13 ms·

Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'

143 points by sjcsjc 12y ago

ars 12y ago
Normal exercise will not cause weight loss - countless studies have shown that. But it will make you healthier, so it's worth it anyway.
- beachstartup 12y ago
  while i agree, this concept is easier to sell if you approach it from a different direction - i.e. "you can't outrun your fork." this is much easier for most people to comprehend, since anyone who's ever been in a modern gym even once knows you can run an hour on a treadmill and wipe it out with a single donut.
  - stinos 12y ago
    Easier to sell, maybe, but "you can't outrun your fork." is also a false statement, whereas the OP's isn't (so much - at least it's open for interpreation). You can outrun your fork. run an hour on a treadmill and wipe it out with a single donut. That's going to be have a pretty huge donut then :P (or I'd have to be running at a rather slow pace)
    - IndianAstronaut 12y ago
      >That's going to be have a pretty huge donut then Not really. One hour on the treadmill burns about 600 calories or so. A cream filled donut the gas station next door to me sells is listed at 630 calories.
      - cncool 12y ago
        I would say a 630 calorie donut is pretty huge. After looking at the calorie info for a bunch of Tim Hortons donuts, the average seems to be around 250 calories.
        lloeki 12y ago
        > I would say a 630 calorie donut is pretty huge Therein lies the rub: most people can't fathom they're eating way too much since they feel like it's normal because habit and social.
        pm90 12y ago
        Sugar (and now HFCS) in everything magnify this problem. I wonder how much calories food would have if manufacturers reduced the amount of sweeteners. Probably makes the food taste worse though.
        thizzbuzz 12y ago
        Are you in Canada? I wasn't familiar with Tim Hortons, but Wikipedia indicates its a Canadian bakery chain. Come on down to the US and you will find 600 calorie donuts aplenty.
        jeltz 12y ago
        Dunikin' Donuts goes from 220 to 550 calories, with the average somewhere around 350, so 600 kcal seems like quite a bit.
      - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
        Weird. I usually burn about 400 kilocals in a 30-minute run on an elliptical machine. Technically, I am programming it to push my heart-rate to the top of the safe "cardio zone", but, well, exercise is all about pushing yourself, no?
        jeltz 12y ago
        How much you burn depends a lot on your body weight. I am small (~55kg) so I burn about 600 kcal/h when jogging. Someone weighing 75kg will burn about 800 kcal/h if he runs at the same speed.
    - beachstartup 12y ago
      the problem with being pedantic like this is that you just come off as a huge nerd to everyone, even other pedantic nerds. that's why i said "easier to sell", not "technically more accurate."
- DINKDINK 12y ago
  >Normal exercise will not cause weight loss What do you define "normal exercise" as? You cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics: if you calories in is less than your calories burned you must lose weight.
  - jckt 12y ago
    I think he/she means that normal exercise, or rather the typical amount of exercise that people do, is insufficient to burn the calories in a normal diet. So while the exercise you do is healthy, you shouldn't be expecting weight loss, though at the same time you should expect less weight gain (which I wouldn't consider as weight loss).
    - SiVal 12y ago
      No, it's that people who exercise more tend to eat more, even when their primary reason for exercising is to lose weight. They either don't think about it or overestimate the calories burned by their exercise and allow themselves to eat a bit more, mistakenly believing that the net result is still negative calories. Moderate exercise is good for you whether or not you want to lose weight, but if weight control is one objective, you need to be more careful than most people realize to avoid eating more when you exercise more.
  - sgift 12y ago
    Your body can regulate your appetite and your calorie spending to a certain degree, e.g. people who exercise often eat more afterwards, which negates the calorie burning effect (but it can also lead to changes in body composition: Fat is replaced by muscles).
  - thret 12y ago
    Daily hard exercise - the panting, heart-pounding, drenched in sweat kind of exercise - increases your metabolism. You can eat whatever you want, as much as you want, and you won't gain fat. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has little if anything to do with calorie counting.
    - 12y ago
- tribaal 12y ago
  Yeah, it also seems to me people hear "diet and exercise" as if the second part was somehow optional :(
  - jeltz 12y ago
    It is optional if the goal is only to lose weight. I personally found it harder to lose weight when I started exercising since then I could no longer fast as much.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  "Exercise more" in reference to weight loss is also often promoted by fast or processed food companies, in an effort to divert blame for either not displaying nutritional information or making it misleading.
  - throwawayaway 12y ago
    running does use up calories. timing your exercise so that it's just before a fixed portion of a meal means you have used more calories than if you had not - and you still feel full. the surprising part is how little of a difference running makes, but it does make a difference.
- gadders 12y ago
  Weight loss is a poor metric. I don't really care what I weigh. I'm primarily concerned with increasing my strenght and building muscle, so if my weight goes up but my %fat goes down I'm more than happy.
- victorhooi 12y ago
  I do not agree with your statement. What do you even mean by "normal exercise"? I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight. For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to have a faster shower, and eat a quick snack, heck, you could even make it a 10km run (50 minutes). And depending on where you live, you might also be able to jog, or cycle to work - that's probably another 30 to 60 minutes of physical activity, depending on how far. (I have a 15-minute cycle each way). And maybe some mornings, you could get up early, and go for a swim, or go boxing or something. Either way, I personally know many ordinary people who manage to get a healthy amount of exercise, and achieve their weight goals. I also have a friend who quite honestly, eats what seems to be an incredibly unhealthy mix - think large amounts of junk food and deep-fried fast food. However, they manage to stay reasonably slim (think BMI 18) by doing insane amounts of exercise (several hours a day). So it's definitely achievable, assuming you have that sort of willpower. What studies are you referring to, that show that "normal" exercise will not cause weight loss? I'd be very curious to see them.
  - vetler 12y ago
    It's psychological. Of course; eating exactly the number of calories that are required to maintain your weight, and then you start to exercise - yes, you will lose weight. But people don't do that. They think "hey, I need a post-workout meal", and suddenly they're eating that in addition to everything else. And then it's the weekend, and they feel they deserve something extra because they've worked out a lot. Or they're already getting too many calories, and working out just makes them get fatter slower.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    A BMI of 18 is not reasonably slim, it’s extremely slim, right (potentially unhealthy, depending on the individual)? Is that irony?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - 12y ago
- easuter 12y ago
  What do you mean by "normal exercise"? For example, yesterday I burned ~750kcal on the treadmill. Are you trying to tell me this makes no dent in the calories I consumed throughout the day? If my objective was to lose weight, are you implying that doing such a workout couldn't lead to a calorie deficit and therefore expenditure of stored fat?
  - Terr_ 12y ago
    I suspect he meant something a bit more holistic/behavioral ("In a study of people who promised to X...") rather than in a purely mechanical/metabolic sense. If the person is only thinking "exercise will make me weigh less", that outcome is unlikely because modern society makes it deceptively easy to wipe out all your gains with a "small" snack, and because the conversion of fat to muscle doesn't show much on a scale.
unimportant 12y ago
I would say obesity implies inactivity, so the headline is rather misleading.
- fillet54 12y ago
  I agree. Article makes it sound as if inactivity causes poor health (which it may). Alternatively inactivity maybe is just an indicator of poor health and not the dirct cause.
- ars 12y ago
  > I would say obesity implies inactivity It most definitely does not. You can be obese and active if your body weight setpoint is off - after activity you are simply very hungry and eat. The two things have some overlap but one does not imply the other in either direction.
  - pgsandstrom 12y ago
    There is surely a correlation, which I would think was what (s)he was implying.
  - girvo 12y ago
    Body weight "set point"? What's that?
    - ars 12y ago
      The body has a desired weight built into it. If you go over that weight it starts burning extra calories via thermogenesis, not absorbing as much, and making you not hungry. If you go under it reduces thermogenesis, digests more efficiently and makes you hungry. To try to change your weight you have to fight a VERY powerful feedback loop in the body.
      - girvo 12y ago
        Right, I thought thats what you were talking about. It's only a theory, and it's not that well supported in the literature[1]. Even presupposing it's true, the literature shows that it can be changed -- you're not stuck for it for life[0]. The issue I have with set-point theory are rather numerous, to be perfectly honest, but the key part is that it's used by some to "give up" and assume that being obese is "natural", which considering the massive negative effects it has on your body, doesn't sit right with me. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but all of the research I've read on it shows that for the most part it's not a given that it's a real phenomenon. Human nutrition and metabolism is super complex, for sure, but those sorts of twee "too easy" explanations are rarely correct. [0] http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/9/1875S.short http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/9/1875S.short [1] http://www.fasebj.org/content/4/15/3310.short http://www.fasebj.org/content/4/15/3310.short
SixSigma 12y ago
Number of deaths is a poor metric. Everyone dies. Obesity contributes significantly to the 70 man years spent by patients in dialysis every week in the US.
- lobsterman 12y ago
  Yes, and a poor diet can cause diseases that will make your life miserable, e.g. autoimmune.
  - rollthehard6 12y ago
    Where is the evidence that diet alone can cause autoimmune disease? As far as I am aware, development of autoimmune disease is a complex process involving many factors such as genetics and the effect of infections on the immune system. Certainly there is anecdotal evidence of people improving their symptoms or possibly eliminating them through diet but this is not the case for every patient.
    - lobsterman 12y ago
      Yes, there are many factors, but our diet is the biggest (and greatly underestimated by the medical profession). Many people with autoimmune would benefit from eating paleo, not saying 100%. And yes, it's all anecdotal, but there is a great deal of science behind it. I recommend reading [1] for a better understanding. Again, anecdotal, but my wife has autoimmune that attacks the thyroid, causing her to have 180 bpm heart beat (24/7). Doctors recommended medicine that further attacks the thyroid, but she went with a paleo diet instead, after a recommendation from my bio PhD sister who also has autoimmune. Her symptoms stopped within a week or two, her values are now back to normal. Could be something else, but I doubt it. She had the same thing 6 years ago and it lasted for 6 months, while eating this medication that damaged her liver. Turns out gluten in particular is linked to many autoimmune diseases. Here are some shorter blog posts by the same author [2] on gluten, autoimmune and AIP. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be many large scale studies on diet and autoimmune, but personally, after understanding the underlying mechanisms better, and having personal as well as overwhelming online anecdotal evidence, I'm fairly convinced. I recommend keeping an open mind about this one and start reading. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Paleo-Approach-Reverse-Autoimmune-Disease/dp/1936608391/ http://www.amazon.com/Paleo-Approach-Reverse-Autoimmune-Dise... [2] http://www.thepaleomom.com/category/autoimmune-2/the-whys-of-the-aip http://www.thepaleomom.com/category/autoimmune-2/the-whys-of...
Fogh 12y ago
Keep in mind that a healthy diet is just as important.
marincounty 12y ago
I used to run 7 neurotic miles a day since 8th grade. I did it to feel better, and control stress. I know have a heart murmer. No one in my family has a murmer. I think it was do to overdoing it? As I got older, in Order to control anxiety, while saving my knees--I walk/run. It's usually every other night. I don't exercise enough to work up a big appetite. I eat a basic diet, and don't eat a lot of sugar, or fat-- out of poverty, and just lasyness(don't like to shop). My last blood tests said I have a low risk of death by cardio vascular disease. My point is I don't think you need to buy a Fitbit and push yourself in order to keep your heart healthy; just a good brisk walk/run for 30-40 minutes every other day? Plus, my walks have done much more for my mood than Any hetro, or tricyclic antidepressant. If I could do it all over again I would have never asked to see a Psychiatrist for anxiety/depression.
- jokoon 12y ago
  what do you mean by "neurotic mile" ? I think the more you spread intensity, the better it is for your health.
jokoon 12y ago
I think the problem is that our civilization is built in the idea of comfort and economic specialization. I don't think our bodies are prepared to that sort of pattern where you stay inactive for 5 hours, while your brain is still very active, and stop to run non stop for 1 hour. So we either sit thinking about civilized work, or do short but very intense physical activity to compensate the accumulation of stress. I don't think our far ancestors' metabolism really saw that. So of course people are going to get sick. Nobody on earth has genes suited to work in an office. We're still wired to constantly move, searching for food. Worst thing, I'm almost sure that this accumulation of stress can slow down productivity. Maybe forcing people to work in 2 or 3 hour sessions, and ask them to go walk for 15min, might have some positive effects. I'd love to try walking on a treadmill writing code. I already tried standing in front of a computer, but my ankles started swelling after 2 hours.
- GigabyteCoin 12y ago
  >I don't think our bodies are prepared That may be true, but they will be soon enough thanks to evolution. I am not advocating inactivity, in fact I enjoy walking every day very much.
  - magmadiver 12y ago
    >soon ... >evolution So, a few million years?
    - philh 12y ago
      Evolution isn't that slow. Homo sapiens is only about 250,000 years old.
      - magmadiver 12y ago
        I exaggerated for comical effect.
      - Retra 12y ago
        'Homo sapiens' is a very rough category. If you would call a 250,000 year-old animal a homo sapiens, you'd probably call its grandparents one too. Time-frames used this way are only really applicable to talking about some static history, not active evolutionary processes. Humans will still be Homo Sapiens in 1 million years as long as we still call them that. In other words, "how old" homo sapiens is is a rather arbitrary matter of convention, so it doesn't make a good argument.
ethicszen 12y ago
Full text of the study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/01/14/ajcn.114.100065.full.pdf+html http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/01/14/ajcn.114....
