Time Magazine article

[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.

[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!

[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.

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.