4 ms·

Vitamins Found to Curb Exercise Benefits

20 points by theoneill 17y ago

radu_floricica 17y ago
This is off-topic, but am I the only one to find all nytimes articles utterly useless? They're all very well written and interesting, but after reading them I never know more then I did before. I've made a habit of not clicking them, but then I find some interesting title and click... only to again waste 5 minutes.
- aaronblohowiak 17y ago
  It really depends on the section. The editorial assumptions and standards are very different between, say, the Health section and the foreign news.
- chris11 17y ago
  I'd say that I like the nytimes. Comparing it to other newspapers the articles seem a lot better written and more informative (possibly with the exception of the multi-page spreads that local papers sometimes produce). At the minimum it seems to be of the same level of quality of any other decently sized newspaper. I can think of an independent newspaper that has some extremely well written articles, but it seems to me that the problem is more with the format rather than the nytimes. So what newspapers are more informative?
  - biohacker42 17y ago
    I'm not sure if there are any newspapers that are more informative. Perhaps the Irish Times, probably not the Seattle P.I. Harder news sources like scientific and technical journals, and a very few websites and the occasional magazine like the Atlantic monthly and the economist are about the only things that come to mind.
- Agathos 17y ago
  This article is a writeup of someone else's writeup. Keeping an eye out for publications with surprising findings is a good way to fill that last bit of space in the science section, but it's not going to reproduce all the details. It does give you enough information (PNAS and two authors' names) to find the real article pretty quickly, and that turns out to be open access: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05/11/0903485106.abstract?sid=2ffc3c25-38a6-4352-9d5f-12535d79b685 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05/11/0903485106.abst...
ericwaller 17y ago
What a terrible title. The researching doctor clear states: antioxidants in general cause certain effects that inhibit otherwise positive effects of exercise It's like claiming "food found to cause heart disease," based on a study of cholesterol. It's true, but totally overblown.
rarrrrrr 17y ago
Considering exercise (especially resistance training) increases your metabolism and overall oxygen intake for many hours after, if you aren't getting antioxidants you will be slowly killing yourself. They don't have to come from vitamins, though. Green tea, blueberries, and purple corn are all excellent sources.
- silentbicycle 17y ago
  The point of the article is that, somewhat surprisingly, the body seems to use the reactive oxygen compounds released during exercise as a signal that the body should regulate its insulin sensitivity, so if you're exercising to help keep diabetes in check, taking antioxidants (which destroy them) is actually going to be cancel out those benefits. As with most studies (particularly anything involving nutrition!), further studies will be necessary before there's a consensus on the specifics.
  - rarrrrrr 17y ago
    Unfortunately the NYT's coverage of nutrition lately has been so bad as to make me think of most of the articles as press hits by the pharmaceutical and food industry. The conclusions from the study are interesting. However, giving people the impression they should cut antioxidants to improve overall health (via insulin regulation effects from exercise) is suboptimal. The antioxidants are rather important long term. Exercise is critical but not sufficient if you're going to continue eating refined sugars and grains that bring about a need to improve insulin regulation to begin with. So, to be clear, the prevention for diabetes is: Exercise regularly and remove all refined/processed foods from your diet. Don't cut out antioxidants.
    - zmimon 17y ago
      > So, to be clear, the prevention for diabetes is: Exercise regularly and remove all refined/processed foods from your diet. Don't cut out antioxidants. Or, just have a simple operation and cure it for real (type 2 anyway): http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2554683.htm http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2554683.ht...
giardini 17y ago
Don't panic! Read "Most Scientific Papers Are Probably Wrong": http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915

20 points by theoneill 17y ago

This is off-topic, but am I the only one to find all nytimes articles utterly useless? They're all very well written and interesting, but after reading them I never know more then I did before. I've made a habit of not clicking them, but then I find some interesting title and click... only to again waste 5 minutes.

aaronblohowiak 17y ago
It really depends on the section. The editorial assumptions and standards are very different between, say, the Health section and the foreign news.
chris11 17y ago
I'd say that I like the nytimes. Comparing it to other newspapers the articles seem a lot better written and more informative (possibly with the exception of the multi-page spreads that local papers sometimes produce). At the minimum it seems to be of the same level of quality of any other decently sized newspaper. I can think of an independent newspaper that has some extremely well written articles, but it seems to me that the problem is more with the format rather than the nytimes. So what newspapers are more informative?
- biohacker42 17y ago
  I'm not sure if there are any newspapers that are more informative. Perhaps the Irish Times, probably not the Seattle P.I. Harder news sources like scientific and technical journals, and a very few websites and the occasional magazine like the Atlantic monthly and the economist are about the only things that come to mind.
Agathos 17y ago
This article is a writeup of someone else's writeup. Keeping an eye out for publications with surprising findings is a good way to fill that last bit of space in the science section, but it's not going to reproduce all the details. It does give you enough information (PNAS and two authors' names) to find the real article pretty quickly, and that turns out to be open access: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05/11/0903485106.abstract?sid=2ffc3c25-38a6-4352-9d5f-12535d79b685 http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/05/11/0903485106.abst...

ericwaller 17y ago

What a terrible title. The researching doctor clear states: antioxidants in general cause certain effects that inhibit otherwise positive effects of exercise It's like claiming "food found to cause heart disease," based on a study of cholesterol. It's true, but totally overblown.

rarrrrrr 17y ago

Considering exercise (especially resistance training) increases your metabolism and overall oxygen intake for many hours after, if you aren't getting antioxidants you will be slowly killing yourself. They don't have to come from vitamins, though. Green tea, blueberries, and purple corn are all excellent sources.

silentbicycle 17y ago
The point of the article is that, somewhat surprisingly, the body seems to use the reactive oxygen compounds released during exercise as a signal that the body should regulate its insulin sensitivity, so if you're exercising to help keep diabetes in check, taking antioxidants (which destroy them) is actually going to be cancel out those benefits. As with most studies (particularly anything involving nutrition!), further studies will be necessary before there's a consensus on the specifics.
- rarrrrrr 17y ago
  Unfortunately the NYT's coverage of nutrition lately has been so bad as to make me think of most of the articles as press hits by the pharmaceutical and food industry. The conclusions from the study are interesting. However, giving people the impression they should cut antioxidants to improve overall health (via insulin regulation effects from exercise) is suboptimal. The antioxidants are rather important long term. Exercise is critical but not sufficient if you're going to continue eating refined sugars and grains that bring about a need to improve insulin regulation to begin with. So, to be clear, the prevention for diabetes is: Exercise regularly and remove all refined/processed foods from your diet. Don't cut out antioxidants.
  - zmimon 17y ago
    > So, to be clear, the prevention for diabetes is: Exercise regularly and remove all refined/processed foods from your diet. Don't cut out antioxidants. Or, just have a simple operation and cure it for real (type 2 anyway): http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2554683.htm http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2554683.ht...

giardini 17y ago

Don't panic! Read "Most Scientific Papers Are Probably Wrong": http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915