some say exercise won’t make you thin

The blogosphere has been abuzz lately about an article in TIME magazine called Why Exercise Won’t Make You Thin.  It is interesting, because we’ve joked about such things before, yet here’s an article in a credible magazine suggesting it.  But before we dig into it, let me mention that the author of this article exercises regularly and talks about how he isn’t losing fat, yet he weighs only 163 pounds.  Unless he’s abnormally short, that’s not a bad weight for an adult male to be at.   I don’t see how he could be considered fat or obese.  Actually, my “ideal weight” is supposedly 190-200 for my height, so 163 seems too skinny to me.  Anyway, let’s get to the article.

First, let’s start with the author’s premise for his hypothesis:

Like many other people, I get hungry after I exercise, so I often eat more on the days I work out than on the days I don’t.  Could exercise actually be keeping me from losing weight? ~ John Cloud

He also quotes some other experts who back his claim: “In general, for weight loss, exercise is pretty useless,” says Eric Ravussin, chair in diabetes and metabolism at Louisiana State University and a prominent exercise researcher.  That sounds extreme to me, but I’ll keep reading.

The notion that we eat more because exercise makes us more hungry and thus exercise makes it harder to lose weight sure sounds like something the “Important Doctor” came up with.  The article also mentions the idea that intense sessions of exercise may cause people to reward themselves by eating what they want.  I can see that — it’s much easier to justify a milkshake or snack if you’ve worked out.

Some scientists imply that it’s evolution’s fault that humans can easily get fat.  We don’t have much “brown fat”.  Rats, among other species, have a lot of it, which turns off their mitochondria (which are the cells’ power plants), so they don’t get an energy boost from eating too much — they just get warmer, which helps the calories burn effortlessly.  So for animals like that, it’s really difficult for them to get fat, even if they overeat.  In contrast, humans can barely overeat and yet gain weight, because unused calories get stored in regular “white fat” cells.

One example cited in the article explains why our compensation for exercise keeps us from losing weight:

A standard 20-oz. bottle of Gatorade contains 130 calories.  If you’re hot and thirsty after a 20-minute run in summer heat, it’s easy to guzzle that bottle in 20 seconds, in which case the caloric expenditure and the caloric intake are probably a wash.  From a weight-loss perspective, you would have been better off sitting on the sofa knitting.

Well, few people knit these days, but I think it would be fair to replace that part of the example with sitting on the sofa playing video games.  So there’s your proof that playing video games can help you lose more weight than running! (That definitely sounds like something from the “Important Doctor”.)

The article also says that self-control is like a muscle, that it gets weaker when you use it too much.  So if you force yourself to jog for an hour, your capacity for self-control becomes weakened, and you’re more likely to eat pizza than a salad.  (Although I’m always more likely to eat pizza than a salad, given those choices.)

Steven Gortmaker, who heads Harvard’s Prevention Research Center on Nutrition and Physical Activity, agrees that exercising makes you more hungry, therefore he’s suspicious of the playgrounds at fast-food restaurants: “Why would they build those?  I know it sounds kind of like conspiracy theory, but you have to think, if a kid plays five minutes and burns 50 calories, he might then go inside and consume 500 calories or even 1,000.”   One study has shown that exercise causes kids to eat an average of 100 calories more than they had just burned.

Of course, some sites have countered the TIME article, with one even saying it is an “Epic Fail”.  The TIME article makes some points, but we don’t have to give in to overeating because we exercise.  And I don’t think self-control is like a muscle from a physiological sense, but the analogy may work if you carry it out further.  The more you resist something, the stronger you get, instead of weaker — after a while.  For example, if you give up cokes, it may be hard for a few days, but eventually you don’t even miss them anymore.  (I know, because I gave them up.)

I reckon what all this debate results in is that you can find a study that backs up whatever lifestyle you want to live.   If you don’t want to exercise, then you shouldn’t, because it makes you gain weight.   But if you want to lose weight, well, it’s hopeless.  (Of course the last one isn’t true — but if you want to blame it on evolution or misinformation or whatever, there’s an excuse.)  To me, it still seems really simple — if you burn more calories than you take in, you will lose weight.  Maybe that seems too-good-to-be-true, but it adds up, if you do the math.

caption contest, two people with phones on head

It’s just another manic Monday… which I will make better with a new caption contest!  This week’s photo goes way back — back into time — to an era when the world was still in black and white, and phone technology was still new.  I have absolutely no actual context for this picture, so I’m depending on you to figure out what could possibly be going on here.

two people with phones on head

(To see the other caption contests, click on the “Say What?” category in the sidebar.)

video games used for team-building at work

Do you ever get stressed at work?  Or have you ever dreamed of getting paid to play video games?   Many people would answer yes to both questions, and now some companies play multiplayer video games at work to bond with each other and to reduce stress — and they get paid for it!

Kevin Grinnell at Grinnell Computers has started such a plan, and it’s a hit.  He considers it a team-building exercise, saying:

“We laugh until we cry when we play these games. We can do the thing where we have company dinners, and company functions, but those really aren’t stress relief. At times, they can be more stress than they’re worth.”

That last part is certainly true sometimes.  I’ve been to work dinners and outings where you had to pay your way (and didn’t really want to go), or where some coworkers will get drunk and act stupid, or where the company tries to manufacture fun and it doesn’t work and you’d rather be at work than at the “fun” outing.

You don't get to do stunts like this in real life...
You don't get to do stunts like this in real life...

Not only is that a great way to release stress, but it also causes people to let their guard down, to be themselves.  For Grinnell, the gaming is optional, but the option is to either play video games from 3 to 5 pm on Friday with the team, or take the same two hours off unpaid.  I think that’s a great style of motivation.   You can leave early, which sounds good, or you can play games and get paid for it, which sounds even better!

If you aren’t familiar with multiplayer video games, they are as the name suggests — multiple players in the same game.  Often people are on teams in these games, where they work together.  There’s also the added benefit of cost — there’s an initial setup cost to get the game, but then there’s no more business expense for it.  In a way, it’s like going out to play golf or going to a restaurant with your colleagues, except that there’s no cost, and it’s even more fun.

guess what's about to happen here
What could've happened here?

Here’s the link to the news article about it: Shooting the boss (and getting paid for it).  (Props to Turtle Dundee for the link.)

Personally, I think this is a great idea!  And as the owner of my own business, I am immediately implementing this team-building exercise at my company.  (And before you ask, no, I’m not hiring at this time.  Sorry.)  Hopefully many other companies will realize the value in this and start such programs.  It seems like a win-win program for everyone.

public approval rating going down

Here at Buffet o’ Blog we usually don’t dabble in politics, unless it’s funny or satire / irony.  Today we have an editorial by chief important political correspondent, T. Wayne Ledbetter, Esq.  Can you find the humor in this, or at least write something funny in response to it?

In the past few weeks, several U.S. Senators have been holding town hall meetings to discuss the national health care plan, and they’ve been met with some major opposition.   Some citizens are quite angry about the idea of a socialism-style health care system, along with the massive cost that will be passed along to future generations.

President Barack Obama is keeping track of all this public opposition, and thus the public’s approval rating is going down in his eyes.  Surely Obama sits at his Oval Office desk and sighs all the time at how many people just don’t like his plans.  He must be wondering why the average Joe isn’t interested in socialism, when it’s for our own good.  “The American people don’t know what they want,” he probably mutters to himself, ever determined to force his plans upon the unsuspecting masses.

It may seem like Obama’s plans will all be passed without question, with the Democrats having a majority in Congress and the economy is a debacle (so people want change), but his future plans are not guaranteed yet.   If the Senators continue to meet with the American public and thus hear what people really think, they run the risk of getting back in touch with reality and realizing what their constituents actually expect.  And if enough people make their opinions heard, the Senators will be forced to take notice, because what is most important to them is remaining in power.  If they fear losing a significant number of votes and thus losing their seat, they will do what is necessary.

The current administration is aware of this danger to their radical plans, so they’ve begun to label the opposition in generalized, stereotyped, derogatory groups, like “right-wing extremists”.  They must isolate any public dissension to crazy people.  They have even asked for people to call the White House with the names of people who speak out against Obama’s socialistic vision.  They must not let this moment slip away, for American is at a crossroads created by a perfect storm of economic distress, an unwinnable war, rumors of man-made global warming and the need to go “green”, and discontent of “politics as usual” by the American people.  This crossroads offers the perfect chance to push through extreme legislation, as we have seen with the stimulus package and the omnibus bill and bailouts, which were rushed so fast through Congress that most of our representatives never had time to even read it!

Obama knows the current stakes, and he realizes he must seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take control of America’s future, and he must act quickly.  If the great unwashed masses realize he is pushing for European-style socialism, his plans will fail.  He must make these changes under the guise of making everything better, and he must proceed with great haste.  With the public’s approval rating going down (in his eyes), time is running out.  Some of the mainstream media are even beginning to criticize him — even beyond FOX News.  Obama sits in his comfy executive chair, perplexed, wondering how mainstream reporters can question his grandiose plans.  Isn’t dissent of the President unpatriotic?  How could anyone be critical (beyond those crazy right-wing extremists, who only want to save the foundation our country was built on)?

Obama - PerceptionDuring a moment of brief reflection, perhaps Obama gives pause to his plans of changing America, and he begins to wonder if former President George W. Bush ever felt this discombobulated.  But those thoughts are fleeting, because he reckons the situation was irreconcilably different.  The media was obviously justified in hating Bush, in denigrating everything about him, in exaggerating the blame that should be cast upon him.  It was patriotic for the far-left media to hate on Bush, because he was… conservative.  There was nothing historic and momentous about his presidency.  He was too experienced, and his election wasn’t anything unique, and he didn’t take America in all these new radical directions.  His tenure in Washington was boring, except for all the humor and satire created about him.  But Obama, he’s historic, and he has a huge vision of change (even if nobody knew what the change would be during the campaign, it was change, so it must be good).  And Obama has the support of most of the mainstream media, so he must be doing things right.  Right?

As I wrap up this long piece of political satire, it is now up to you to ponder what was said, to see if you can determine what was satire and what is actually happening.  Was I just rambling incoherently, or did I actually have any thought-provoking points to make?   Was there any political humor in there, or was it depressing?  The end result is up to you.   I ramble, you decide.   🙂