Exercise 'not key to obesity fight' Doctors say
Losingthedamnweight
Posts: 536 Member
Oh god the comments on this article are so much fat logic. I'm glad I belong here and not there
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32417699?ocid=socialflow_facebook
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32417699?ocid=socialflow_facebook
0
Replies
-
Another example of complex issues being turned in to bite size digestable tidbits for the uneducated believe anything masses. The golden arrow of the media expert.
Malhotra is the latest in a long line of TV doctors. I believe his speciality is cardiology. However he is appearing on every TV show known to man at present talking about the evil sugar.
The last one I watched waited to the end of a 20 minute segment about the evils of sugar intake to mention in passing that fruit and milk also contain sugar. Up until then they litereally talked about shovelling teaspoons of the white granulated goodness down your gullet.
It's biased and slanted made for public consumption drivel based on some complex research findings.
Ironically I was running a 10k on a treadmill at the gym when he was on the other day doing a 'newspaper review's segment on Sky News.
0 -
Well, that's based on the assumption that weight loss is the one and only goal; as usual, there's no distinction between weight loss and fat loss and it just feeds into the current obsession with being "thin" which is pretty unhealthy in itself.0
-
I've been seeing articles like this recently, but I thought the point they were making is not that exercise isn't important, but that diet is more important to weight loss. Makes sense. The average obese person can't exercise off 1000 calories in a go, but you sure can eat 1000 calories in one meal/snack/milkshake. The titles are often misleading so they can grab attention, sure.0
-
Sophiareed218 wrote: »I've been seeing articles like this recently, but I thought the point they were making is not that exercise isn't important, but that diet is more important to weight loss. Makes sense. The average obese person can't exercise off 1000 calories in a go, but you sure can eat 1000 calories in one meal/snack/milkshake. The titles are often misleading so they can grab attention, sure.
Absolutely Sophia, funny how you see what many mfpers do not and they dont even bother to read the article . This is the sixth time theres been a thread on it. What it says is pretty uncontroversial, although am not convinced by the food industry conspiracy angle.0 -
The abstract the editorial was based on was pulled. Why is it still being written about?
See this link:
http://m.bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/04/29/bjsports-2015-0949110 -
This article is snip its of just overloaded crap.. It is poorly written..
0 -
Sophiareed218 wrote: »I've been seeing articles like this recently, but I thought the point they were making is not that exercise isn't important, but that diet is more important to weight loss. Makes sense. The average obese person can't exercise off 1000 calories in a go, but you sure can eat 1000 calories in one meal/snack/milkshake. The titles are often misleading so they can grab attention, sure.
Absolutely Sophia, funny how you see what many mfpers do not and they dont even bother to read the article . This is the sixth time theres been a thread on it. What it says is pretty uncontroversial, although am not convinced by the food industry conspiracy angle.
The original abstract was pulled by the BSJ, and one of the authors then went to the media, and the food industry conspiracy angle was born.
One of the other authors is already in hot water for telling parents to wean a toddler and put them on a low carb diet in texts. I think the food industry conspiracy angle might be playing into his defense as well.
0 -
Like I said in the other thread, the idea that activity isn't related to obesity is wrong and the authors of the study in question haven't shown otherwise.
The doctor in this new article is going on about combatting ideas that seem to me pretty uncommon--that you can just exercise a lot and make no other intentional changes (keep eating whatever you want) and lose weight. Some people can, most probably won't, and it certainly would be a lot slower, at best. I think it's widely agreed that understanding and controlling food intake in some way is important for weight loss.
Is it the key to avoiding obesity societally? Who knows--the problem with obesity societally is compliance with any plan over time (and that would include the "eat less sweet stuff" plan). I continue to think that on a societal level activity (not necessarily "exercise" but regular daily activity, including regular walking, as well as normal activity that kids used to indulge in back in the day and some still do) is extremely important and complains some of the differences between places where obesity is a problem and others where it is not.0 -
While it is true that one doesn't have to increase one's activity to lose weight, that is a far cry from it being true that exercise doesn't help reduce weight. It is also a far cry from saying that lack of exercise isn't part of the reason for the increase in obesity.0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »While it is true that one doesn't have to increase one's activity to lose weight, that is a far cry from it being true that exercise doesn't help reduce weight. It is also a far cry from saying that lack of exercise isn't part of the reason for the increase in obesity.
Its not what the original article said, though.
I just wish when an article is posted people would read it and ideally look at the original article, then use some rational analysis of whats being said and in what context.
Decided going to the gym will be more productive.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »While it is true that one doesn't have to increase one's activity to lose weight, that is a far cry from it being true that exercise doesn't help reduce weight. It is also a far cry from saying that lack of exercise isn't part of the reason for the increase in obesity.
Its not what the original article said, though.
I just wish when an article is posted people would read it and ideally look at the original article, then use some rational analysis of whats being said and in what context.
Decided going to the gym will be more productive.
Considering that the "original article" has been removed due to some "concern," it is a little hard to read. But the OP posted a link to a different article and one with a video. That is the one this thread is about, so that's the one I'm responding to. If you want to talk about some other article, start your own thread.0 -
exercise is unnecessary for weight loss? wow, ground breaking stuff here….
0 -
Another example of complex issues being turned in to bite size digestable tidbits for the uneducated believe anything masses. The golden arrow of the media expert.
Malhotra is the latest in a long line of TV doctors. I believe his speciality is cardiology. However he is appearing on every TV show known to man at present talking about the evil sugar.
The last one I watched waited to the end of a 20 minute segment about the evils of sugar intake to mention in passing that fruit and milk also contain sugar. Up until then they litereally talked about shovelling teaspoons of the white granulated goodness down your gullet.
It's biased and slanted made for public consumption drivel based on some complex research findings.
Ironically I was running a 10k on a treadmill at the gym when he was on the other day doing a 'newspaper review's segment on Sky News.
It's true that he's dumbing down their message for mass consumption, and everyone appears to have latched on to this 'you can't outrun a bad diet' catch-phrase.
But actually their main point is that many people who are at normal weight still have the kind of health problems that are normally associated with obesity, and in the opinion of these doctors, it is because these people consume too many carbs and sugar. And yes, they believe that this message has been suppressed in the interests of big business, hence why soft drink companies (for example) are allowed to promote their products as being 'healthy'.
Naturally, various attempts are being made to discredit the authors of the 'suppressed' editorial, but Maholtra is actually a member of a much larger group called Action on Sugar, which has 23 other expert advisers on its panel (http://www.actiononsugar.org/) so the list of people that are going to have to be discredited is growing quite long...
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Another example of complex issues being turned in to bite size digestable tidbits for the uneducated believe anything masses. The golden arrow of the media expert.
Malhotra is the latest in a long line of TV doctors. I believe his speciality is cardiology. However he is appearing on every TV show known to man at present talking about the evil sugar.
The last one I watched waited to the end of a 20 minute segment about the evils of sugar intake to mention in passing that fruit and milk also contain sugar. Up until then they litereally talked about shovelling teaspoons of the white granulated goodness down your gullet.
It's biased and slanted made for public consumption drivel based on some complex research findings.
Ironically I was running a 10k on a treadmill at the gym when he was on the other day doing a 'newspaper review's segment on Sky News.
It's true that he's dumbing down their message for mass consumption, and everyone appears to have latched on to this 'you can't outrun a bad diet' catch-phrase.
But actually their main point is that many people who are at normal weight still have the kind of health problems that are normally associated with obesity, and in the opinion of these doctors, it is because these people consume too many carbs and sugar. And yes, they believe that this message has been suppressed in the interests of big business, hence why soft drink companies (for example) are allowed to promote their products as being 'healthy'.
Naturally, various attempts are being made to discredit the authors of the 'suppressed' editorial, but Maholtra is actually a member of a much larger group called Action on Sugar, which has 23 other expert advisers on its panel (http://www.actiononsugar.org/) so the list of people that are going to have to be discredited is growing quite long...
key word in that sentence "opinion" and we all know what those are like...
too much of anything is "unhealthy"...but yet we always want to blame the carb and sugar demons....0 -
I think the key to the obesity fight is for obesity to stop being normalized ("I'm no Angel" campaign, Tess Holiday, fat acceptance as a whole) and oh, EAT LESS, MOVE MORE.0
-
I don't even know where to start with a response. How is being thin unhealthy? I think in your mind you're thinking that everyone that is "thin" starves their self or somethingmisstweedy wrote: »Well, that's based on the assumption that weight loss is the one and only goal; as usual, there's no distinction between weight loss and fat loss and it just feeds into the current obsession with being "thin" which is pretty unhealthy in itself.
