Rebuttal to TIME anti-exercise article (from real expert)

Azdak
Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
edited September 20 in Fitness and Exercise
This is a brief rebuttal, (it is on the ACE website, after all) but it is from a long-time, well-established fitness experts and it does have some references, which is always nice.

Cedric Bryant PhD was I believe one of the founders of Stairmaster (I know he ran the company for a long time when it was a separate entity) and a hard-core, research-based fitness expert. He is one of the primary (if not the primary) reasons why the early Stairmaster products were so good and gave such detailed ergonomic data.

It looks like he is working with ACE now as a Chief Science Officer, which isn't necessarily a step up for Dr Bryant, but it definitely improves the credibility of ACE.

Here is the link for those who are interested:

http://www.acefitness.org/article/2804/

Replies

  • weasleman42
    weasleman42 Posts: 90
    "File Not Found" when following that link.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    "File Not Found" when following that link.

    FWIW, I just tried it again and it worked fine.
  • rachi20024
    rachi20024 Posts: 229 Member
    Thanks good insightful read.:smile:
  • nightangelstars
    nightangelstars Posts: 337 Member
    Well, thanks for this rebuttal! I would like to think that most of us in this community are savvy enough to ignore TIME's attempt at being controversial - which was successful, judging by the responses they published in the next week's TIME, which this rebuttal echoed in greater detail but had the same feeling. It would seem that most TIME readers had no trouble seeing the problems with the author's argument (which was silly and subjective, and also had a bit of a pouting 'why can't I lose weight?' feel to it - frankly I thought he was looking for a justification for his own problems meeting his own weight loss goals).

    Well, hopefully in the future, TIME will take a hint and stick to the science and stay away from whiny authors unhappy with their waistlines. And here's to those of us sticking to our guns and keeping up the good work! :flowerforyou:
  • dlux
    dlux Posts: 1 Member
    I would think that MFP users would understand the Time article better than most. The point of the article is that calorie intake is key to weight loss. Exercise will only help with weight loss if you regulate your calories.

    Also, from Azdak's article it states "An overwhelming body of scientific evidence exists that confirms the positive role that exercise plays in weight loss and maintenance (Hill and Wyatt, 2005; Jakicic and Gallagher, 2003; Jakicic et al., 2001)." Yet those studies cited show extremely weak links.

    From Broom et al., "These findings suggest ghrelin and PYY may regulate appetite during and after exercise, but further research is required to establish whether exercise-induced changes in ghrelin and PYY influence subsequent food intake."

    He also cites data from NWCR, but they show that regulating calorie intake is more important than exercise to maintaining weight loss (although both are important).
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member

    He also cites data from NWCR, but they show that regulating calorie intake is more important than exercise to maintaining weight loss (although both are important).

    I have said in other posts that there are two sides to this "controversy". My biggest problem with the TIME article is that it was one guy's personal rant and it misrepresented the existing research. The author also restricted his sources to other contrarian researchers--who went along in order to get their names into TIME.

    However, the author was not being totally dishonest, and was partly reacting to misrepresentations made by fitness and exercise advocates.

    Again, my problem is that the author chose to characterize those misrepresentations as being communicated by ALL fitness professionals and taking a tone of an "expose" while using information and knowledge that responsible fitness professionals have known and have been communicating for 15-20 years.
  • SHBoss1673
    SHBoss1673 Posts: 7,161 Member
    See now my biggest problem with this article was his picking and choosing his information to fit around his neat little theory; and his deliberate focus on part of the whole picture, never explaining the full concept or why it has failed him.

    Not only does his article contain flat out falsehoods

    I.E. "After all, doesn't exercise turn fat to muscle, and doesn't muscle process excess calories more efficiently than fat does? Yes..." Right, fat turns to muscle, yep, now i'm impressed with your human anatomical knowledge.

    but he also refuses to delve into the real reason (IMHO) why the US is fat which is fast food, dual income families (meaning less time for home cooked meals), and high stress, low physically active jobs (among other things).

    Many of his other theories also are presented in a haphazard way which belies the true facts. Take the part about the English school children. He neglects completely the idea that MAYBE, just maybe because these children are in a more demanding learning environment, it means they have to do more homework, and thus can't play as much after school...DUH!

    this is all besides my main though of how he dances around the issue of proper nutrition. Always talking about eating too much or exercising too hard when the real truth (a truth that any good trainer would have explained to him) is that when you get to a point where you're no longer obese, what you eat, is just as important as how much you eat! And THAT's where I think the US fails miserably.
  • PatB52
    PatB52 Posts: 65
    I haven't read the time article, but it certainly sounds like it is misleading to say the least. I know from personal experience that exercise is a critical component to weight loss. I don't seem to be able to lose weight at all (without going to a 1200 or less calorie a day diet) without exercising. Hey, I like to eat, therefore, I exercise.

    I'm surprised Time printed an article like that.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories