Time Magazine article

[Crankin]

Has anyone else seen the cover page of this week's Time Mag? The story is titled "The Myth About Exercise." While I don't necessarily disagree with what the article says (people think they can go to the gym for 30 minutes a day and then eat a blueberry muffin afterwards; then they wonder why they don't lose weight. ... basically that exercise prevents disease, but is not that useful in weight loss), I wish they had titled it differently. It made me feel like people will now say, "OK, I don't have to exercise at all," because they won't read the whole thing.
It also made me feel somewhat freakish because I was able to change my eating habits years ago and I have been able to continue. Yes, when I ride hard, I do get hungrier, but since I don't reward myself with donuts, like the article implied, I don't gain weight. Yes, I have had to limit myself more as the years go on, but I don't think anyone would consider my diet restrictive, unless you feel you have to have desserts, junk food, or soda all of the time.
I guess my fear of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity is enough to keep me going...

[jobob]

Eh, they need to sell magazines, hence the title.

I'll check it out though, thanks for the heads up.

[limewave]

I just skimmed the article and plan on reading the entire thing tonight after kids are in bed.

From the gist of it, I would say I have to agree. I was most successful losing weight when I did moderate exercise, maybe 30 minutes a day, and really watched what I ate.

When I trained for a marathon to try and lose baby-weight, I ended up gaining 3 pounds over the course of the year even though I was exercising a TON.

There are a lot of people out there who think they can lose weight by just increasing their exercise while they continue to eat a half a bag of potato chips followed by a pint of ice cream (DH . . .). And that just isn't the case.

[jobob]

There are a lot of people out there who think they can lose weight by just increasing their exercise while they continue to eat a half a bag of potato chips followed by a pint of ice cream

you left out the beer.

:o :o :o :D

[bmccasland]

I've been amused/perplexed by the magazines that have some high calorie dessert on the cover and a banner article headline about loosing weight. :confused:

[Trek420]

I've been amused/perplexed by the magazines that have some high calorie dessert on the cover and a banner article headline about loosing weight. :confused:

That's because "moderate exercise, fit into your daily routine such as walking or biking to work, taking the stairs instead of the escalator, gardening instead of watching TV, walking or running with your dog instead of doing the treadmill at a gym or buying a Thighmaster for only 12 easy payments of $9.99, and eating food that's made from real food in moderation unless it's chocolate" ...... doesn't have an advertising agency, budget, lobby or infomercial. :rolleyes:

It has us ;) doing it and looking faaaaabulous.

[BleeckerSt_Girl]

This reminds me of the other sensationalized article recently stating that organic produce is no more nutritious than non-organic produce. although that's 'debatable'- even if it were true and they were both equally 'nutritious' in terms of having the same nutrients- they are conveniently forgetting about the fact that organic produce is HEALTHIER to eat because it is not coated with pesticide residue. :mad:

I hate it when they do a little writer's 'twist' of the facts in order to get people to buy the publication.

[shootingstar]

It would be useful for mainstream magazines like Time, etc. to publish articles how a person's diet does need to change as they age when their normal metabolism slows down, etc. Not just women over 50 need xxxx calories. Doesn't help much since it's the composition of those calories and nutrients that are more important.

Or if one wants to "treat' themselves occasionally, when the best time period of the day to have such a treat. (ie. much earlier in the day).

Also to follow up on the arthritis topic thread elsewhere, the value of exercise for not just weight control, but reduction of other problems over time, is not even addressed at all in article.

Nor did article remind people, the general rule of thumb is to only eat feeling 80% full.

I am though, genuinely puzzled by some people who don't exercise much but do eat carefully and healthily. Like my 80 yr. old father. Methinks the only exercise he does is 25 min. round trip walk to the store several times a wk. to buy a paper or housework and light yardwork (raking, sweeping) with my mother. He is at the right weight, no cardiovascular/respiratory problems, etc. He rarely eats sweets/hardly any sugar in diet, no drinking nor smoking.

It also bums me out that he eats double the amount of white rice at his age with no negative effect, whereas I can't do eat that same amount without feeling like lousy because of blood sugar spike.

[emily_in_nc]

This reminds me of the other sensationalized article recently stating that organic produce is no more nutritious than non-organic produce. although that's 'debatable'- even if it were true and they were both equally 'nutritious' in terms of having the same nutrients- they are conveniently forgetting about the fact that organic produce is HEALTHIER to eat because it is not coated with pesticide residue. :mad:

That bugged the h*ll out of me too, Lisa! I don't eat organic produce b/c it's more "nutritious". I eat it because it's not grown with possibly harmful pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or fungicides; and to support small, local farms and small-scale growers who are some of the best stewards of our environment around. Not to mention that organic produce often tastes better because it's often not picked as early to be processed and shipped cross-country and has more time to ripen naturally in the field or on the vine.

[Trek420]

..... I don't eat organic produce b/c it's more "nutritious". I eat it because it's not grown with possibly harmful pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or fungicides

Bingo. Traditional fertilizers are made from patrol based products. One way to reduce dependance on oil is to eat organic. More important it gets that &^% out of our air, water, water table .... and on and in the bodies of the men and women who grow and pick our food. :( Think how dangerous it is for them.


and to support small, local farms and small-scale growers who are some of the best stewards of our environment around.

There are "traditional farms" and even huge uber-mega agribusiness style farms that are excellent land stewards. There are small local farms that are not so good at that though most are better.

To make matters more complicated organic farmers are not necessarily small, though most are relatively smaller. And "traditional" non-organic farms not necessarily big or far away.

Whew. But the thing is small organic farms still don't have the kind of clout and money to fund studies like that article. Again, they do have us. :)

What's great about farmer's markets for those of us who have 'em is you may meet the farmer or at least someone who works for them.

If you've got questions about how they grow their stuff you can ask. :)


organic produce often tastes better because it's often not picked as early to be processed and shipped cross-country and has more time to ripen naturally in the field or on the vine.

The farmers in Chile, Italy and China are fine, they do a great job :) And if you're reading this in Italy, Chile or China you may feel the same about buying "local to me" Sonoma wine or goat cheeses.

But why use all that energy to fly or ship produce when we grow it here?

And .... by buying local wherever in the world you are you preserve rural agricultural regions that are GREAT to ride in :p

[Biciclista]

This reminds me of the other sensationalized article recently stating that organic produce is no more nutritious than non-organic produce. although that's 'debatable'- even if it were true and they were both equally 'nutritious' in terms of having the same nutrients- they are conveniently forgetting about the fact that organic produce is HEALTHIER to eat because it is not coated with pesticide residue. :mad:

I hate it when they do a little writer's 'twist' of the facts in order to get people to buy the publication.

a coworker of my husband who is seriously overweight and has sleep apnea (and falls asleep snoring loudly almost every day at work) made fun of my husband because we buy organic produce from a farmshare. "See, (because of the article) it's all BS about Organically grown produce"

[Trek420]

So the guy with sleep apnea and probably a slew of other health issues that may or may not be related to his being obese is teasing the fit and health conscious couple????

Coming to a theatre near you. :cool:

http://www.foodincmovie.com

[solveig]

I read the Time article last night, and it bothered me too. They are right that many people go overboard with their "compensation" for exercise with lots of heavy food. (Like my dad who rides his bike 7 miles to the tavern for a beer & a cheeseburger...)

But the article didn't really go into what kind of food people can eat when exercise amps up their metabolism, nor did it talk about eating frequently so that you never get ravenous enough to demolish 3 pieces of cake at night.

It was an article designed to provoke controversy, and I can't wait to see the letters next week, hopefully from some people with lots of letters behind their names.

I am completely confident that regular, varied, FUN exercise helped me drop and keep off the 65 lbs I lost, and more importantly, it helped me learn what my body needs and wants. And taught me I can do more than I think I can, and helped me stay sane, etc, etc.