0 -
Follow a person who is at a healthy weight around for a day.. Or someone who has maintained weight loss for more than 2 years. They are active and many exercise vigorously,
0 -
I don't even know where to start with a response. How is being thin unhealthy? I think in your mind you're thinking that everyone that is "thin" starves their self or somethingmisstweedy wrote: »Well, that's based on the assumption that weight loss is the one and only goal; as usual, there's no distinction between weight loss and fat loss and it just feeds into the current obsession with being "thin" which is pretty unhealthy in itself.
I read that as the "obsession" aspect being unhealthy.0 -
The poster didn't say that being thin was unhealthy but the obsession itself is unhealthy.
I don't even know where to start with a response. How is being thin unhealthy? I think in your mind you're thinking that everyone that is "thin" starves their self or somethingmisstweedy wrote: »Well, that's based on the assumption that weight loss is the one and only goal; as usual, there's no distinction between weight loss and fat loss and it just feeds into the current obsession with being "thin" which is pretty unhealthy in itself.
0 -
While I appreciate this is not the best written article... Not everyone knows abs are made in the kitchen... People largely think that if they exercise it doesn't matter what they eat. Also if they're not informed about calories they may assume that a 30 minute run means that they have 'earned' a bottle of red and an entire pizza0
-
I'm curious as to what the real issue is in the MFP community regarding this topic - Weight gain and weight loss work differently for everyone and I would think that factors like exercise, individual metabolism, and nutrients ingested all contribute to someone's success. I'm a believer that there are no absolutes when it comes to science, but that doesn't mean that all theories that don't work for everyone are hogwash.
There have been many studies done (do your own research, I've done mine) that propose that it's not just the number of calories that you take in, but the type of calories you take in, that can make a difference between being a healthy weight or overweight, based on their effect on resting calorie burn. A calorie is not just a calorie, and if you're wanting to get the most bang for your buck for your calorie intake, you need to look at what nutritional value those calories have, based on your individual needs.
As far as sugar goes, from personal experience, and this is based on my body chemistry and my metabolism, avoiding processed sugar has amazing positive effects. I have more energy, less inflammation, less water retention, clearer thinking, and a more positive outlook on life. Would everyone? I doubt it, but before you start arguing against something (unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing), try it and then form your opinions based on your own individual experience.0 -
What's your view on the speed of light in a vacuum?APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I'm curious as to what the real issue is in the MFP community regarding this topic - Weight gain and weight loss work differently for everyone and I would think that factors like exercise, individual metabolism, and nutrients ingested all contribute to someone's success. I'm a believer that there are no absolutes when it comes to science...
0 -
While I appreciate this is not the best written article... Not everyone knows abs are made in the kitchen... People largely think that if they exercise it doesn't matter what they eat. Also if they're not informed about calories they may assume that a 30 minute run means that they have 'earned' a bottle of red and an entire pizza
I saw a news piece this week that was talking about the use of cloth reusable grocery bags. People who use them tend to buy more junk food. The theory is that people see it as earning brownie points. Because they're doing their part for the environment they have earned the right to eat junk food. The same goes for exercise. People see exercise as giving them brownie points to eat more than they should.0 -
APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I'm curious as to what the real issue is in the MFP community regarding this topic - Weight gain and weight loss work differently for everyone and I would think that factors like exercise, individual metabolism, and nutrients ingested all contribute to someone's success. I'm a believer that there are no absolutes when it comes to science, but that doesn't mean that all theories that don't work for everyone are hogwash.
There have been many studies done (do your own research, I've done mine) that propose that it's not just the number of calories that you take in, but the type of calories you take in, that can make a difference between being a healthy weight or overweight, based on their effect on resting calorie burn. A calorie is not just a calorie, and if you're wanting to get the most bang for your buck for your calorie intake, you need to look at what nutritional value those calories have, based on your individual needs.
As far as sugar goes, from personal experience, and this is based on my body chemistry and my metabolism, avoiding processed sugar has amazing positive effects. I have more energy, less inflammation, less water retention, clearer thinking, and a more positive outlook on life. Would everyone? I doubt it, but before you start arguing against something (unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing), try it and then form your opinions based on your own individual experience.
Sorry but CICO applies to everyone on MFP, so yes, it is the same for all of us.
And yes, from an energy standpoint, a calorie is just a calorie. So 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of ice cream; however, they are not the same nutritionally.
