Exercise is way overrated and muscle won't burn much fat, says the NY Times

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 4:08 PM GMT
    Check it out:

    http://tinyurl.com/3bcpgx
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 4:29 PM GMT
    icon_eek.gif

    That's it. I quit.

    icon_cry.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 4:32 PM GMT
    I feel better being active than when sitting around all the time. That's enough reason for me.

    When I exercise and am stronger, I can do more due to that strength, like lift a 4'x8' 13-ply sheet of plywood.

    Cardio gives me greater stamina, endurence and breath. For essential activities, like flying around the floor doing the 2-Step!!!

    Just stretching can make the day better, tho. With the muscles loosened, I can move about and do things easier. I am not fighting my own muscles when I have to stretch to do something.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 4:38 PM GMT
    Wyrlin: ... icon_lol.gif ... icon_lol.gif ... icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 4:43 PM GMT
    I like my cheese... One tiny ass piece is a mile...
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 13, 2008 4:50 PM GMT
    This is the kind of thing that makes most of middle America tune out and sit in front of the TV

    While most of what the article is saying is basically true...some of it is dangerously false but the skinny of it says moderate exercise in the form of walking and getting your blood pressure under control is what you wanna do
    where it veers off into dangerous territory is when it says that "muscle has a very low metabolic rate when it's at rest" .... Okay sweetheart why are we talking about having people live their lives AT REST?

    I can just see waves of moderately obese people lookign for an excuse not to exercise clippin' this article out along with a coupon for a bag of potato chips
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 5:19 PM GMT
    Next thing you know they will say fast food is good for you. I would not expect less from probably the most obese country in the world with enough health problems to make an insurance agent have nightmares and pharmacautical companies squeal with orgasmic delight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 5:28 PM GMT
    People who really don't WANT to exercise will use this as their alibi and stay unhealthy. The rest of my intelligent brethren on here know differently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 5:30 PM GMT
    sell them papers, make the lazy fat people happy!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 5:34 PM GMT
    They say:

    "Jack Wilmore, an exercise physiologist at Texas A & M University, calculated that the average amount of muscle that men gained after a serious 12-week weight-lifting program was 2 kilograms, or 4.4 pounds. That added muscle would increase the metabolic rate by only 24 calories a day."

    First, 12 weeks is pretty pitiful. How about over 5 years? Second, 4.4 pounds of muscle, repeated for a year, would be about 17 pounds of muscle, and about 100 calories a day, NOT COUNTING the amount spent exercising. Riding a bike 30 minutes at a moderate clip would add 200 more, and lifting probably about the same. So that's around 500 a day on days you work out.

    As for the claim that the muscle gains are "miniscule compared to the amount of skeletal muscle," well they must not be doing squats and dead lifts.

    It seems like all the studies are either of people who try a little bit (like 12 weeks), and then expect big results, or of people who go all out, and expect there to be no negative effects. Where's a study of someone doing an intensive but reasonable program of weights and cardio over 5 years?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 5:43 PM GMT
    Well, I like what this article is attempting (granted its not a good attempt) to do because we all see it represented everyday at the gym. I see guys that do twice as much cardio as I do but never seem to loose a pound. I think the article illustrates the point that most people will undo all the benefits of their exercise if they still ignore their diets. I think there are plenty of people that still don't get that concept.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 5:49 PM GMT
    This is a good example of bad journalism. It picks and chooses facts and then applies them to all aspects of exercise.
    Just to mention a few issues:
    They mention 'moderate exercise' without defining it. Although they allude to walking and weights, they don't specifically say what 'moderate' is. My company has a health and fitness focus, but what they refer to as 'moderate' in terms of exercise would seem to me to be only slightly above a sedentary life. This program is based on some AMA standards but they consider 'a lot' of exercise as being 3 hours a week. I don't think I exercise 'a lot' and I spend 7-9 hours a week. There are plenty of guys who spend so much more time at it than I (and it shows on them nicely).

    The article mentions weights but not how much, whether it's constant weight, or progressive resistance, whether it's low weight, or high, or is it for toning, muscle building, or specific sport related strength training.

    Lastly, while the logic of the observations defining whether people at the gym are thin because they go to the gym or is it that it's mostly people who are thin that go to gyms. It's logical in semantics but not based on real statictics. I don't know anyone who's gone to a gym who's bodyfat had increased over muscle weight. I know plenty of people such as myself, who've lost weight, improved blood pressure, and improved overall general health.

    While anecdotal information is just that, It doesn't mean that it has to be dismissed. It would seem that the author has an obvious bias against exercise IMHO. While excercise may not be for everyone, just because you don't like it (meaning the author) doesn't mean that it's doesn't help anyone.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 5:53 PM GMT
    tanktop saidThey say:

    "Jack Wilmore, an exercise physiologist at Texas A & M University, calculated that the average amount of muscle that men gained after a serious 12-week weight-lifting program was 2 kilograms, or 4.4 pounds. That added muscle would increase the metabolic rate by only 24 calories a day."

    First, 12 weeks is pretty pitiful. How about over 5 years? Second, 4.4 pounds of muscle, repeated for a year, would be about 17 pounds of muscle, and about 100 calories a day, NOT COUNTING the amount spent exercising. Riding a bike 30 minutes at a moderate clip would add 200 more, and lifting probably about the same. So that's around 500 a day on days you work out.

    As for the claim that the muscle gains are "miniscule compared to the amount of skeletal muscle," well they must not be doing squats and dead lifts.

    It seems like all the studies are either of people who try a little bit (like 12 weeks), and then expect big results, or of people who go all out, and expect there to be no negative effects. Where's a study of someone doing an intensive but reasonable program of weights and cardio over 5 years?


    not even 5 years how about 1-2 years...even that would be a decent time frame
  • himuratiger

    Posts: 3

    Jan 13, 2008 5:54 PM GMT
    I've got to agree with tanktop, this "study" looks a little sensationalized. He's especially right concerning the metabolic funtion of muscle at rest versus the amount of calories you burn during the workout.

    Regarding osteoporosis, I'm pretty sure working out isn't going to reverse the effects of aging, but your bones will still respond to the stresses placed on them regarldess of age. The osteoblasts, while outpaced by the osteoclasts that break down cells during old age, will still broduce the bone matrix throughout your lifetime, and the more weight-bearing excercise you do, the more those cells will respond and grow your bone tissue.

    I would agree, however, that proper diet is essential to weight loss. If you're eating 5000 callories a day and burning 3000, there's going to be some problems! XD

    Anyway, NY Times isn't going to be the best source for your fitness information. People need stories, and nothing makes a good story like controversy, so they're not going to necessarily give all the facts. This time. They'll give you the rest in next week's column. ;-)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 5:54 PM GMT
    I forgot to mention the issue that bwg77 brings up and that is diet and nutrition. (Thanks bwg77)

    Also the issue which I only touched on is the idea of weight as a measurement without defining the bodyfat percentage attribute.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 5:58 PM GMT
    Yeah, this is an interesting article. You expect it to tell you to relax and have another beer. But then it turns out that exercise is so strongly correlated with health benefits that something about it must be good for you. Or at least being the kind of person who exercises will somehow (mysteriously, in ways researchers cannot quite pin down) extend your life. I guess I will try to keep those new year's resolutions I made after all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 5:59 PM GMT
    I think it would be interesting to see a full body shot of the authoricon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 6:14 PM GMT
    Here Luckydog76, not a full body shot but gives you an idea:

    kolata_190.jpg

    If you follow the comment link on the article page, you get a better sense of her opinion. She believes most people that are trying to loose weight simply don't watch their diets carefully enough and therefor get discouraged with the lack of results from exercise alone. I completely agree with her on this point but it's almost irresponsible of her to be so dismissive of the numerous benefits of exercise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 6:23 PM GMT
    +1, bwg!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 6:39 PM GMT
    A fat person's ammo.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 6:41 PM GMT
    in other news, those who are alive will eventually succumb to death. no matter how hard you work out at weight training and diet you will eventually lose it as it will end in death.



    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 9:11 PM GMT
    I have been having a debate about tis very subject recently with representatives of the UK health authorities who are engaged in a Global enterprise tackling obesity.

    There seem to be two warring factions going on at the second. In its essence the article is right in that exercise is hugely inefficient for fat loss, that is undeniable (comprehension of this is what is lacking), the problem they face is that they feel exercise is being rammed down the faces of the obese and simply overweight. Now a large proportion o fthis population is just turned off to the message as soon as exercise is bought into the equation. They then dont listen to the facts ie eat less

    So on the one hand you have the:

    Fitness is the panacea advocates
    and on the other

    Eat healthier, eat less nutrition is the panacea.

    Now the war that is going on at the second is that the powers that be feel it is too much for the public to comprehend to take in a simultaneous message of " eat health and take regular exercise to reduce your weight and improve your health".

    I mean good god if people on here cant even get their head around the facts and we are a little more clued up how the heck is a couch potato whos only energys spent is switching cable channels and dialling for a pizza gonna work it out
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 9:15 PM GMT
    One thing I would add tho that the average muscle weight added in 12 weeks was 2 kgs! Jesus that training and diet sucks I think he needs to re-evaluate his training philosophy and that he gives to his clients!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 9:17 PM GMT
    GQjock saidI can just see waves of moderately obese people lookign for an excuse not to exercise clippin' this article out along with a coupon for a bag of potato chips


    Not arguing with you here but is this any different to waives of meatheads reading a little about creatine, or insulin sensitivity or or or or the list could go on
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2008 9:40 PM GMT
    Has anyone else read this book by her:

    41735VYY5ZL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-5

    I wouldn't reccomend it, that's for sure.

    x