Keep in mind that a healthy diet is just as important.
Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'
11–20 of 127 posts
Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'
#12I would say obesity implies inactivity, so the headline is rather misleading.
> 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.
Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'
#13I would say obesity implies inactivity, so the headline is rather misleading.
> 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.
There is surely a correlation, which I would think was what (s)he was implying.
Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'
#14Number 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.
Yes, and a poor diet can cause diseases that will make your life miserable, e.g. autoimmune.
Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'
#15Normal exercise will not cause weight loss - countless studies have shown that. But it will make you healthier, so it's worth it anyway.
>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.
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.
Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'
#16Normal exercise will not cause weight loss - countless studies have shown that. But it will make you healthier, so it's worth it anyway.
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.
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)
Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'
#17Normal exercise will not cause weight loss - countless studies have shown that. But it will make you healthier, so it's worth it anyway.
"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.
Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
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).
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.
Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
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.
Indeed, the first law is about conservation of energy, the second law is about the increase of entropy.
Re: Inactivity 'kills more than obesity'
#20I 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.