Time Magazine article

[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

[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.

[jobob]

I was reading (OK, skimming ) 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.

[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.

[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 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!

[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 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