Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Time' misuses the facts about exercise

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Pego
    Originally posted by lovetorun
    I think there is no question that you would be healthier...
    I beg to differ that a formal, regular aerobic exercise would lead to health any more than an active lifestyle. That is my contention from the beginning. You say, there is no question about it. Your opinion, or do you have supportive evidence?
    I guess that would depend on the degree of the activity.

    I do agree with you that an active lifestyle does offset the need for formal exercise to a great extent.

    To what extent is the question?
    The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Helen S
      Focusing on what you bathroom scale tells you does not really tell the whole story. I am sure lots of people start an excercise program, work out for six weeks, and give up in disgust when their scale says they did not lose any weight. What they don't know is that they really lost 3 percent of their body fat, and grew some muscle to replace that wieght.
      I also felt that blanketing all exercisers as rewarding themselves with extra calories was incorrect.
      I agree.

      I wish I was one of the people who was incorrectly labeled. ops:

      A friend of mine says that he runs so he can eat whatever he wants.

      He says he hates running and thats the only reason he does it.

      I suspect that many people share a similar motive.
      The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

      Comment


      • #18
        Every body is different, so you can't throw a blanket statement over every person in the world. Jeff Galloway says if you run for an hour a day, you can eat anything you want. For some maybe, but not for me. If I did that and then had a burger and a milkshake, I'm gaining weight. I know this because I've experienced it.

        For the most part, I agree with Time's article. Losing weight is 99% diet and 1% exercise. For me at least. And probably for most who have to battle weight. Thing is, many distance runners are blessed with a high metabolism anyhow and don't have to worry about weight.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by BillVol
          Losing weight is 99% diet and 1% exercise.
          This does not factor in that regular exercise changes your whole metabolism. One cannot factor in the calories burnt due to exercise alone. In general, those that exercise regularly also burn more calories when resting. But, it depends on your definition of regulalry.

          Exercise of the intensity and duration commonly performed by recreational exercisers (e.g., walking for 30- 60 minutes or jogging at a pace of 8-10 minutes per mile for 20-30 minutes) typically results in a return to baseline of energy expenditure well within the first hour of recovery. The post-exercise calorie bonus for this type of exercise probably accounts for only about 10-30 additional calories burned beyond the exercise bout itself.

          In athletes performing high intensity, long duration exercise, the post-exercise energy expenditure may remain elevated for a longer period and could contribute significantly to total daily calorie burning. Ironically, such athletes are typically less concerned about this “extra” calorie burning and its implications for body weight regulation than are the recreational exercisers.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Daisy
            Originally posted by BillVol
            Losing weight is 99% diet and 1% exercise.
            This does not factor in that regular exercise changes your whole metabolism. One cannot factor in the calories burnt due to exercise alone. In general, those that exercise regularly also burn more calories when resting. But, it depends on your definition of regulalry.

            Exercise of the intensity and duration commonly performed by recreational exercisers (e.g., walking for 30- 60 minutes or jogging at a pace of 8-10 minutes per mile for 20-30 minutes) typically results in a return to baseline of energy expenditure well within the first hour of recovery. The post-exercise calorie bonus for this type of exercise probably accounts for only about 10-30 additional calories burned beyond the exercise bout itself.

            In athletes performing high intensity, long duration exercise, the post-exercise energy expenditure may remain elevated for a longer period and could contribute significantly to total daily calorie burning. Ironically, such athletes are typically less concerned about this “extra” calorie burning and its implications for body weight regulation than are the recreational exercisers.
            Doesn't change my metabolism a whole lot. Others maybe. But not mine. On the other hand, how many obese people have you seen lose weight without any exercise at all. Thousands, probably millions.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by BillVol
              Thing is, many distance runners are blessed with a high metabolism anyhow and don't have to worry about weight.
              Precisely. As the perennial cause-and-effect question goes. In this case, "are you healthy, because you exercise, or do you exercise, because you are healthy?"
              "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
              by Thomas Henry Huxley

              Comment


              • #22
                Good points, Bill.
                The fool has said...there is no God. Psa 14

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Pego
                  As the perennial cause-and-effect question goes. In this case, "are you healthy, because you exercise, or do you exercise, because you are healthy?"
                  Yep, bummer, when we can't pigeon hole everything.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Pego
                    Originally posted by lovetorun
                    I think there is no question that you would be healthier...
                    I beg to differ that a formal, regular aerobic exercise would lead to health any more than an active lifestyle. That is my contention from the beginning. You say, there is no question about it. Your opinion, or do you have supportive evidence?
                    Just my opinion based on personal experience (seeing the failing energy/health of so many of my friends from my youth who don't share my regular aerobic exercise habit; but then, they don't eat healthy either) and also my studies at BYU as a Health Education student both under graduate and graduate. Many of Ken Cooper's studies show measurable improvement in cardio-vascular function and heart disease prevention.

                    But then your point is that a person who is generally active may be just as "healthy". But, for this to be meaningful we would have to define "healthy" and how much and what kind of exercise is done by a person with an "active lifestyle".

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      You have no argument from me on any of these accounts.
                      "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                      by Thomas Henry Huxley

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X