Interesting link on: Exercise Can't Save Us From Too Much Sugar In Our Diets, Say Experts
BigLifter10
Posts: 1,153 Member
Just thought I'd share this link that one of my MFP friends posted and I enjoyed reading it. Not sure if it's been posted before, but thanks 74Brian74 for putting this link up.
People can read it and see how it fits or doesn't fit with your own thoughts.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/04/24/exercise-wont-save-us-sugar-and-carbs-are-our-bodily-downfall/?linkId=13757763
People can read it and see how it fits or doesn't fit with your own thoughts.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/04/24/exercise-wont-save-us-sugar-and-carbs-are-our-bodily-downfall/?linkId=13757763
0
Replies
-
Nice. Written by authors, who are experts in diet and nutrition.0
-
exercise won't save you from an excess of food period...doesn't matter what kind of food.
At the end of the article is the crux of it all..."you can't outrun a bad diet".0 -
So basically it is just fear mongering sugar and carbs... Because only those make people fat...
Nope. I don't agree. Physics doesn't either.0 -
-
I think people that are obese realise it's the excess food that contributes most, otherwise just another editorial that fosters the impression that exercise is moot and not needed, well, it is.0
-
neanderthin wrote: »I think people that are obese realise it's the excess food that contributes most, otherwise just another editorial that fosters the impression that exercise is moot and not needed, well, it is.
This is not true at all. Two days ago, I got into a comment debate with another obese person on a mutual friend's facebook. Their absolute staunch, immovable opinion was that exercise is absolutely necessary in order to lose weight, and that they weren't losing weight even on a medically supervised 800cal/day diet.
I pretty much called bull, they went full neckbeard, and ragequit.
0 -
In my opinion, the article is biased against sugar and the fast food industry. Believe me, neither of those things is the cause of obesity, eating too much in general is what gets people fat. A person can learn moderation in all things if they so choose, but they may choose to cut out certain foods to help them achieve a calorie deficit. As long as a person is eating enough food for their activity level, there is no right or wrong way of dieting, and food choice significance is individual.
From the article:We can exercise to the moon and back but still be fat for all the sugar and carbs we consume.
Nope. As long as you are in a calorie deficit you can consume all the sugar and carbs you want and you will lose weight. For me, 40 percent of my diet comes from carbs, which includes a healthy portion of sugar. I lost 44 pouns this way and have been maintaining for about a year and a half.
Exercise does help create a deficit, but it is not necessary to weight loss. I love to exercise, though, because of how it makes me feel. I even exercised when I was fat.The major point the team makes – which they say the public doesn’t really understand – is that exercise in and of itself doesn’t really lead to weight loss. It may lead to a number of excellent health effects, but weight loss – if you’re not also restricting calories – isn’t one of them. “Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia and some cancers by at least 30%,” they write. “However, physical activity does not promote weight loss.”
I agree weight loss is 100% diet, but exercise does help create a deficit besides providing a bunch of other wonderful benefits.The single most effective thing people can do for their weight, they write, is to restrict calories – and even more, restrict carbohydrates
Restricting calories is correct, but restricting carbs is bull.The authors end with this powerful finale: “It is time to wind back the harms caused by the junk food industry’s Public Relations machinery. Let us bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity. You cannot outrun a bad diet.”
No, it's not the junk food industry that puts weight on us, it's that hand-to-mouth movement of putting any food in our mouths that causes weight gain. I refuse to blame anyone else for my history of obesity, just as I take full responsibility for my weight loss. What's out there-fast food industry, carbs, sugar-- will always be out there. I am 100% responsible for my choices when it comes to weight management.
It all comes down to moderation.
ETA: Oh, and they mention "research" but they don't provide any links to studies.0 -
But this was written by AUTHORS!0
-
I wasn't aware that there was a pervasive idea that exercise was the key to weight loss. I was always under the impression that it was just a matter of eating too much food, and all the jokes about overweight people go along the lines of "put down the cheeseburger"... they're not "go run another mile".
I seriously don't get this whole "thing" people supposedly believe.0 -
I hear ya. Had a similar scenario and after trying to have a reasonable conversation with them, their brains fell out onto the floor.peachyfuzzle wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I think people that are obese realise it's the excess food that contributes most, otherwise just another editorial that fosters the impression that exercise is moot and not needed, well, it is.
This is not true at all. Two days ago, I got into a comment debate with another obese person on a mutual friend's facebook. Their absolute staunch, immovable opinion was that exercise is absolutely necessary in order to lose weight, and that they weren't losing weight even on a medically supervised 800cal/day diet.
