski]

This article is disappointing, esp from a generally-respected rag like Time.

My thoughts on the author is that she is as she claims to be: overweight. She appears to use food as a coping mechanism, therefore it is no surprise that she can never seem to shed pounds.....life will always be throwing you one curveball after another.

In an article about the efficacy of exercise, she is posting about emotional issues: self-medicating, self-denial about how much she claims to exercise vs. how much she actually exercises, etc.

Also, she seems to be creating a strawman. The real enemy is not exercise, it is lousy eating habits. Of course we all get hungry when we exercise....that is where proper diet comes into play. It is incumbent on each individual to educate himself or herself about what to eat and what to avoid. Clearly, those hitting up Starbucks after the gym are not serious about weight loss. Those going home and eating an apple and some grilled salmon for lunch likely are serious about losing weight.

We don't inherently "crave sugary drinks." We train ourselves to want them by drinking them all the time. Again, with our without exercise, people drink soda.

Weight loss is a mental war as well as a physical war. If you want to shed pounds, it is hard work. VERY hard work. It requires discipline, self-sacrifice, more discipline, and then toss in some more hard work. I think the author of this piece is disillusioned because she apparently seems to have dramatically different expecations. Maybe she thought weight loss would be easy.

Well said, TD.

[CardiacCoug]

This may sound like a really stupid comment, but isn't there something to the idea that people who are in good shape in their younger years have a lot better shot of making it to their 60s-80s? I know I worry about what running is doing to my joints, but given the medical history in my family I think I'm going to chance bad joints for the opportunity to be alive.

Sure, it's good to be in shape. Staying physically fit and close to ideal body weight will help you live longer on average.

But the cardiovascular benefits of "extreme" physical fitness (running marathons or triathlons) versus "moderate" physical fitness (jogging or playing basketball for 30 minutes per day) have never been proven. And there are some interesting cardiac studies that show that extreme exercisers have more coronary artery disease than they should have based on their cholesterol and blood pressure -- suggesting that hours of daily exercise may have an adverse effect on arteries.

And wearing out joints through exercise has a terrible effect on quality of life in middle age and beyond. So many athletes end up having spine surgeries and joint replacements. I'm a big believer in low-impact, "moderate" exercise over marathon training as far as overall health benefit.

[UtahDan]

Sure, it's good to be in shape. Staying physically fit and close to ideal body weight will help you live longer on average.

But the cardiovascular benefits of "extreme" physical fitness (running marathons or triathlons) versus "moderate" physical fitness (jogging or playing basketball for 30 minutes per day) have never been proven. And there are some interesting cardiac studies that show that extreme exercisers have more coronary artery disease than they should have based on their cholesterol and blood pressure -- suggesting that hours of daily exercise may have an adverse effect on arteries.

And wearing out joints through exercise has a terrible effect on quality of life in middle age and beyond. So many athletes end up having spine surgeries and joint replacements. I'm a big believer in low-impact, "moderate" exercise over marathon training as far as overall health benefit.

I hear you. I just think of my partner who was a fat non-athlete when I met him and now runs marathons. In a perfect world, maybe he doesn't inflict that kind of training on his body but give the choice between that and the couch (some people have to go whole hog for and have serious goals for them to stay motivated) he made the right choice it would seem.

Anyway, I rarely run more than an hour so I don't think I fit your criteria on second read. I don't think you were talking about most of us.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I thought the underlying study didn't have support for this hypothesis. My understanding is the experiment found that non formal exercise activity (at least those picked up by a pedometer) weren't different across the groups (control to high exercise) . Did I misread that aspect of the results?

From page four:

This explains why exercise could make you heavier — or at least why even my wretched four hours of exercise a week aren't eliminating all my fat. It's likely that I am more sedentary during my nonexercise hours than I would be if I didn't exercise with such Puritan fury. If I exercised less, I might feel like walking more instead of hopping into a cab; I might have enough energy to shop for food, cook and then clean instead of ordering a satisfyingly greasy burrito.

Other similar discussion on page four.

Runs counter to my experience. When I exercise regularly, I seem to have more overall energy.

[UtahDan]

From page four:



Other similar discussion on page four.

Runs counter to my experience. When I exercise regularly, I seem to have more overall energy.

Yeah, she is making excuses and hasn't stuck with something long enough to start to feel the benefits. I am a different person when I am in shape, but that doesn't happen in the first week.

[CardiacCoug]

Define "extreme" and "high-impact". Is this really common?

Basically marathon-length distance training -- anything that requires more than an hour per day of running.

Whatever cardiovascular advantage that training to run 26 miles provides over training to run 5 miles is completely negated by the adverse effects on joints and the metabolic stress associated with distance training.

Sure, "overexercising" is not really much of a public health issue. But as with pretty much everything else in life, you can overdo exercise as well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

"moderate" physical fitness (jogging or playing basketball for 30 minutes per day) have never been proven.

I recall reading quite a few articles in recent years suggesting that 60 minutes per day on average is what everyone should shoot for. Not true?

[CardiacCoug]

I recall reading quite a few articles in recent years suggesting that 60 minutes per day on average is what everyone should shoot for. Not true?

I haven't seen comparative studies of 60 minutes versus 30 minutes of daily exercise, but I doubt there would be much difference.

However, the health benefits of 30 minutes of exercise daily versus no exercise are very, very substantial.

Sixty minutes of cycling or swimming is great -- but based on all the distance runners I have seen with serious spine and joint issues, I would not recommend running on pavement for 60 minutes every day.

[TripletDaddy]

Runs counter to my experience. When I exercise regularly, I seem to have more overall energy.

Not only that, but when you are learning to adopt a more healthy eating regimen, greasy burritos are anything but satisfying. Fast food and fat-heavy meals are weighty, sometimes unsettling to the stomach, and lead to general malaise.