VeejayRampay 12y ago
The disconnect between what our bodies are built for and the lives we're living in 2015 is the source of many modern diseases. Daniel Lieberman [1] has an excellent book on the matter called The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health and Disease [2]. Reading it was a deep realization for me that I needed to change my way of life and forced me to eat better (more fruits, vegetables, slashing everything processed from my diet) and exercise more. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Lieberman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Lieberman [2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Human-Body-Evolution/dp/030774180X http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Human-Body-Evolution/dp/0307...
otikik 12y ago
I think the "In Europe" bit missing from the title is kind of important. It could happen that in other places (and I am not looking to anyone in particular here) the numbers are different.
exodust 12y ago
I recall overweight professional cricketers and rugby players. They drank a lot of beer. Alcohol, chicken and sugar. Cut those three for effective weight loss. Activity doesn't need to mean Gladiator training at the gym. It should mean what you want it to. I started learning and messing around with wood-working/craft recently. Good amount of non-mouse and keyboard activity, lots of standing up and moving short distances, clamping things, sawing and drilling. Won't give me a six-pack but keeps blood flowing.
- m348e912 12y ago
  >>>Alcohol, chicken and sugar One of these things is not like the others. Are you thinking of KFC or the lean skinless chicken breasts that bodybuilders almost exclusively use as their main source of protein (aside from shakes/supplements) when cutting? PS. I have been effectively able to lean out by dropping added sugar and alcohol from my diet. It sucks going out when relegated to drinking soda water instead of beer, but it's a relatively easy diet to maintain.
- jokoon 12y ago
  Exactly, blood flowing is very important. Biology is a slow process, and it only deal with long term mechanisms. Tissues can't deal with intensive tasks very well. They can, of course, but I'll always think of death as a progressive slow down of activity. Biology works best when it's being used at a minimum. "Use it or lose it" has some kind of truth.
- JosephRedfern 12y ago
  What's wrong with Chicken?
awjr 12y ago
As somebody touching 20st (127kg) I recently started working on a client site and had a choice, drive by car or catch a train and cycle the 5 miles to the client site. Into my second week and finding the cycling is really making a difference and can get desk to platform in 31 minutes (unlocking of bike etc) down from 35 minutes at the beginning. I'll weigh myself at some point but honestly feel I'm physically getting into a better place and fantastically alert. There is also the challenge of riding hard on the way home to make sure to catch the train ;) What is more interesting is that a lot of people in the office are surprised where I catch the train from (Newport,Wales) and that cycling is possible to Cwmbran without riding with traffic. The Monmouth canal is disused and the wildlife down there is amazing as are the views. I basically go to the gym for an hour a day and I don't have a choice. I have to go no matter what. The weather is a bit crazy at the moment but there is no such thing as bad weather, just the wrong clothes ;) I cannot recommend enough the idea of working out a way to cycle to work. Build fitness into your lifestyle and just make it a necessary function of your day. I've lasted at most 3 weeks at a gym. They feel inherently boring to me. My contract is for 6 months. For those who want to know I'm on the tall side (6'2") so finding a suitable fold-up bike (train friendly) that was 'strong' enough to hold my weight was difficult. I ended up with a Xootr Swift. Beautiful ride and not had a problem on trains ( https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10383637_10152898081476281_5354169390379767354_n.jpg?oh=b1401a4c0ff651042c7575d90a53bbbc&oe=5526AD00 https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/103836... )
- johnchristopher 12y ago
  Are you sweaty from the bike ride ? If so, how do you handle it when you are on the client site ?
- JosephRedfern 12y ago
  Worth mentioning that in the UK, a lot of employers are enrolled on the Cycle to Work scheme. This allows employees to buy a bike through their company/business (normally worth up to £1,000), and pay it back over a period of time, through a salary sacrifice, i.e. pre-tax.
  - 12y ago
Dorian-Marie 12y ago
And if you count that staying home + work everyday of your life watching TV is inactivity, then most people are just slowly dying doing nothing
webnrrd2k 12y ago
YMMV, but I find that exercise is essential for me to loose weight. If I get a lot of aerobic exercise, enough to tire myself out with out casing too much pain or damage, then I sleep much better. I'm clear minded, and able to make better decisions about what I eat. Also, exercise helps me to control stress, which is a major factor in overeating. Oh, and when I exercise I don't like to get so full, so it's easier to control my portion size. I can loose weigh through diet alone, but it isn't consistent. Diet and exercise together work much better in the long run.

143 points by sjcsjc 12y ago

ars 12y ago

Normal exercise will not cause weight loss - countless studies have shown that. But it will make you healthier, so it's worth it anyway.

beachstartup 12y ago
while i agree, this concept is easier to sell if you approach it from a different direction - i.e. "you can't outrun your fork." this is much easier for most people to comprehend, since anyone who's ever been in a modern gym even once knows you can run an hour on a treadmill and wipe it out with a single donut.
- stinos 12y ago
  Easier to sell, maybe, but "you can't outrun your fork." is also a false statement, whereas the OP's isn't (so much - at least it's open for interpreation). You can outrun your fork. run an hour on a treadmill and wipe it out with a single donut. That's going to be have a pretty huge donut then :P (or I'd have to be running at a rather slow pace)
  - IndianAstronaut 12y ago
    >That's going to be have a pretty huge donut then Not really. One hour on the treadmill burns about 600 calories or so. A cream filled donut the gas station next door to me sells is listed at 630 calories.
    - cncool 12y ago
      I would say a 630 calorie donut is pretty huge. After looking at the calorie info for a bunch of Tim Hortons donuts, the average seems to be around 250 calories.
      - lloeki 12y ago
        > I would say a 630 calorie donut is pretty huge Therein lies the rub: most people can't fathom they're eating way too much since they feel like it's normal because habit and social.
        pm90 12y ago
        Sugar (and now HFCS) in everything magnify this problem. I wonder how much calories food would have if manufacturers reduced the amount of sweeteners. Probably makes the food taste worse though.
      - thizzbuzz 12y ago
        Are you in Canada? I wasn't familiar with Tim Hortons, but Wikipedia indicates its a Canadian bakery chain. Come on down to the US and you will find 600 calorie donuts aplenty.
        jeltz 12y ago
        Dunikin' Donuts goes from 220 to 550 calories, with the average somewhere around 350, so 600 kcal seems like quite a bit.
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      Weird. I usually burn about 400 kilocals in a 30-minute run on an elliptical machine. Technically, I am programming it to push my heart-rate to the top of the safe "cardio zone", but, well, exercise is all about pushing yourself, no?
      - jeltz 12y ago
        How much you burn depends a lot on your body weight. I am small (~55kg) so I burn about 600 kcal/h when jogging. Someone weighing 75kg will burn about 800 kcal/h if he runs at the same speed.
  - beachstartup 12y ago
    the problem with being pedantic like this is that you just come off as a huge nerd to everyone, even other pedantic nerds. that's why i said "easier to sell", not "technically more accurate."
DINKDINK 12y ago
>Normal exercise will not cause weight loss What do you define "normal exercise" as? You cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics: if you calories in is less than your calories burned you must lose weight.
- jckt 12y ago
  I think he/she means that normal exercise, or rather the typical amount of exercise that people do, is insufficient to burn the calories in a normal diet. So while the exercise you do is healthy, you shouldn't be expecting weight loss, though at the same time you should expect less weight gain (which I wouldn't consider as weight loss).
  - SiVal 12y ago
    No, it's that people who exercise more tend to eat more, even when their primary reason for exercising is to lose weight. They either don't think about it or overestimate the calories burned by their exercise and allow themselves to eat a bit more, mistakenly believing that the net result is still negative calories. Moderate exercise is good for you whether or not you want to lose weight, but if weight control is one objective, you need to be more careful than most people realize to avoid eating more when you exercise more.
- sgift 12y ago
  Your body can regulate your appetite and your calorie spending to a certain degree, e.g. people who exercise often eat more afterwards, which negates the calorie burning effect (but it can also lead to changes in body composition: Fat is replaced by muscles).
- thret 12y ago
  Daily hard exercise - the panting, heart-pounding, drenched in sweat kind of exercise - increases your metabolism. You can eat whatever you want, as much as you want, and you won't gain fat. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has little if anything to do with calorie counting.
  - 12y ago
tribaal 12y ago
Yeah, it also seems to me people hear "diet and exercise" as if the second part was somehow optional :(
- jeltz 12y ago
  It is optional if the goal is only to lose weight. I personally found it harder to lose weight when I started exercising since then I could no longer fast as much.
rdtsc 12y ago
"Exercise more" in reference to weight loss is also often promoted by fast or processed food companies, in an effort to divert blame for either not displaying nutritional information or making it misleading.
- throwawayaway 12y ago
  running does use up calories. timing your exercise so that it's just before a fixed portion of a meal means you have used more calories than if you had not - and you still feel full. the surprising part is how little of a difference running makes, but it does make a difference.
gadders 12y ago
Weight loss is a poor metric. I don't really care what I weigh. I'm primarily concerned with increasing my strenght and building muscle, so if my weight goes up but my %fat goes down I'm more than happy.
victorhooi 12y ago
I do not agree with your statement. What do you even mean by "normal exercise"? I believe that most "normal" people are capable of doing enough exercise (combined with good eating choices) that they can lose weight. For example, say you have a 1-hour lunch break each day. During that lunch break, you could easily go for a 6km run (30-40 minutes), as well as have time for a shower, and grab food. If you're prepared to have a faster shower, and eat a quick snack, heck, you could even make it a 10km run (50 minutes). And depending on where you live, you might also be able to jog, or cycle to work - that's probably another 30 to 60 minutes of physical activity, depending on how far. (I have a 15-minute cycle each way). And maybe some mornings, you could get up early, and go for a swim, or go boxing or something. Either way, I personally know many ordinary people who manage to get a healthy amount of exercise, and achieve their weight goals. I also have a friend who quite honestly, eats what seems to be an incredibly unhealthy mix - think large amounts of junk food and deep-fried fast food. However, they manage to stay reasonably slim (think BMI 18) by doing insane amounts of exercise (several hours a day). So it's definitely achievable, assuming you have that sort of willpower. What studies are you referring to, that show that "normal" exercise will not cause weight loss? I'd be very curious to see them.
- vetler 12y ago
  It's psychological. Of course; eating exactly the number of calories that are required to maintain your weight, and then you start to exercise - yes, you will lose weight. But people don't do that. They think "hey, I need a post-workout meal", and suddenly they're eating that in addition to everything else. And then it's the weekend, and they feel they deserve something extra because they've worked out a lot. Or they're already getting too many calories, and working out just makes them get fatter slower.
- arrrg 12y ago
  A BMI of 18 is not reasonably slim, it’s extremely slim, right (potentially unhealthy, depending on the individual)? Is that irony?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- 12y ago
easuter 12y ago
What do you mean by "normal exercise"? For example, yesterday I burned ~750kcal on the treadmill. Are you trying to tell me this makes no dent in the calories I consumed throughout the day? If my objective was to lose weight, are you implying that doing such a workout couldn't lead to a calorie deficit and therefore expenditure of stored fat?
- Terr_ 12y ago
  I suspect he meant something a bit more holistic/behavioral ("In a study of people who promised to X...") rather than in a purely mechanical/metabolic sense. If the person is only thinking "exercise will make me weigh less", that outcome is unlikely because modern society makes it deceptively easy to wipe out all your gains with a "small" snack, and because the conversion of fat to muscle doesn't show much on a scale.

unimportant 12y ago

I would say obesity implies inactivity, so the headline is rather misleading.

fillet54 12y ago
I agree. Article makes it sound as if inactivity causes poor health (which it may). Alternatively inactivity maybe is just an indicator of poor health and not the dirct cause.
ars 12y ago
> I would say obesity implies inactivity It most definitely does not. You can be obese and active if your body weight setpoint is off - after activity you are simply very hungry and eat. The two things have some overlap but one does not imply the other in either direction.
- pgsandstrom 12y ago
  There is surely a correlation, which I would think was what (s)he was implying.
- girvo 12y ago
  Body weight "set point"? What's that?
  - ars 12y ago
    The body has a desired weight built into it. If you go over that weight it starts burning extra calories via thermogenesis, not absorbing as much, and making you not hungry. If you go under it reduces thermogenesis, digests more efficiently and makes you hungry. To try to change your weight you have to fight a VERY powerful feedback loop in the body.
    - girvo 12y ago
      Right, I thought thats what you were talking about. It's only a theory, and it's not that well supported in the literature[1]. Even presupposing it's true, the literature shows that it can be changed -- you're not stuck for it for life[0]. The issue I have with set-point theory are rather numerous, to be perfectly honest, but the key part is that it's used by some to "give up" and assume that being obese is "natural", which considering the massive negative effects it has on your body, doesn't sit right with me. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but all of the research I've read on it shows that for the most part it's not a given that it's a real phenomenon. Human nutrition and metabolism is super complex, for sure, but those sorts of twee "too easy" explanations are rarely correct. [0] http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/9/1875S.short http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/9/1875S.short [1] http://www.fasebj.org/content/4/15/3310.short http://www.fasebj.org/content/4/15/3310.short

SixSigma 12y ago

Number of deaths is a poor metric. Everyone dies. Obesity contributes significantly to the 70 man years spent by patients in dialysis every week in the US.

lobsterman 12y ago
Yes, and a poor diet can cause diseases that will make your life miserable, e.g. autoimmune.
- rollthehard6 12y ago
  Where is the evidence that diet alone can cause autoimmune disease? As far as I am aware, development of autoimmune disease is a complex process involving many factors such as genetics and the effect of infections on the immune system. Certainly there is anecdotal evidence of people improving their symptoms or possibly eliminating them through diet but this is not the case for every patient.
  - lobsterman 12y ago
    Yes, there are many factors, but our diet is the biggest (and greatly underestimated by the medical profession). Many people with autoimmune would benefit from eating paleo, not saying 100%. And yes, it's all anecdotal, but there is a great deal of science behind it. I recommend reading [1] for a better understanding. Again, anecdotal, but my wife has autoimmune that attacks the thyroid, causing her to have 180 bpm heart beat (24/7). Doctors recommended medicine that further attacks the thyroid, but she went with a paleo diet instead, after a recommendation from my bio PhD sister who also has autoimmune. Her symptoms stopped within a week or two, her values are now back to normal. Could be something else, but I doubt it. She had the same thing 6 years ago and it lasted for 6 months, while eating this medication that damaged her liver. Turns out gluten in particular is linked to many autoimmune diseases. Here are some shorter blog posts by the same author [2] on gluten, autoimmune and AIP. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be many large scale studies on diet and autoimmune, but personally, after understanding the underlying mechanisms better, and having personal as well as overwhelming online anecdotal evidence, I'm fairly convinced. I recommend keeping an open mind about this one and start reading. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Paleo-Approach-Reverse-Autoimmune-Disease/dp/1936608391/ http://www.amazon.com/Paleo-Approach-Reverse-Autoimmune-Dise... [2] http://www.thepaleomom.com/category/autoimmune-2/the-whys-of-the-aip http://www.thepaleomom.com/category/autoimmune-2/the-whys-of...

Fogh 12y ago

Keep in mind that a healthy diet is just as important.

marincounty 12y ago

I used to run 7 neurotic miles a day since 8th grade. I did it to feel better, and control stress. I know have a heart murmer. No one in my family has a murmer. I think it was do to overdoing it? As I got older, in Order to control anxiety, while saving my knees--I walk/run. It's usually every other night. I don't exercise enough to work up a big appetite. I eat a basic diet, and don't eat a lot of sugar, or fat-- out of poverty, and just lasyness(don't like to shop). My last blood tests said I have a low risk of death by cardio vascular disease. My point is I don't think you need to buy a Fitbit and push yourself in order to keep your heart healthy; just a good brisk walk/run for 30-40 minutes every other day? Plus, my walks have done much more for my mood than Any hetro, or tricyclic antidepressant. If I could do it all over again I would have never asked to see a Psychiatrist for anxiety/depression.

jokoon 12y ago
what do you mean by "neurotic mile" ? I think the more you spread intensity, the better it is for your health.

jokoon 12y ago

I think the problem is that our civilization is built in the idea of comfort and economic specialization. I don't think our bodies are prepared to that sort of pattern where you stay inactive for 5 hours, while your brain is still very active, and stop to run non stop for 1 hour. So we either sit thinking about civilized work, or do short but very intense physical activity to compensate the accumulation of stress. I don't think our far ancestors' metabolism really saw that. So of course people are going to get sick. Nobody on earth has genes suited to work in an office. We're still wired to constantly move, searching for food. Worst thing, I'm almost sure that this accumulation of stress can slow down productivity. Maybe forcing people to work in 2 or 3 hour sessions, and ask them to go walk for 15min, might have some positive effects. I'd love to try walking on a treadmill writing code. I already tried standing in front of a computer, but my ankles started swelling after 2 hours.

GigabyteCoin 12y ago
>I don't think our bodies are prepared That may be true, but they will be soon enough thanks to evolution. I am not advocating inactivity, in fact I enjoy walking every day very much.
- magmadiver 12y ago
  >soon ... >evolution So, a few million years?
  - philh 12y ago
    Evolution isn't that slow. Homo sapiens is only about 250,000 years old.
    - magmadiver 12y ago
      I exaggerated for comical effect.
    - Retra 12y ago
      'Homo sapiens' is a very rough category. If you would call a 250,000 year-old animal a homo sapiens, you'd probably call its grandparents one too. Time-frames used this way are only really applicable to talking about some static history, not active evolutionary processes. Humans will still be Homo Sapiens in 1 million years as long as we still call them that. In other words, "how old" homo sapiens is is a rather arbitrary matter of convention, so it doesn't make a good argument.

ethicszen 12y ago

Full text of the study: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/01/14/ajcn.114.100065.full.pdf+html http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2015/01/14/ajcn.114....

VeejayRampay 12y ago

The disconnect between what our bodies are built for and the lives we're living in 2015 is the source of many modern diseases. Daniel Lieberman [1] has an excellent book on the matter called The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health and Disease [2]. Reading it was a deep realization for me that I needed to change my way of life and forced me to eat better (more fruits, vegetables, slashing everything processed from my diet) and exercise more. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Lieberman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Lieberman [2] http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Human-Body-Evolution/dp/030774180X http://www.amazon.com/The-Story-Human-Body-Evolution/dp/0307...

otikik 12y ago

I think the "In Europe" bit missing from the title is kind of important. It could happen that in other places (and I am not looking to anyone in particular here) the numbers are different.

exodust 12y ago

I recall overweight professional cricketers and rugby players. They drank a lot of beer. Alcohol, chicken and sugar. Cut those three for effective weight loss. Activity doesn't need to mean Gladiator training at the gym. It should mean what you want it to. I started learning and messing around with wood-working/craft recently. Good amount of non-mouse and keyboard activity, lots of standing up and moving short distances, clamping things, sawing and drilling. Won't give me a six-pack but keeps blood flowing.

m348e912 12y ago
>>>Alcohol, chicken and sugar One of these things is not like the others. Are you thinking of KFC or the lean skinless chicken breasts that bodybuilders almost exclusively use as their main source of protein (aside from shakes/supplements) when cutting? PS. I have been effectively able to lean out by dropping added sugar and alcohol from my diet. It sucks going out when relegated to drinking soda water instead of beer, but it's a relatively easy diet to maintain.
jokoon 12y ago
Exactly, blood flowing is very important. Biology is a slow process, and it only deal with long term mechanisms. Tissues can't deal with intensive tasks very well. They can, of course, but I'll always think of death as a progressive slow down of activity. Biology works best when it's being used at a minimum. "Use it or lose it" has some kind of truth.
JosephRedfern 12y ago
What's wrong with Chicken?

awjr 12y ago

As somebody touching 20st (127kg) I recently started working on a client site and had a choice, drive by car or catch a train and cycle the 5 miles to the client site. Into my second week and finding the cycling is really making a difference and can get desk to platform in 31 minutes (unlocking of bike etc) down from 35 minutes at the beginning. I'll weigh myself at some point but honestly feel I'm physically getting into a better place and fantastically alert. There is also the challenge of riding hard on the way home to make sure to catch the train ;) What is more interesting is that a lot of people in the office are surprised where I catch the train from (Newport,Wales) and that cycling is possible to Cwmbran without riding with traffic. The Monmouth canal is disused and the wildlife down there is amazing as are the views. I basically go to the gym for an hour a day and I don't have a choice. I have to go no matter what. The weather is a bit crazy at the moment but there is no such thing as bad weather, just the wrong clothes ;) I cannot recommend enough the idea of working out a way to cycle to work. Build fitness into your lifestyle and just make it a necessary function of your day. I've lasted at most 3 weeks at a gym. They feel inherently boring to me. My contract is for 6 months. For those who want to know I'm on the tall side (6'2") so finding a suitable fold-up bike (train friendly) that was 'strong' enough to hold my weight was difficult. I ended up with a Xootr Swift. Beautiful ride and not had a problem on trains ( https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/10383637_10152898081476281_5354169390379767354_n.jpg?oh=b1401a4c0ff651042c7575d90a53bbbc&oe=5526AD00 https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/103836... )

johnchristopher 12y ago
Are you sweaty from the bike ride ? If so, how do you handle it when you are on the client site ?
JosephRedfern 12y ago
Worth mentioning that in the UK, a lot of employers are enrolled on the Cycle to Work scheme. This allows employees to buy a bike through their company/business (normally worth up to £1,000), and pay it back over a period of time, through a salary sacrifice, i.e. pre-tax.
- 12y ago

Dorian-Marie 12y ago

And if you count that staying home + work everyday of your life watching TV is inactivity, then most people are just slowly dying doing nothing

webnrrd2k 12y ago

YMMV, but I find that exercise is essential for me to loose weight. If I get a lot of aerobic exercise, enough to tire myself out with out casing too much pain or damage, then I sleep much better. I'm clear minded, and able to make better decisions about what I eat. Also, exercise helps me to control stress, which is a major factor in overeating. Oh, and when I exercise I don't like to get so full, so it's easier to control my portion size. I can loose weigh through diet alone, but it isn't consistent. Diet and exercise together work much better in the long run.