I eat processed sugar and have no issues with inflammation, energy levels, and my blood work comes back perfect every year. There is nothing wrong with sugar and there is no reason to avoid it, unless one has a medical condition. If you want to then that is fine, just don't try to convince the rest of us that it is "poison."-1 -
APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I'm curious as to what the real issue is in the MFP community regarding this topic - Weight gain and weight loss work differently for everyone and I would think that factors like exercise, individual metabolism, and nutrients ingested all contribute to someone's success. I'm a believer that there are no absolutes when it comes to science, but that doesn't mean that all theories that don't work for everyone are hogwash.
There have been many studies done (do your own research, I've done mine) that propose that it's not just the number of calories that you take in, but the type of calories you take in, that can make a difference between being a healthy weight or overweight, based on their effect on resting calorie burn. A calorie is not just a calorie, and if you're wanting to get the most bang for your buck for your calorie intake, you need to look at what nutritional value those calories have, based on your individual needs.
As far as sugar goes, from personal experience, and this is based on my body chemistry and my metabolism, avoiding processed sugar has amazing positive effects. I have more energy, less inflammation, less water retention, clearer thinking, and a more positive outlook on life. Would everyone? I doubt it, but before you start arguing against something (unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing), try it and then form your opinions based on your own individual experience.
Completely agree with everything you've said. Avoiding added sugars even just for the past couple of weeks has made me feel so much better. Some people can clearly tolerate them; well I can't. So I've decided not to have any.
About the 'CICO philosophy' of MFP, I find it amusing that the founder of this site admitted in an interview last week that this was only ever intended as a starting point – a simplification – for those that don't understand anything about nutrition. Yet so many here are convinced this is the be-all-and-end all of dietary reform. 0 -
APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I have more energy, less inflammation,
How did you measure this? Was there before and after measurements? If it's just personal opinion/evaluation I'm afraid that proves nothing0 -
APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I'm curious as to what the real issue is in the MFP community regarding this topic - Weight gain and weight loss work differently for everyone and I would think that factors like exercise, individual metabolism, and nutrients ingested all contribute to someone's success. I'm a believer that there are no absolutes when it comes to science, but that doesn't mean that all theories that don't work for everyone are hogwash.
There have been many studies done (do your own research, I've done mine) that propose that it's not just the number of calories that you take in, but the type of calories you take in, that can make a difference between being a healthy weight or overweight, based on their effect on resting calorie burn. A calorie is not just a calorie, and if you're wanting to get the most bang for your buck for your calorie intake, you need to look at what nutritional value those calories have, based on your individual needs.
As far as sugar goes, from personal experience, and this is based on my body chemistry and my metabolism, avoiding processed sugar has amazing positive effects. I have more energy, less inflammation, less water retention, clearer thinking, and a more positive outlook on life. Would everyone? I doubt it, but before you start arguing against something (unless you're arguing just for the sake of arguing), try it and then form your opinions based on your own individual experience.
You know what? I had issues with inflammation when I didn't eat sugar. Not eating sugar did nothing to relieve my medical condition. In fact, I had a new inflammatory autoimmune disease start while I was abstaining from sugar. What inflammatory issues did you have that giving up processed sugar cleared up?
I eat sugar now. I find that exercise is the best thing for dealing with inflammation. If something keeps me from exercising for too long (and sometimes, one of my medical conditions will do just that), the inflammatory condition will act up. Has nothing to do with sugar. Has to do with missing out on working out.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »About the 'CICO philosophy' of MFP, I find it amusing that the founder of this site admitted in an interview last week that this was only ever intended as a starting point – a simplification – for those that don't understand anything about nutrition. Yet so many here are convinced this is the be-all-and-end all of dietary reform.
The founder is also an Eliminationist:One of the first things I did was log a sandwich, and I had no idea that mayo had so many calories — 90 calories per tablespoon vs. only 5 per tablespoon for mustard. Basically, since that day, I haven’t eaten mayo.
Personally I haven't eliminated sugars, but I sure do avoid foods with meaningful amounts of added sugars and I'm careful about foods with lots of natural sugars. I don't have a choice - IIFYM requires me to.0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »APeacefulWarrior wrote: »I have more energy, less inflammation,
How did you measure this? Was there before and after measurements? If it's just personal opinion/evaluation I'm afraid that proves nothing
Sorry, but there's no requirement for anyone to 'prove' anything. Some of us have made a personal decision to reduce our sugar intake and we feel better for it. Some of us choose to share that experience on forums such as this one. End of story.0 -
Actually, this is basically stating what I always state...diet for weight control; exercise for fitness.
I've lost weight, maintained weight, and gained weight all while exercising regularly...the difference between the three was my consumption. That's all this article is saying, and I agree.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions