Convincing the people of our country not to exercise..

DomS

Banned
Jul 15, 2008
1,678
0
0
http://www.time.com/time/healt...tml?xid=rss-topstories

Obesity experts agree that daily exercise is essential for good health, but whether it can successfully lead to long-term weight loss is a question of much debate. What has become increasingly clear, however, is that the conventionally accepted advice ? 30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity most days of the week ? is probably insufficient to spur any real change in a person's body weight. A study published July 28 in the Archives of Internal Medicine adds to the burgeoning scientific consensus: when it comes to exercise for weight loss, more is better. It suggests that obese people would have to exercise at least an hour at a time to see any significant difference in their weight.


The study, led by John Jakicic at the Physical Activity and Weight Management Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh, followed nearly 200 overweight or obese women ages 21 to 45 through a two-year weight-loss program. The women were given free treadmills to use at home, regular group meetings and telephone pep talks to help keep them on track. Participants were also asked to restrict their food intake to between 1,200 and 1,500 calories per day, and were randomized to one of four physical activity intervention groups based on energy expenditure (either 1,000 calories or 2,000 calories burned per week) and exercise intensity (high vs. moderate). By the end of the 24-month intervention, the women who managed to lose at least 10% of their starting body weight (which was, on average, about 193 lbs.) ? and keep it off ? were exercising twice as long as health authorities typically recommend and expending more than twice as many calories through exercise as women who had no change in body weight. The biggest weight losers were active a full 68 minutes a day, five days a week (about 55 minutes a day more than they had been before the trial began), burning an extra 1,848 calories a week.

Jakicic and his colleagues originally designed their study to measure whether weight loss could really be achieved and maintained through moderate-intensity exercise, akin to "walking when you're late for a meeting," he says, or whether it was preferable to engage in shorter bursts of more vigorous-intensity activity, "like, when you're late for the bus, chasing it down." The problem was that not enough of the women stuck with their assigned exercise categories for the researchers to gather enough meaningful data. Within a few months, most of the participants had resorted to exercising as much as they chose to. That left researchers with a slightly different data set than they had planned for, but they were still able to associate women's reported physical activity with their weight loss. Indeed, exercise was more strongly associated with weight loss than any other factor, including diet. Overall, the more the women exercised, the more weight they lost.

More than half of the study participants managed to lose at least 10% of their body weight within the first six months. At the half-year mark, however, most of those women relapsed and started gaining the weight back ? a discouragingly common phenomenon. "The major outcome of this paper is the maintenance issue," Jakicic says. Once a patient hits her target weight, he says, it's imperative that she stick with her exercise and diet regimen to maintain her new weight.

Still, the underlying question remains: are diet and exercise a reliable cure for obesity? Modern-day obesity researchers are skeptical ? achieving thinness, they say, is not simply a matter of willpower. Research suggests that weight may largely be regulated by biology, which helps determine the body's "set point," a weight range of about 10 lbs. to 20 lbs. that the body tries hard to defend. The further you push you weight beyond your set point ? either up or down the scale ? some researchers say, the more your body struggles to return to it. That might help to explain why none of the women in Jakicic's study managed to lose much more than 10% of their body weight. After two years on a calorie-restricted diet, keeping up more than an hour of physical activity five days a week on average, most were still clinically overweight (though much less so than before). But what Jakicic and other obesity researchers stress is that a 10% reduction in body weight represents a tremendous boon for overall well-being, lowering blood pressure, improving heart health and reducing the risk of Type 2 diabetes. For the obese, the end goal should not be thinness, but health and self-acceptance, which are more realistic and beneficial objectives. "The women's health was absolutely improved," Jakicic says.

Jakicic, in fact, seems heartened by his findings. "I think the beauty of this study is that we now have a target" ? a better idea of how much exercise is needed for weight maintenance. There is, of course, some variation in how people respond. Some of the study participants fared well with less exercise than the additional 275 minutes per week (about 55 minutes per day, five days a week) that the study's author now recommends for weight maintenance. Others needed more. But the keys to success, according to Jakicic, were embracing the weight-loss program fully, and finding a way around the daily obstacles to exercising ? that's something he says many of his participants were able to achieve, regardless of their socioeconomic group. So, if you're aiming to lose weight and keep it off, his message is clear: don't slack off.

"The problem was that not enough of the women stuck with their assigned exercise categories for the researchers to gather enough meaningful data. Within a few months, most of the participants had resorted to exercising as much as they chose to."


In other words the study failed, the results were probably statistically insignificant, and the statistical power was probably in the gutter. But hey let's publish it anyway with the headline 'the myth of moderate exercise'.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
I think the problem with studies like this is that they were simply calling these people and holding them to their word. If you are going to do research of this kind, I think you need a fat camp, a place where you are monitoring and controlling that persons life 24/7 so that you can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that yes this person exercises adequately and hit xyz heart rate for xyz minutes.

You've got people receiving a free treadmill, maybe they only exercised 3 times that week, but why tell you? Why not just say 5? I'm not saying anyone lied, but, well, it does happen.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Well you cant lose weight if you relax with a gallon of ice cream after your 30 minutes of jogging.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
Well you cant lose weight if you relax with a gallon of ice cream after your 30 minutes of jogging.
Damn!!! How about if it's sugar free?






















;)
 

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
8
0
i saw this study the other day (well, the article's write-up of it, anyway) and definitely took issue with it. Some of the conclusions within are sound, such as the fact that daily exercise increases overall health, even if there was no significant weight loss. However, the headline is clearly there for shock value and many of the study's results and practices are very questionable.

One serious issue is that the exercise wasn't strictly monitored or observed. Were people actually honest in reporting their results? What do they consider "moderate-intensity exercise"? They seem to indicate that everyone used a treadmill - what is the justification for that? Why not, for example, moderate-intensity weight training or hundreds of other alternatives? Even more importantly, if "most of the participants had resorted to exercising as much as they chose to", how is this study at all useful?

The other issue, of course, is that this study/article seem to discount diet completely. You might argue that their only goal was to see if adding some daily exercise - and changing nothing else at all - is enough for weight loss. However, that's just plain stupidity: I think it's well established fact that weight loss is almost entirely controlled by the simple formula of calories in vs. calories out. If every participant burned off 300 calories a day by exercising but due to increased hunger, ate 500 additional calories each day, there is just no way they would lose weight. The article does mention that participants were "asked to restrict their food intake to between 1,200 and 1,500 calories per day" but no where in the article do they explain why these dietary values were picked (surely a 100lbs person shouldn't eat the same diet as a 200lbs person) or how they were measured, checked or enforced. If participants weren't using a site like fitday.com (or even good old fashioned pen & paper) to track their caloric intake, it is almost a certainty that they would not have accurately stayed in the 1200-1500 calorie range.

However, what really angered me was this statement: "Still, the underlying question remains: are diet and exercise a reliable cure for obesity? Modern-day obesity researchers are skeptical ? achieving thinness, they say, is not simply a matter of willpower. Research suggests that weight may largely be regulated by biology...". Bullsh*it. Obviously, you cannot deny the role of genetics, but this study can make NO conclusions about genetics whatsoever. The fact that this article indicates, without any proper evidence, that diet & exercise are not enough to control your body weight is absurd. Clearly some people gain/lose muscle and fat at different rates, but for most of us, our genetics simply define our limits and I would wager that the vast majority of people are nowhere near their genetic "limit" when it comes to being thin or healthy. A tiny tiny percentage of people have actual physical disorders that cause obsesity, but for the overwhelming majority, it IS just a matter of diet and exercise. Anyone who denies that is either trying to write a flashy, controversial article, or just bitter because some fab diet they tried failed.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
haha that study is stupid. Your body has a target that it fights hard to defend? It even said - the women that relapsed likely went back to their old habits. That has nothing to do with their body fighting to stay at a specific weight, it has to do with them being lazy and eating too much.

edit: it also referred to 'moderate intensity exercise' as walking fast. That's hardly moderate intensity.
 

Megatomic

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
20,127
6
81
Originally posted by: Deeko
haha that study is stupid. Your body has a target that it fights hard to defend? It even said - the women that relapsed likely went back to their old habits. That has nothing to do with their body fighting to stay at a specific weight, it has to do with them being lazy and eating too much.
Yup.

edit: it also referred to 'moderate intensity exercise' as walking fast. That's hardly moderate intensity.
Maybe it is for most people. It doesn't raise my heart rate anymore, but if someone works a sedentary job and is severely out of shape a fast walk might wind them.
 

brikis98

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2005
7,253
8
0
Originally posted by: Megatomic
Maybe it is for most people. It doesn't raise my heart rate anymore, but if someone works a sedentary job and is severely out of shape a fast walk might wind them.

Don't forget this was a 2 year study. Walking fast might be "moderate intensity" for an out of shape person right at the start, but if they actually did it on a daily basis, it would take no more than a few months for the same workout to become "light intensity" exercise in all but the most extreme cases of obesity and poor health.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Originally posted by: Deeko
haha that study is stupid. Your body has a target that it fights hard to defend? It even said - the women that relapsed likely went back to their old habits. That has nothing to do with their body fighting to stay at a specific weight, it has to do with them being lazy and eating too much.

edit: it also referred to 'moderate intensity exercise' as walking fast. That's hardly moderate intensity.

I've read some on the body target issue and it seems reasonable although don't press me to go get hard facts right now, but it is based on your body's metabolism. Supposedly as you gain weight beyond your body's target weight, your body should speed up it's metabolism to counter act this effect. And as you lose weight your body should slow your metabolism. However, this brings into account the constant question, well then are you honestly saying this person had a target body weight of 500lbs and it took them half their life to hit that target rate. Because if so that seems odd.

But I believe it is something that is being looked at, it usually falls under the obesity genetics discussion, you know if someone could genetically be coded to be 500lbs and if so how did that occur.

I'm a little foggy on the specifics because I'm literally recalling all this from memory.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
Well you cant lose weight if you relax with a gallon of ice cream after your 30 minutes of jogging.
That's what people do, too. They say that they cannot lose weight and they exercise, but 30 min standing mostly still in a pool or perusing around the neighborhood and then into the crap later won't do a damned thing. I don't know why people are so afraid of their heart rate. How many grown adults haven't gotten near their max heart rate since they were a kid? Pitiful! Use those damned bodies, people!
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: TallBill
Well you cant lose weight if you relax with a gallon of ice cream after your 30 minutes of jogging.
That's what people do, too. They say that they cannot lose weight and they exercise, but 30 min standing mostly still in a pool or perusing around the neighborhood and then into the crap later won't do a damned thing. I don't know why people are so afraid of their heart rate. How many grown adults haven't gotten near their max heart rate since they were a kid? Pitiful! Use those damned bodies, people!

She deserves it, and her man should love her for who she is on the inside, not on the outside! :(
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: TallBill
Well you cant lose weight if you relax with a gallon of ice cream after your 30 minutes of jogging.
That's what people do, too. They say that they cannot lose weight and they exercise, but 30 min standing mostly still in a pool or perusing around the neighborhood and then into the crap later won't do a damned thing. I don't know why people are so afraid of their heart rate. How many grown adults haven't gotten near their max heart rate since they were a kid? Pitiful! Use those damned bodies, people!

She deserves it, and her man should love her for who she is on the inside, not on the outside! :(

Bullshit, the natural reason that man is attracted to a female is based on your instincts to produce high quality offspring. You have to enjoy whats on the outside first. I would not be happy with my wife if she starting putting on the pounds. It's irresonpsible, unhealthy, and unattractive.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
32,121
32,694
146
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: TallBill
Well you cant lose weight if you relax with a gallon of ice cream after your 30 minutes of jogging.
That's what people do, too. They say that they cannot lose weight and they exercise, but 30 min standing mostly still in a pool or perusing around the neighborhood and then into the crap later won't do a damned thing. I don't know why people are so afraid of their heart rate. How many grown adults haven't gotten near their max heart rate since they were a kid? Pitiful! Use those damned bodies, people!

She deserves it, and her man should love her for who she is on the inside, not on the outside! :(

Bullshit, the natural reason that man is attracted to a female is based on your instincts to produce high quality offspring. You have to enjoy whats on the outside first. I would not be happy with my wife if she starting putting on the pounds. It's irresonpsible, unhealthy, and unattractive.
I think that statement was mockery? But to contrast your POV, which I share, there are communities in Africa, where the plumper the woman, the more desirable she is considered. For several months before a wedding, the bride to be is basically forced fed a couple of gallons of whole milk everyday. It seems that in a region where food can be scarce, and starvation common, the criteria for choosing a mate can be radically different from what we apply.

On the OP: The closing remarks of that article
Others needed more. But the keys to success, according to Jakicic, were embracing the weight-loss program fully, and finding a way around the daily obstacles to exercising ? that's something he says many of his participants were able to achieve, regardless of their socioeconomic group. So, if you're aiming to lose weight and keep it off, his message is clear: don't slack off.
Regardless of what a joke the study was, the conclusion was to not slack off. Anyone that uses the findings as justification to stop exercising, is just looking for yet another excuse.
 

gramboh

Platinum Member
May 3, 2003
2,207
0
0
I don't understand why common sense around fitness/diet is such a challenge for society. It makes so much sense once you just do it (exercise at a high but safe intensity for your level of fitness, have a reasonable diet). It's not rocket science.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: gramboh
I don't understand why common sense around fitness/diet is such a challenge for society. It makes so much sense once you just do it (exercise at a high but safe intensity for your level of fitness, have a reasonable diet). It's not rocket science.

People are so unbelievably stupid.

Weight loss = calories consumed < calories expended

There is no rocket science. Exercise more (and harder) and eat less. You'll lose weight.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: gramboh
I don't understand why common sense around fitness/diet is such a challenge for society. It makes so much sense once you just do it (exercise at a high but safe intensity for your level of fitness, have a reasonable diet). It's not rocket science.

People are so unbelievably stupid.

Weight loss = calories consumed < calories expended

There is no rocket science. Exercise more (and harder) and eat less. You'll lose weight.

There's a constant search for the "easy" fix. There's always a current "diet evil" that so-called experts claim are the cause for all of our health woes. First it was fat, then saturated fat, then sugar, then carbs, then trans fat, then non-whole-wheat carbs.

People don't understand that those things will always be replaced by something else - trans fats only exist because the public came to think saturated fat was so terrible, so they "manufactured" replacements.

The simplest solution is clearly the correct one - calories in < calories out - but people don't want to believe that, because it's harder to keep up.
 

polarmystery

Diamond Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,888
8
81
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: gramboh
I don't understand why common sense around fitness/diet is such a challenge for society. It makes so much sense once you just do it (exercise at a high but safe intensity for your level of fitness, have a reasonable diet). It's not rocket science.

People are so unbelievably stupid.

Weight loss = calories consumed < calories expended

There is no rocket science. Exercise more (and harder) and eat less. You'll lose weight.

I think your statements are too complex. You might have to stop using formulas with the "=" and "<" signs and use grunts and mouth clicks instead to appeal to the masses.