5 ms·

It is not a joke. Firstly, meta-analysis are generally amongst the worst things to go off (study selection makes it very difficult to control for a researcher'

by xiaoma 14y ago

It is not a joke. Firstly, meta-analysis are generally amongst the worst things to go off (study selection makes it very difficult to control for a researcher's expectations). The link you provided doesn't even say how much cardio the subjects were doing. Secondly, the studies I cited were massive and far better controlled than most. Feel free to offer a link to a larger and better controlled on if you can. Thirdly your link, despite its problems, supports my argument. Participants reduced their waist circumferences by 2cm in 6 months! Interestingly the first search result for "Friedenreich (2010)" is your own tweet, but looking further I found that he recommends exercise for cancer prevention. In fact, this presentation I found in the first page of results recommended more cario than any other type of exercise: http://wellspring.ca/Wellspring/media/common/documents/wellspring-cancer-exercise-lay-presDSantaMina.pdf http://wellspring.ca/Wellspring/media/common/documents/wells...

dicktalens 14y ago
Friedenreich found that the test group lost more weight than the control group as well via. cardio. Yet I posted it in support of my argument anyway. Why? It took an average of 35 hours of cardio to lose 1 lb of fat. I'm not saying that it does not cause weight loss. I am saying that it's ineffective. Of course cardio will cause some weight loss vs. doing absolutely nothing. Of course it's good for your health. No one is arguing that. Then again if you're saying that someone should run 1 hour/day for 5 days a week... which is unrealistic for 99% of the population, and unnecessarily complicates weight loss (not to mention makes it unsustainable)... then you probably don't have a problem with 35 hours to lose a pound.
- dennisgorelik 14y ago
  Running 20 minutes/day 7 days a week is very realistic for 90% of the population. That's enough to keep the body in a good shape.
  - btilly 14y ago
    You don't have kids, do you? Become a full time parent, then see how much time you have left. And note that in this thread the standard for what you should do is an hour a day 5 days a week rather than 20 minutes a day for 7 days a week.
    - hnriot 14y ago
      I do, and I don't have a problem finding 20 minutes to run every day. Become better at time management before posting nonsense like that.
      - btilly 14y ago
        Let me guess, your spouse isn't in a medical residency? Before I had kids, I never had trouble finding time to exercise and had little sympathy for people who did. Since I've had kids my ability to exercise has varied with life circumstances. At the moment it is very hard for me because my wife is in a medical residency, so most of the time I'm an only parent to small kids. In particular in periods when I exercised, I've found that between my personal rhythms and outside climate, morning is the only time that it makes sense for me to do so. (Perhaps you are happy running in 100+ degree heat, but I am not.) But when I'm on my own trying to get 2 kids up, ready, and out the door, before I start doing other stuff, I don't have 20 min where I can safely disappear on them.
        wisty 14y ago
        Not many people's spouses are in medical residency, and have children who are too young to be left unsupervised for 20 minutes. Even if you broaden it a bit (single parents, spouse in the military on deployment, etc) you are not looking at 90+% of the population. And most people looking after small children are pretty active anyway (due to all the lifting, running around, and so on).
        btilly 14y ago
        http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm estimates over 13 million single parents in the USA. Granted, not all of their children are small, but a lot are. Also in every family with small kids, if one parent wants a piece of freedom, it puts pressure on the other parent. So even if it is theoretically possible, if half of those parents get the freedom to exercise in the morning, the other half do not. Does it amount to 10% with a legitimate difficulty in scheduling exercise? I'm not sure. But it is more than I would have guessed before I had kids.

by xiaoma 14y ago

dicktalens 14y ago

Friedenreich found that the test group lost more weight than the control group as well via. cardio. Yet I posted it in support of my argument anyway. Why? It took an average of 35 hours of cardio to lose 1 lb of fat. I'm not saying that it does not cause weight loss. I am saying that it's ineffective. Of course cardio will cause some weight loss vs. doing absolutely nothing. Of course it's good for your health. No one is arguing that. Then again if you're saying that someone should run 1 hour/day for 5 days a week... which is unrealistic for 99% of the population, and unnecessarily complicates weight loss (not to mention makes it unsustainable)... then you probably don't have a problem with 35 hours to lose a pound.

dennisgorelik 14y ago
Running 20 minutes/day 7 days a week is very realistic for 90% of the population. That's enough to keep the body in a good shape.
- btilly 14y ago
  You don't have kids, do you? Become a full time parent, then see how much time you have left. And note that in this thread the standard for what you should do is an hour a day 5 days a week rather than 20 minutes a day for 7 days a week.
  - hnriot 14y ago
    I do, and I don't have a problem finding 20 minutes to run every day. Become better at time management before posting nonsense like that.
    - btilly 14y ago
      Let me guess, your spouse isn't in a medical residency? Before I had kids, I never had trouble finding time to exercise and had little sympathy for people who did. Since I've had kids my ability to exercise has varied with life circumstances. At the moment it is very hard for me because my wife is in a medical residency, so most of the time I'm an only parent to small kids. In particular in periods when I exercised, I've found that between my personal rhythms and outside climate, morning is the only time that it makes sense for me to do so. (Perhaps you are happy running in 100+ degree heat, but I am not.) But when I'm on my own trying to get 2 kids up, ready, and out the door, before I start doing other stuff, I don't have 20 min where I can safely disappear on them.
      - wisty 14y ago
        Not many people's spouses are in medical residency, and have children who are too young to be left unsupervised for 20 minutes. Even if you broaden it a bit (single parents, spouse in the military on deployment, etc) you are not looking at 90+% of the population. And most people looking after small children are pretty active anyway (due to all the lifting, running around, and so on).
        btilly 14y ago
        http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm http://singleparents.about.com/od/legalissues/p/portrait.htm estimates over 13 million single parents in the USA. Granted, not all of their children are small, but a lot are. Also in every family with small kids, if one parent wants a piece of freedom, it puts pressure on the other parent. So even if it is theoretically possible, if half of those parents get the freedom to exercise in the morning, the other half do not. Does it amount to 10% with a legitimate difficulty in scheduling exercise? I'm not sure. But it is more than I would have guessed before I had kids.