Printable View
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
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.
I was reading (OK, skimming :rolleyes:) the online version of the article 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.
Thanks for posting that link, Witeowl - that's a great summary/response!
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:
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.
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!
[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
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:
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!
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.
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.
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!
Nicely put!Quote:
Originally Posted by gnat23
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PscyclePath