Time Magazine article

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-16-2009, 09:57 PM
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
08-17-2009, 01:30 AM
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...
08-19-2009, 08:05 PM
RolliePollie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Silver

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.
08-20-2009, 06:04 AM
Tuckervill

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Your parents need to take this quiz: Portion Distortion

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

Karen
08-22-2009, 06:08 AM
OakLeaf

I only just skimmed this one so far, but it looks like Time gets it right this time.
08-22-2009, 06:16 AM
redrhodie

Quote:

Originally Posted by OakLeaf

I only just skimmed this one 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.
08-23-2009, 05:38 AM
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.
08-24-2009, 05:42 PM
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.
08-24-2009, 05:51 PM
witeowl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiffer

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.
08-25-2009, 04:29 AM
NoNo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuckervill

Your parents need to take this quiz: Portion Distortion

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
08-25-2009, 04:42 AM
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....
08-25-2009, 09:14 AM
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:
08-25-2009, 03:10 PM
witeowl

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoNo

Yes, because it's pure chemicals!

Whatever you do, stay away from Dihydrogen Monoxide. 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. ; )
08-25-2009, 04:01 PM
Jolt

Quote:

Originally Posted by witeowl

Whatever you do, stay away from Dihydrogen Monoxide. 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.
08-25-2009, 04:51 PM
witeowl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jolt

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:

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page