[Crankin]

Exactly.
Thirty years ago, my dad told me that I was "getting a little piggish looking." Not nice, but true. Right then and there I stopped partying, going out to happy hour and eating fast food. I ate no red meat for 2 years and upped my fruit/veggie intake. I also started walking and doing calisthenics. I lost 25 pounds, even if it took me a year. I have never gained it back, except during pregnancy (each time it took me 4 months to lose the pregnancy weight) and the one time it started to come back is when I started cycling. My type of exercise may have changed, but even though I could not have done this without good nutrition, I most certainly could not have done it without exercise. I would have had to starve myself and I would have been one of those "skinny" girls with high body fat and no endurance.
I hope my friend who recently went to a trainer to "get rid of her bat wings" doesn't see this. She told me that she told the trainer she only wanted to work the one muscle that she thought was flabby (after the woman tried to explain about opposing muscle groups) and that she didn't "want to get muscles." I am tired of people telling me they can't do what I do. OK, but they can do something.

[witeowl]

It was an article designed to provoke controversy

Yup. Why give it a rational title like "Why Exercise Alone Won't Make You Thin"?

This article angered me on so many levels. The valid parts can be summed up as this: Be careful not to overeat as a reaction to hunger from exercise or because you think you "earned" it. Whether or not you exercise, you need to watch how much you eat. But that wouldn't have been much of an article, right? :rolleyes:

I have a more complete reaction at my blog, if it's OK to say that.

[PscyclePath]

I get Time from some sort of promotion deal, and finally got around to reading this week's edition late last night. I thought the article was very poorly written... Their premise being that exersise alone induces one to eat more... and conveniently forgetting to mention that any sort of weight loss plan includes more exercise and less eating... Exercise + diet control.

But then their business is to sell advertising & magazines, not necessarily to give advice :p

[witeowl]

Since they're also in the business of selling advertising, but wrote something much more even-handed, I think they deserve to be rewarded, so I'm linking to this everywhere I can. Runner's World has the best response to the Time article I've seen yet here (http://peakperformance.runnersworld.com/2009/08/people-are-already-talking-about-this-weeks-issue-of-time--magazine-it-arrived-in-my-mailbox-saturday-morning-with-a-bright.html).

[jobob]

I was reading (OK, skimming :rolleyes:) the online version of the article (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857,00.html) and I thought they did a reasonable job of stressing that it wasn't exercise alone that would do the trick, and that one really had to watch calorie intake as well for any meaningful weight loss. But maybe I was reading it through my own filter.

The online version also has links to many other articles, plus a video with Jillian Michaels taking a Time.com producer through their company cafeteria where she points out foods to pile up on and foods to avoid. It was nothing that I didn't already know, but I thought it wasn't half bad, and it might be a real eye-opener for those who don't know differently.

[GLC1968]

Thanks for posting that link, Witeowl - that's a great summary/response!

[jobob]

Maybe with all the attention it's created, hopefully Time will follow up with another article picking up on the points made by Runner's World and others. They have the momentum and the attention now, they may as well capitalize on it. :cool:

[NoNo]

I read the online article over the weekend, and generally agreed with it. Especially when I brought it up to my parents and realized just how distorted their views on food, mainly portion sizes, are. My brother and I tried to explain how their favorite restaurant was giving them two, maybe three servings in each dish and they were polishing the whole thing off. Dad adamantly denied there could be that many portions, and also insisted that his snacks are good because they're organic so there isn't a bunch of crap in there. I said they're better than regular cookies, but their still bad if you eat half the bag. Eat the portion size, and you're ok, but he said he'd starve if he did that, no one could possibly eat that little:rolleyes: Take that attitude, spread it out over the country, and that's why we're in the mess we are.

[Aquila]

What struck me about the article was how the writer wasn't having fun at all exercising. Ugh, it sounded like punishment, so of course he wanted muffins or whatever as a reward.

It's hard to lose weight, even exercising regularly and trying to watch my intake, but as least my bike is loads of fun to ride in the process!

[katluvr]

[QUOTE=solveig;453216]... (Like my dad who rides his bike 7 miles to the tavern for a beer & a cheeseburger...) QUOTE]

I must admit I do try this sometimes...usually it is a bit longer than 7 miles;)
And just why doesn't this work? I REALLY wish it would!:p

[Mr. Bloom]

I'm a perfect example:
Last year, I rode 4,049.16 miles - 90 POUNDS OF CALORIC BURN.

I lost no weight...although I lost a lot the prior year.

I ride so I can eat.:D:o:eek:

[katluvr]

I agree w/ Mr. Silver--I ride so I can EAT and DRINK. I have yet to find the balance--but I plan to. I do need/want to lose weight. And I know that once I begin my marathon training plan weight lose most likely WILL not happen (fueling for the endurance). So my goal is to LOSE it before.

But it is frustrating at times that endurance sports for many of use do not equate to weight lose. Maybe it d/t body type, genetics. I used to say all I had to do was look at chocolate cake and I gained weight!

[leathela]

I was really bothered by this article! I apologize if I'm reiterating what anyone else has already said on this thread, but I found the piece to be very one-sided and pessimistic. Yes, exercise alone may not be enough to achieve lasting weight loss, and you probably will gain weight if you run 3 miles and then proceed to eat a 500-calorie muffin from Starbucks (as noted in the article). The article rightly claims that people grossly overestimate the amount of calories burned during a typical workout. Not to sound elitist or judgmental, but this seems so intuitive to me: not breaking news, and not really worthy of TIME cover.

(I know that kind of does sound elitist and judgmental--I've always been active and interested in health and fitness, and I guess I sometimes forget that what seems obvious to me in this area isn't always obvious to others. That's my fault).

Anyway, the problem for me in this piece really rested in the notion that exercise is performed mainly at the gym--40 rote, tedious minutes on a stairclimber. Unless you truly love the gym (people do), I think that losing weight IS difficult because you lose motivation quickly. When you're exercising to meet a possibly unattainable goal - and not necessarily for the sake of your health or to improve your strength, flexibility, endurance, etc. - you can become easily discouraged when you don't see tangible progress within a certain amount of time. Then, people give up. In my opinion, the article fails to really consider the benefits of engaging in physical activity that you love, like cycling. When you're passionate about an activity, you don't conceive it purely as "exercise"...it's part of your daily routine, your life. I think weight loss/weight maintenance has *so* much to do with an inspired, empowered mindset. Activity shouldn't be viewed as drudgery. If the gym (or any other activity) is not appealing and doesn't leave you feeling strong and healthy, you owe it to yourself to find something that does. The TIME article really didn't address the sense of freedom and empowerment that comes with finding an activity that excites and challenges you, and I think it was remiss in leaving that very important aspect out. Also, when you find something you love to do and are apt to commit to, you will eventually find your ideal weight, on your own schedule.

[PscyclePath]

As a favorite legislator is fond of saying, "How many people are stuck in traffic right now, driving to the gym to ride a stationary bike?"



... way too many.

[gnat23]

Chris Carmichael also has a nice retort:
http://www.trainright.com/news.asp?uid=4653

"There’s no doubt that some exercisers hinder their progress by overcompensating for the calories they burn during workouts, but that’s a behavior that’s easy to change, not an indictment of exercise’s role in weight management."

-- gnat!

[witeowl]

"There’s no doubt that some exercisers hinder their progress by overcompensating for the calories they burn during workouts, but that’s a behavior that’s easy to change, not an indictment of exercise’s role in weight management."

Nicely put!

[Jolt]

As a favorite legislator is fond of saying, "How many people are stuck in traffic right now, driving to the gym to ride a stationary bike?"



... way too many.

I like that quote!! It makes me think of a conversation I had with a friend just a few days ago and she made the comment that the whole concept of having to go to the gym is ridiculous--in other words, that most people's daily life contains so little physical activity that we have to have gyms, and it just seems silly when you think about it. So true. If things weren't set up in such a way as to encourage or even require (office jobs, things being so far away one has no choice but to drive) people to sit on their bum all day, there would be much less need for gyms etc. It would also help if the average person felt safe walking and/or biking around their neighborhood--in a lot of places that isn't the case, whether because of crime issues, bad road design, crazy traffic or lack of sidewalks.

[smilingcat]

Thank you for the heads up. :mad:

Now I know what to look forward to at my work tomorrow. :(

meh!! I just have to think about my bp, 90-100/55-60 and and my heartrate, in low 50s, and I think about theirs. :D

[CyclingBeast]

Its all about getting a balance of energy intake and energy output. If you take in more than you burn, of course you're going to put on weight.

This article just annoyed me. I personally prefer the NewScientist - much more scientific and treats you as if you have actually had an education...

[RolliePollie]

I'm a perfect example:
Last year, I rode 4,049.16 miles - 90 POUNDS OF CALORIC BURN.

I lost no weight...although I lost a lot the prior year.

I ride so I can eat.:D:o:eek:

This is similar to my experience. I ride so I can eat...and I don't lose weight. I'm riding about 8-9 hours per week (100+ hilly miles) right now, and I am hungry! Even though I basically eat whatever I want, my weight stays pretty steady. Unfortunately, in the winter, my cycling appetite seems to stick around. This is why I weighed 153 my first cycling season, 159 my second cycling season, and 168 this cycling season. Argh. This winter I think I will sit on the couch, as suggested by the article, and eat less.

I read the whole article I thought they made a few good points. But in general, I found the article irritating and borderline ridiculous. I didn't like the tone of it...not all of us consider exercise torture! I'm not sure who they're going to help by downplaying exercise as part of a healthy lifestyle.

[Tuckervill]

I read the online article over the weekend, and generally agreed with it. Especially when I brought it up to my parents and realized just how distorted their views on food, mainly portion sizes, are. My brother and I tried to explain how their favorite restaurant was giving them two, maybe three servings in each dish and they were polishing the whole thing off. Dad adamantly denied there could be that many portions, and also insisted that his snacks are good because they're organic so there isn't a bunch of crap in there. I said they're better than regular cookies, but their still bad if you eat half the bag. Eat the portion size, and you're ok, but he said he'd starve if he did that, no one could possibly eat that little:rolleyes: Take that attitude, spread it out over the country, and that's why we're in the mess we are.

Your parents need to take this quiz: Portion Distortion (http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/portion/)

It's been posted here before, but it's always good to get it in front of new eyes.

Karen

[OakLeaf]

I only just skimmed this one (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458-1,00.html) so far, but it looks like Time gets it right this time.

[redrhodie]

I only just skimmed this one (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1917458-1,00.html) so far, but it looks like Time gets it right this time.

I can see why you skimmed it. That first paragraph is so gross. I'll get too upset if I read it.

[OakLeaf]

Ha, actually I skimmed it because it seemed like it wasn't anything I hadn't read many times before...

"Gross" doesn't even begin to describe the food industry.

[Jiffer]

I lost 60 pounds without doing a lick of exercise and kept it off for 10 years. In fact, I STOPPED exercising and focused on controlling the amount of food I ate and pounds started falling off. I don't recommend no exercise and have the cellulite that grew during that time to prove that point. Obviously it's necessary for good health, which makes me so glad I discovered cycling. Also good for toning and losing inches. However, for the purpose of losing fat, I have found it absolutely true that exercise is not "necessary". The more you exert yourself, the more fuel you need. The less you exert yourself, the less fuel you need. So whether you exercise or not, you have to learn to listen to your body's hunger and fullness signals.

[witeowl]

I lost 60 pounds without doing a lick of exercise and kept it off for 10 years.

I think you'll find that the people objecting to the article aren't arguing with the idea that exercise is not necessary for weight loss... We're affronted by the article's more-than-implied message that exercise is counterproductive for weight loss.

[NoNo]

Your parents need to take this quiz: Portion Distortion (http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/portion/)

It's been posted here before, but it's always good to get it in front of new eyes.

Karen

Thanks, I'll pass that on. I'm sure it'll lead to an interesting debate and my dad will find some way to discredit it.

Edit: I just went through both slide shows and was pretty close on the calories and exercise times. Score! :p

[katluvr]

I am reading Born to Run....very interesting read.
Making me really think about my shoes and my diet. But I'll stick to the "diet" discussion.
I always say I feel better w/ protein (higher amount) -- but I look at animal products for it. In this book there is more talk about the more vegetarian or vegan diet. Carbs are not bad...but you have to know and think of fruit and veggies as your carbs. So I am thinking about that as I try and lose weight. Can I eat/live/fuel with a more vegan type diet? Again I thinkk it is back to eating things in their natural state.
I have biked and run for years now and continue to battle my weight. I have never lost the last 10 or 15 pounds. My training goes up and down --but I know it comes down to what I eat. Or how much.

I have never lost weight easy. I have never be "rail" thin. So even if I run/bike/ etc.... is it my genetics or my eating that keeps me this way? (Trust me I have change my eating habits many times and many diff ways).:confused:

Just musing a bit here....

[NoNo]

Ok, I have to rant. Just had an exchange with my friend. He eats like a 5 year old and it continually annoys me how poor his nutrition is. Well, he just tried to tell me that Fuze (those horrid "vitamin" drinks pumped out by Coca Cola) is good for you! "Carbs: 1, sugar: 0" Uh, hi. See that little thing called "sucralose"? What exactly do you think that is? "It's not listed as a sugar because it doesn't interact with the body that way sugar does." Yes, because it's pure chemicals! How about the pleasant-sounding acesulfame potassium? Mmmmmm, that sure does sound tasty! That's well worth avoiding 15 calories per teaspoon of pure, natural sugar! Sign me up!

*ugh* People annoy me.:mad:

[witeowl]

Yes, because it's pure chemicals!

Whatever you do, stay away from Dihydrogen Monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/). It's also pure chemicals! But no one talks about this substance. "They" tell you that it's a necessary part of all foods and beverages (it's particularly heavy in beverages), and even have the gall to say that it's a necessary part of good hygiene (as if!) but too much of it has been proven to be fatal, even from only inhalation - not even actually consumption! :eek: That's not even the half of it. You really need to read the site to learn about the full dangers from DHMO!

Oh, and after you finish the link I gave you above, you might want to go to Wikipedia to learn more about DHMO.

Since I'm part of the group "people", and therefore I already annoy you, I'm not worried about annoying you more. ; )

[Jolt]

Whatever you do, stay away from Dihydrogen Monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/). It's also pure chemicals! But no one talks about this substance. "They" tell you that it's a necessary part of all foods and beverages (it's particularly heavy in beverages), and even have the gall to say that it's a necessary part of good hygiene (as if!) but too much of it has been proven to be fatal, even from only inhalation - not even actually consumption! :eek: That's not even the half of it. You really need to read the site to learn about the full dangers from DHMO!

Oh, and after you finish the link I gave you above, you might want to go to Wikipedia to learn more about DHMO.

Since I'm part of the group "people", and therefore I already annoy you, I'm not worried about annoying you more. ; )

Highly recommended that you check this out and educate yourself about DHMO.

[witeowl]

Highly recommended that you check this out and educate yourself about DHMO.

You know, I still can't believe that regulatory agencies aren't mandating that DHMO be included on ingredient lists. We can't even properly keep track of our exposure. :mad:

[Owlie]

Highly recommended that you check this out and educate yourself about DHMO.

*Snort* Jolt and witeowl, I love you.

[maillotpois]

yup, that stuff'll kill you.... :cool:

Is that website for real? It is a total crack up. "Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks." Snort!

[NoNo]

Laugh all you want, but I don't trust any of those "just like sugar!" sweeteners. If I want something sweetened, I'm going to use sugar, not a sugar-like substance created in a lab. No one knows what the long term effects of these newer, "safer" sweeteners are. Why take the risk? Oh, that's right. The FDA has never approved something that later turned out to be harmful.:rolleyes:

[Owlie]

Laugh all you want, but I don't trust any of those "just like sugar!" sweeteners. If I want something sweetened, I'm going to use sugar, not a sugar-like substance created in a lab. No one knows what the long term effects of these newer, "safer" sweeteners are. Why take the risk? Oh, that's right. The FDA has never approved something that later turned out to be harmful.:rolleyes:

I agree with you on the sugar substitutes, really. (Trichlorinated sucrose...yum...:rolleyes: ) At least I know what real sugar does. I took the DHMO comments to be in response to your comment about them being "pure chemicals" because, well, sugar is a chemical as well...

<..and so the chemistry major slunk back into the shadowy corner of the lab, to only be seen during events offering free food>

[witeowl]

Laugh all you want, but I don't trust any of those "just like sugar!" sweeteners. I

For the record, I wasn't poking fun at your aversion to artificial sweeteners. People avoid all sorts of products for all sorts of reasons.

I just wanted to point out the folly behind what appeared to be a fear of chemicals. Everything is chemicals. We are chemicals. (Well, to a point...)

That's all. :)

[smilingcat]

Sadly many people will fall for the humor as real. Dihydrogen monoxide => hydrogen hydroxide (going up from potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide so its only natural to call it hydrogen hydroxide).

It's almost as bad as one of the techs at my office telling me about HHO fuel technology.

well whether you add chlorine or fluorine to the end of the sugar molecule or any other thing, its probably a not a good thing. If its not natural, your body may not know what to do with it. Sometimes, your body may break it down in most unexpected way and it may be quite disastrous. Something benign turns into carcinogenic substance. Chlorine is a very strong radical and fluroine more so. If they were to become free radicals in your body oh my :eek:

anyway... I stay away from ALL artificial sweetners. I think they are all bad. Mind as well drink soft drink with real sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup. High fructose corn syrup is very bad. just my 2cents.

[OakLeaf]

If they were to become free radicals in your body oh my :eek:

And remember just 15 or 20 years ago when the medical community reacted to the idea of "free radicals" and "acid-forming foods" as though we were discussing "dihydrogen monoxide."

[witeowl]

Sadly many people will fall for the humor as real.

True. That is why I pointed out to Wikipedia in this case (which openly points out that it's an old hoax). People did very much fall for it as real years ago when it started as a petition years ago. And that, really, is the point, isn't it?

I'm not going to eat hemlock just because it grows and is a completely natural, unprocessed food. I'm also not going to stop using sodium chloride just because it sounds a little scary.

People are free to make decisions about what they ingest as they see fit. But they need to be educated about the decisions they make, and they need to know what they're saying before they attempt to impact others' decisions.

[NoNo]

My point wasn't just that artificial sweeteners are bad, but that they play into the notion that you're somehow having something healthier because it doesn't have sugar in it. And my friend is a perfect example of what the Time article was talking about. He works out several times a week, and the rest of the week he plays ice hockey. You'd think someone like that would be in decent shape, but he's a large boy;) Why? His diet, quite frankly, sucks. But he honestly thought he was having something decent because the marketing has taught him that sugar is evil. Well you're still taking in empty calories! Stop trying to get your vitamins from scientifically created "fruit-like beverages", and just have some water and eat an apple. Try eating some vegetables. Just don't think you can eat cookies and snacks and get all the nutritional value you need because things have been fortified with some vitamin or another. Of couse, when I told him that, he told me to "F*** off!" Maybe some people don't want to hear the truth, or they already know it but don't have the guts to make the change. All I know is my IBS has pretty much disppeared since I started eating real foods, and the less pain I'm in the happier I am!:D

[Jolt]

For the record, I wasn't poking fun at your aversion to artificial sweeteners. People avoid all sorts of products for all sorts of reasons.

I just wanted to point out the folly behind what appeared to be a fear of chemicals. Everything is chemicals. We are chemicals. (Well, to a point...)

That's all. :)

Exactly! That said, there are chemicals that our bodies are well equipped to handle (such as sugar in moderation) and those that they aren't. Artificial sweeteners fall into that second category, and they just play into the craving for unnatural levels of sweetness rather than solving any problems. It's better to learn to eat naturally sweet things like fruit when we want something sweet, and stay away from the sweetened processed foods.

[witeowl]

Of couse, when I told him that, he told me to "F*** off!" Maybe some people don't want to hear the truth, or they already know it but don't have the guts to make the change.

Personal choice does not equal "lack of guts". I know how sugar affects me and choose to ingest artificial sweeteners because I do better without the highs and lows. Other people choose not to exercise. Other people choose to drink or smoke or play video games. Whatever. I can't judge them, can I?

Also, was this unsolicited advice? I know I get pretty irate when on the receiving end of that, no matter how well-meaning the giver. ;)