I pretty much called bull, they went full neckbeard, and ragequit.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I wasn't aware that there was a pervasive idea that exercise was the key to weight loss. I was always under the impression that it was just a matter of eating too much food, and all the jokes about overweight people go along the lines of "put down the cheeseburger"... they're not "go run another mile".
I seriously don't get this whole "thing" people supposedly believe.
I didn't get that either, that's why I chose the angle in my reply above.0 -
And my though as well, as my first post says.mamapeach910 wrote: »I wasn't aware that there was a pervasive idea that exercise was the key to weight loss. I was always under the impression that it was just a matter of eating too much food, and all the jokes about overweight people go along the lines of "put down the cheeseburger"... they're not "go run another mile".
I seriously don't get this whole "thing" people supposedly believe.
I didn't get that either, that's why I chose the angle in my reply above.
0 -
50% of my intake is carbs and sugar and I'm still losing o.o, you just need to burn more than you eat and not demonize food types because people have poor self control around them.0
-
atypicalsmith wrote: »But this was written by AUTHORS!
Not sure if you are being serious.
Dr. Oz and Vani Hari (the Food Babe) are authors and they've proven to be less than legit.0 -
Oh, there's this doozy in there:What we know to be true is much simpler: “Sugar calories promote fat storage and hunger,” the write. “Fat calories induce fullness or satiation.”
Um, protein calories also "promote" fat storage.
Because fat storage (insulin response) is a function of normal digestion. Just as fat burning is a function of normal metabolism. When you separate talking about digestion from the context of energy balance, it sure sounds inflammatory.
This one specific "fat storage" and insulin response thing with the sugar alarmists might be one of my biggest pet peeves.0 -
Actually fat on it's own is not very satiating and some carbs are the most satiating on the planet, like potatoes.mamapeach910 wrote: »Oh, there's this doozy in there:What we know to be true is much simpler: “Sugar calories promote fat storage and hunger,” the write. “Fat calories induce fullness or satiation.”
Um, protein calories also "promote" fat storage.
Because fat storage (insulin response) is a function of normal digestion. Just as fat burning is a function of normal metabolism. When you separate talking about digestion from the context of energy balance, it sure sounds inflammatory.
This one specific "fat storage" and insulin response thing with the sugar alarmists might be one of my biggest pet peeves.
0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »atypicalsmith wrote: »But this was written by AUTHORS!
Not sure if you are being serious.
Dr. Oz and Vani Hari (the Food Babe) are authors and they've proven to be less than legit.
Based on her prior reply, I think she's been flippant (in a good way).
You're right, just because someone is an author does not mean they are legit.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Actually fat on it's own is not very satiating and some carbs are the most satiating on the planet, like potatoes.mamapeach910 wrote: »Oh, there's this doozy in there:What we know to be true is much simpler: “Sugar calories promote fat storage and hunger,” the write. “Fat calories induce fullness or satiation.”
Um, protein calories also "promote" fat storage.
Because fat storage (insulin response) is a function of normal digestion. Just as fat burning is a function of normal metabolism. When you separate talking about digestion from the context of energy balance, it sure sounds inflammatory.
This one specific "fat storage" and insulin response thing with the sugar alarmists might be one of my biggest pet peeves.
I think what people find satiating varies. You're probably right about fat on its own. I've never tried it. I find fat and protein together satiating. I don't find potatoes on their own particularly satiating, but combined with, say, bean chili, I think they're very satiating.
But further to the point, I think that sentence just goes to show the author's bias.
0 -
I'm sorry, but am I the only one that thinks that article is stupid?
Is there really so many people out there in the world with such horrible diets that think "oh if I walk to the shop to buy my junk food and walk back, i'll lose lots of weight".
Or is it wrong of me to think that it was common sense that you need to burn more calories than you consume, to lose weight?
Because even at the most basic levels. If I wanted, I could eat 4,000 calories everyday of almost only junk food and sweets and sugar. Yet if i'm burning 4500 calories each day from massive amounts of exercise, I'm still going to lose roughly 1 pound each week - most the weight loss being fat, even more so, if a portion of that exercise is strength training.
You could lose weight with solely diet, or solely exercise. You could have an unhealthy and super high calorie diet, yet still lose weight quickly if you put in enough exercise (granted it would have to be alot of exercise, but still). Or you could have an unhealthy and low calorie diet. And sit on your *kitten* all day, and still lose weight equally fast, without a single bit of exercise, providing your calories were in that much of a deficit.
Of course, weight gain, weight loss, maintaining weight, is all one thing. Being healthy is another thing.
You can gain or lose weight, regardless of how much bad stuff you eat. But being healthy, full of vitality, strong immune system, and everything else, does require a mostly healthy diet then, combined with some exercise.0 -
I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Actually fat on it's own is not very satiating and some carbs are the most satiating on the planet, like potatoes.mamapeach910 wrote: »Oh, there's this doozy in there:What we know to be true is much simpler: “Sugar calories promote fat storage and hunger,” the write. “Fat calories induce fullness or satiation.”
Um, protein calories also "promote" fat storage.
Because fat storage (insulin response) is a function of normal digestion. Just as fat burning is a function of normal metabolism. When you separate talking about digestion from the context of energy balance, it sure sounds inflammatory.
This one specific "fat storage" and insulin response thing with the sugar alarmists might be one of my biggest pet peeves.
Yep, a boiled potato measures highest on the satiety index while "Protein, fibre, and water contents of the test foods correlated positively with SI scores (r = 0.37, P < 0.05, n = 38; r = 0.46, P < 0.01; and r = 0.64, P < 0.001; respectively) whereas fat content was negatively associated (r = -0.43, P < 0.01).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104/0 -
In my opinion, the article is biased against sugar and the fast food industry. Believe me, neither of those things is the cause of obesity, eating too much in general is what gets people fat. A person can learn moderation in all things if they so choose, but they may choose to cut out certain foods to help them achieve a calorie deficit. As long as a person is eating enough food for their activity level, there is no right or wrong way of dieting, and food choice significance is individual.
From the article:We can exercise to the moon and back but still be fat for all the sugar and carbs we consume.
Nope. As long as you are in a calorie deficit you can consume all the sugar and carbs you want and you will lose weight. For me, 40 percent of my diet comes from carbs, which includes a healthy portion of sugar. I lost 44 pouns this way and have been maintaining for about a year and a half.
Exercise does help create a deficit, but it is not necessary to weight loss. I love to exercise, though, because of how it makes me feel. I even exercised when I was fat.The major point the team makes – which they say the public doesn’t really understand – is that exercise in and of itself doesn’t really lead to weight loss. It may lead to a number of excellent health effects, but weight loss – if you’re not also restricting calories – isn’t one of them. “Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia and some cancers by at least 30%,” they write. “However, physical activity does not promote weight loss.”
I agree weight loss is 100% diet, but exercise does help create a deficit besides providing a bunch of other wonderful benefits.The single most effective thing people can do for their weight, they write, is to restrict calories – and even more, restrict carbohydrates
Restricting calories is correct, but restricting carbs is bull.The authors end with this powerful finale: “It is time to wind back the harms caused by the junk food industry’s Public Relations machinery. Let us bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity. You cannot outrun a bad diet.”
No, it's not the junk food industry that puts weight on us, it's that hand-to-mouth movement of putting any food in our mouths that causes weight gain. I refuse to blame anyone else for my history of obesity, just as I take full responsibility for my weight loss. What's out there-fast food industry, carbs, sugar-- will always be out there. I am 100% responsible for my choices when it comes to weight management.
It all comes down to moderation.
ETA: Oh, and they mention "research" but they don't provide any links to studies.
This.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
Really? So NEVER eat things like bagels or M&M's?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
Because it is I'm pretty happy right now. I eat what I like and I'm healthy still eating what I like so how does that work if I'm losing weight, healthy and my doctor is happy because my tests are coming back roses. How much have you lost so far Chrys? How long have you been trying on your diet?
0 -
Hm really? I keep going over so my goal is 50% and get more protein in but I keep failing -_-.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
Really? So NEVER eat things like bagels or M&M's?
Well, the editorial makes a strong point that high carb junk foods cause myriad health problems other than obesity. Personally I certainly would like to get to the point where I neither crave nor choose to consume such things.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I think people should read the original editorial, if they haven't already. The Forbes.com article on the link above missed a couple of the key points. The original is posted here:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/23/bjsports-2015-094911.full
The editorial is certainly another powerful endorsement for a low-carb and junk-free lifestyle. People who are convinced that they aren’t harming themselves by eating junk food when they have calories to ‘spare’ should take heed.
I particularly liked the part about members of the public being “drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting.”
Really? So NEVER eat things like bagels or M&M's?
Well, the editorial makes a strong point that high carb junk foods cause myriad health problems other than obesity. Personally I certainly would like to get to the point where I neither crave nor choose to consume such things.
Then that's fine for you but not for everyone. Some people are learning to be responsible with their intake and learning moderation. If you have no control than you should avoid it but there is no reason to demonize food.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions