‘Myth of physical activity and obesity’ editorial suspended by journal

And the debate continues...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3133633/How-exercise-make-pile...

Further to the discussions here today's news brings this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3077507/Everything-think-know-...

The headlines are misleading - it is the Daily Mail after all -
but the content about gut bacteria is interesting. In my experience balanced gut bacteria comes from a natural low sugar diet but that comes across less in the way the article is written.

The food pyramid is corrupted in most developed countries as are other frauds by the drug/food corporations e.g. the low Cholesterol, low saturated fat, and "energy" drinks/bars BS etc.

Calories are simplistic junk science based on the combustion "Calorimeter" which is nonsense for usable human digestion and metabolic food energy input. Human digestion and metabolism is far more complex; food types, combinations and gut/body flora, can significantly vary peak and total energy input and even how it is used.

Exercise may not be enough if we ate or eat unnatural 'foods', quantities and chemicals which we are not evolved to e.g. over-bred cereals like Wheat, soy, excessive sugars, heat extracted inflammatory vegetable oils, too processed food, food from essential mineral depleted soils, pesticides (mess with DNA, hormones etc.) and antibiotics (unbalance gut/body flora); we must address both the causes and the metabolic debt, this can also require supplements.

Separating "eating" and "exercise" as separate variables is meaningful from an "end effect" point of view - but in fact the are not behaviorally independent. "Eating" well correlates behaviorally speaking to improved exercise and visa vesra. Eat too much and motivation and physical ability drop. Exercise too little and salads are tasteless monstrosities while infinite carbs can be consumed.

I agree entirely with Rolfster and MattT53 above. The human body is much more sophisticated simply to subscribe to laws of thermodynamics and calories in/out - we're not machines! We are complex animal beings that need nutrient dense food with building blocks for cell renewal and energy. Modern refined foodstuffs do not provide us with the nutrient density we need, thus throwing the body's hormonal balance out of whack with a host of problems as a result. Animal fat and animal protein are energy dense, but also compatible with our basic nutrient requirements, so by eating them we truly satisfy that need. (Did you also know that it takes quite a lot of energy to break protein and fat down in the first place, unlike sugar and carbs who's simple structure mean almost instant energy and fuel storage of the leftovers).

Those who eat this way and only get less than 20% of their energy intake (from carbohydrates from vegetable sources) will rarely overeat, and thus won't have hormonal issues leading to fatigue, overeating and a host of other problems. With the right nutrition (yes, basic building blocks such as amino acids, vitamins and minerals necessary for health) your body will come out of hibernation, have the means necessary for cell renewal and energy in abundance - that's when you will actually start browsing the internet for a new pair of running shoes and WANT to get out and be active!!

The sceptics out there are bound to disagree. But I ask this of those who do - If you are truly engaged and interested in this discussion, instead of just regurgitating what mainstream 'knowledge' (read money-making leeches and its henchmen) still encourages you to believe, perhaps read some more about 'diets' such as LCHF (Low carb high fat) on www.dietdoctor.com and all its success stories (my father being an excellent example going from 105 kilos to 72 kilos on LCHF and staying lean at the age of 70+). Perhaps if you're intrigued you may even have a weight loss story of your own - why not try it??

My personal experience, without the benefit of biochemical study, is that the thermodynamic equation is perfectly reasonable, though calibration will inevitably differ by person due to build / environment etc.

I expend lots of energy on sportives and commuting etc. every year on two wheels from April-mid Oct. I also try to reduce daily calorie intake over this period to 1,500-2,000 (with exceptions...obviously!). Hey presto - I get to a sensible BMI and waist size by mid-late summer.

The UK weather and short daylight hours from mid Oct to March means that the bike doesn't see a whole lot of action for a few winter months (and don't even think about a turbo-trainer which is even worse than a gym).

Calorie intake inevitably increases due to more eating / drinking / social time esp. over Christmas....and guess what - the waist grows and everything in the wardrobe seems a bit more snug!

After 7-8 years of this annual weight/BMI cycle (no pun intended) I've accepted the equation, and notwithstanding a winter move to Tenerife / Cyprus, I guess its here to stay.

What does this mean for me re the BJSM article?
- Exercise in a meaningful sense (3-4 hard pedalling sessions per week) can help reduce weight to some extent.....but combine this with a reduced calorie intake to below the daily "recommended" quota, and you can materially alter your BMI and body shape over 2-3 months.....well, at least until the following winter!

Have to say I have a general gripe about how often flawed papers get published (at least in certain fields). Or maybe its more a gripe about how quickly the non-specialist media will leap uncritically on such papers if they happen to fit some prejudice or agenda.

(I mean, it seems like the dodgy stuff is always something to do with one or other of: IQ, brain-scanners, evolutionary-psychology, nutrition, or something that causes or prevents cancer. But maybe there are just as many weak papers in mechanical engineering and pure maths, but nobody outside the field ever notices any of those?)

Flawed studies are out the door and half-way round the world before the truth has remembered where it left its keys, glasses and mobile phone.

Have any commenters here actually read the paper in question and familiarised themselves with the actual science of the aetiology of obesity? Do that. Then comment.

Have any commenters here actually read the paper in question and familiarised themselves with the actual science of the aetiology of obesity? Do that. Then comment.

Have any commenters here actually read the paper in question and familiarised themselves with the actual science of the aetiology of obesity? Do that. Then comment.

Haha, the perception that you can eat as much fat/protein as you like and not get fat is laughable - on a per gram basis you're getting the most energy from fat. And eating carbs is very much sensible (one eminent biochemist I was taught by used to elegantly take apart the counter argument in lectures and warn of the dangers of the atkins diet etc). If you want to understant this stuff buy a biochem textbook, not the latest diet fad guide.

And yeah calories in/out does pretty much work out, even if the various pathways differ somewhat in efficiency

Out of interest, what with the whole carbs/no carbs debate, does anyone know if pro athletes in cardio vascular disciplines (e.g. road cycling, runners) adopt a low/no carb diet? Or do they stick to the more traditional varied diet with a more blanaced mix of carbs/protein/fat?

Well, well, well.
I said the report was badly written and misleading when it first appeared.

Quote:

What the article said was that on its own exercise would not lead to a reduction in obesity in the general population. This to me seems to be perfectly reasonable as most people, even if they do "exercise", burn only a small number of calories (a 1 mile run uses approx 100 calories. They then overcompensate by eating too much.

The flaw with your argument is your assumption that people will get the exercise wrong, but get the diet right. I've seen people count the calories through diet, and then reward themselves with cake at lunch....

The key to fighting obesity is a healthy lifestyle. That means eating sensibly and exercising sensibly. Trying to do one while ignoring the other is just making life hard for yourself.

I haven't read the article but from talking to people who have (some with very strong opinions) and having read Tim Noakes' (the South African contributor) writing and a lot of other literature on low carb diets and metabolic processes it seems that the basic message is good but has been badly presented.
Talking in general and very simplistic terms, the majority of people who are obese will have chronic blood sugar control problems of one degree or another (sub clinical or pre diabetes to full diabetes). This causes:
- insulin resistance which prevents muscle cells storing glycogen resulting in a lack of stamina because the muscles energy reserves start off half depleted.
- reduced available haemoglobin due to sugar coating the red blood cells and stopping them functioning which results in getting out of breath easily.
- many other factors which act against exercise
Exercise obviously helps, particularly in staving off the onset of these problems but once someone is obese, they need to sort out their diet as a main priority and do as much exercise as they reasonably can, increasing it naturally as they recover. Exercise on it's own will never be enough unless the person has an absolute will of iron.
The problem with this subject is that it's actually quite complicated and there is no simple message - some people are fine on a high carb diet and some struggle and it's down to your genetics and exercise and diet how well you cope. The "healthy diet" as generally described is actually quite unhealthy for some people...

What a shame. The report stated the truth and attempted to de-bunk dangerous myths.

This episode reminds me very much of Professor Nutt being sacked as Chairman of the ACMD by the last Labour government in 2009. He had the audacity to point out that many banned substances were considerably less harmful than permitted substances such as alcohol and tobacco. He also published a paper in which the risks associated with horse riding (1 serious adverse event every ~350 exposures) were compared to those of taking ecstasy (1 serious adverse event every ~10,000 exposures). How dare he tell the truth.

Political dogma appears to trump scientific analysis in this country.

Calories in/out can't really be a myth, given it's basic thermodynamics. That or all those fat people out there are somehow violating the principle of conservation of energy, in which I am prepared to concede that we have bigger problems to deal with.

The problem is that people underestimate how much fat is in all those blocks of lard they're eating, and overestimate how many calories they're burning walking to their car to drive to the shop to buy more lard.