On this page I present my articles and links to debunk the myth that exercise leads to significant weight loss.
My text is in black. Text copied from the Net is in maroon or, as highlighted by me, in red.
. . . The myth that exercise causes weight loss ___ Cost of sports injuries
. . . The myth that sleeping longer is healthier ___ The myth that scalp massage is beneficial
The myth that exercise causes weight loss
Why is it that most people (mistakenly) believe that exercise leads to weight loss? I speak not only of glitzy TV commercials for frightening-looking gymnastic contraptions that people use for a week and then hide under the bed forevermore, but of many health-advice sites on the Web.
About five years ago, New Scientist magazine addressed this issue in a report of a meta-study of many studies. Its conclusion was that the evidence shows that exercise programs -- even rather intense ones -- do not lead to significant or any weight loss. This should come as no surprise if one examines the table of weight-loss per hour as a function of the type of exercise given in the following link below: Exercise does NOT help one lose weight. If one uses 100 Calories per hour just sitting at rest, 140 Calories per hour for typing (what might be deemed a "normal" level of activity), and 200 Calories per hour walking slowly (at 2.6 miles per hour), and as it takes 3,500 Calories to burn off a pound of weight, then one would have to walk for 3,500 / 200 = 17.5 hours, or 45.5 miles, to lose one pound. Some consumption rates, in Calories per hour, are as follows: sleeping, 65; awake, but lying still, 77; sitting at rest, 100; standing relaxed, 105; and, walking very fast (5.3 miles per hour), 650. For the distinction between Calories and calories, see Howstuffworks below.
The brain uses about 20% (some say 15% or 30%) of the total energy consumption of the body. That is about 25 Watts of power. Although it is (still) capable of doing things far more sophisticated than your PC, it uses only about one quarter of the power! I have searched in vain to find a figure indicating the amount of energy used by conscious thought, as opposed to being merely awake. The article at Food for thought below indicates that his figure is relatively low. From the preceding table, it appears that this might amount to about 77 - 65 = 12 Calories per hour. I shall amend this if I find a more definitive answer.
Instead of thinking that exercise leads to weight loss, why would it not be more reasonable (or common-sensical, at least) to assume that exercise leads, instead, to weight gain? After all, there are many people who would dearly love to gain weight. These people eat as much rich food as possible, and yet do not gain the weight they so desperately desire. Consider, for example, a fellow in high school who, at 135 lbs., and just getting over acne and pimples (and not yet very self-confident!) considers himself too skinny. Even more importantly, his school athletic coaches consider him to be too skinny and fragile (consider liability lawsuits here) for playing basketball or football. One option this guy has to try to reach his ideal of being 185 lbs. (instead of, for example, learning something useful -- such as what mathematics is all about) is to take up exercise, and to eat even more. After all, a primary aim of bodybuilders surely is to gain weight. Is it just incidental that, to do so, they spend mindless hours each day exercising and weight-lifting? As an example of one health-professional's advice as to how to gain weight through exercise, see HOW TO GAIN WEIGHT HEALTHFULLY below. For before and after photos of such a guy, see Muscle gain - how to gain weight below. A veritable Charles Atlas story! Maybe now, after all these hours of brain-numbing exercises, he could qualify to become a ditch-digger.
One might well ask whether, apart from "just" the exercise, being a trained athlete leads to a person who is significantly less overweight in later life, especially around the waist. The simple answer is no. See Middle-Age Weight Gain Study below. One might also ask whether those who take part in intense athletics in college are healthier in later life than students who do not. The answer is that such athletes have a higher incidence of heart disease and stroke in later life than do the non-athletes. See Ex-Football Players Healthier? and subsequent links below. Some of these results are based on the well-known Harvard Alumni Study, which followed about 17,000 male alumni over a period of 22 years.
Apart from the effect of exercise alone, a significant percentage of college athletes (and professionals) will suffer mental imparment as a result of their sports activities. See Two or more blows to head can produce long-lasting impairment below.
Letter to editor: myth that exercise reduces weight
WINDROWS alert! Myth that exercise causes weight loss
This message is brought to you as a public disservice by WINDROWS (Wayne's Ironic News: Deconstructing Reportage Others Would Shun)
Here is but one more foray into the realm of junk science.
I suppose that I should no longer be surprised at how arguments of a scientific nature are so often used -- wrongly -- to support yet another supposedly good cause. I am concerned here not so much with esoteric corners of science, but with the misuse of scientific knowledge and theory that should not be that remote from the general public and the common interest.
My latest foray is in relation to a letter written to the Ottawa Citizen promoting the idea that too many people are obese, and wouldn't it be a good idea if we all exercised more to overcome this. The letter was published in the Ottawa Citizen on 2 Mar 02, page B5. I have not been able to find a copy online -- nor mine, copy below. It was written by Greg Poole, Associate director, Physical Recreation and Athletics, Carleton University.
I am basically summarizing the gist of what I already have on my site (in this section).
Here is my letter, as e-mailed on 3 Mar 02: . . .
To: Letters Editor, Ottawa Citizen
Re: Letter "Get moving to fight obesity", by Greg Poole, March 2, p. B5
Proposed title: The myth that exercise reduces weight
---- There are about 199 words (1,111 characters, with spaces) in the body of the text below. ----
I take issue with the statement by Greg Poole that "physical inactivity is the primary cause of obesity" and his implication that exercising from 30 to 50 minutes per day can lead to significant weight loss. ("Get moving to fight obesity", March 2.)
There is much research to show that: (a) obesity is caused primarily by eating the wrong foods, having excess calories; and, (b) even vigorous exercise has very little, if any, effect on weight. According to one source, it takes 9 hours of swimming or 10 hours of brisk walking to lose 1 pound.
If one uses 100 Calories per hour just sitting at rest, and 200 Calories per hour walking slowly (at 2.6 miles per hour), and as it takes 3,500 Calories to burn off a pound of weight, then one would have to walk for 17.5 hours, or 45.5 miles, to lose one pound. Some consumption rates, in Calories per hour, are as follows: sleeping, 65; awake, lying still, 77; standing relaxed, 105; typing, 140; and, walking very fast (5.3 miles per hour), 650. (Note that one Calorie equals 1,000 calories.)
All this is not to deny that exercise is very beneficial in many ways.
You are free to publish any or all of the above, in any form, edited as you please, including my name and city. Signed: Wayne R. Paulson, Ottawa, Ontario
For substantiation of my figures and statements, see (ref. to this section).
After having sent the letter in, I have been on the phone twice with the Letters Editor, who is worried (and rightly so) about the possible confusion introduced by my use of the words Calories and calories. In such letters one is always trading off completeness vs number of words (max. of 300, nominally). That launched me into a little lecture re MKS vs cgs units. We agreed to abandon Calories and go for kilocalories. Here is the letter as published -- on 7 Mar 02, p. C5.
Consuming too many calories is primary cause of obesity
Re: Letter "Get moving to fight obesity," by Greg Poole, March 2.)
I take issue with the statement by letter-writer Greg Poole that "physical inactivity is the primary cause of obesity." I also disagree with his suggestion that exercising from 30 to 50 minutes per day can lead to significant weight loss.
There is much research to show that obesity is caused primarily by eating the wrong foods that contain excess calories.
Also, research indicates that even vigorous exercise has very little, if any, effect on weight.
According to one source, it takes 9 hours of swimming or 10 hours of brisk walking to lose 1 pound. If one uses 100 kilocalories per hour just sitting at rest, and 200 kilocalories per hour walking slowly (at 2.6 miles per hour), and as it takes 3,500 Calories to burn off a pound of weight, then one would have to walk for 17.5 hours, or 45.5 miles, to lose one pound.
Some consumption rates, in kilocalories per hour, are as follows: sleeping, 65; awake, lying still, 77; standing relaxed, 105; typing, 140; and, walking very fast (5.3 miles per hour), 650.
All this is not to deny that exercise is very beneficial in many ways.
There are two other aspects of this issue that I did not address, because (a) they were not mentioned in the letter by Greg Poole, and (b) space limitations. One is the long-term beneficial effect of exercise on metabolic rate. Secondly, there is evidence to support the thesis that it is healthier to be slightly above average (or 'normal') weight than to be of just average, or lower, weight -- especialy for women and pregnancy.
Based on physiology, one might not only question the false idea that exercise causes weight loss, but ask the logical question as to why exercise does not, instead, cause weight gain. After all, many athletes exercise to not only get stronger, but to gain weight! See my site for an example.
A more fundamental, but more elusive topic, is to question, as I do, why universities even have athletic departments. The argument that vigorous exercise such as football promotes better health is false in at least some ways. For example, a major study has shown that college football players have a greater incidence of heart attack and stroke later in life than do non-athlete college students.
If anyone wishes to have a copy of Greg Pooles's letter, I could type it out (if I cannot find it on the Web) and send it to you.
Following the publication of my letter detailed above, at Letter to editor: myth that exercise reduces weight, an additional letter to the Ottawa Citizen was published in response to the same original letter by Greg Poole, as follows.
Health-care stats don't add up
G.W. (Bill) Riedel, The Ottawa Citizen. March 15, 2002.
Re: Get moving to fight obesity, March 2.
It has become a widely practised form of sophistry to estimate a cost ascribed to a disease and then imply that lifestyle change will somehow remove that cost from the health-care delivery system. The letter-writer states that "recent research has pegged the annual direct health-care cost of physical inactivity in Canada at about $2.5 billion and, for obesity, $2 billion." Thus, if we all engage in physical activity, a saving of $4.5 billion is possible.
It ain't necessarily so. In addition to eliminating the incomes of the regulatory/medical/diet industry that depends on obesity, it should be noted that physical fitness has it's own health risks.
Consumer Report, March 1999, stated that "recreational sports are linked to accidents that most often require emergency-room treatment, according to the Consumer Safety Commission. Sports accounted for one-third of 11.7 million emergency-room visits." The article is accompanied by a graph showing emergency-room visits for 15 of "the most dangerous sports" starting with basketball, bicycling, football, playground and skating.
Clearly, these sport-associated costs would have to be subtracted from the projected savings for the health-care delivery system. This is not to say that we should not have programs to become more fit and healthy. It is simply to encourage more objective analysis of health issues or, as John Ralston Saul indicated in his most recent book, there is a need for equilibrium/balance.
G.W. (Bill) Riedel,
Ottawa
© Copyright 2002 The Ottawa Citizen
I think that Bill Riedel makes an excellent point! As of 16 March, Greg Poole had responded to neither that letter, nor mine. I will post it if he does.
See the links below for additional insights, and The myth that sleeping longer is healthier.
The myth that sleeping longer is healthier
Study
Links 8 Hours' Sleep to Shorter Life Span (washingtonpost.com): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12305-2002Feb14.html By
Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer
Feb. 15, 2002; Page A02.
Contrary to popular belief, people who sleep six to seven hours a night live longer, and those who sleep eight hours or more die younger, according to the largest study ever conducted on the subject.
The controversial study, which tracked the sleeping habits of 1.1 million Americans for six years, undermines the advice of many sleep doctors who have long recommended that people get eight or nine hours of sleep every night. . . .
Are the observed longevities an effect of sleeping duration, or are those who sleep less predisposed to live longer? Might it be that those who sleep less live longer because (in part) they get more exercise in those extra hours awake than they would during sleep, even by just reading the morning paper? I think that I recall hearing that, by just sitting and reading, one is using energy at a rate of 70% of the maximum energy consumption that it possible to use -- by, for example running as fast as possible. I will have to check on this -- especially as I am not noted for running fast, if at all! The second article below indicates that the figure is not 70%, but more like 50% to 60%.
Additional information:
Energy Requirements of Animals: http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/biology/compneut/Booklet/EnergyReqofAnimals/EnergyReqsofAnimals.htm
A man of 65 kg who spends 30 min walking to his office at 4 mph utilises . . . 657 kJ. This amount of energy could come from about 18 g of either dietary or adipose tissue fat. It is some four times more energy than he would have spent in 25 min in bed and 5 min driving to the office in his car.
Exercise burns lots of calories. - Exploding Ten Exercise Myths - Nutrition Action Healthletter: http://www.cspinet.org/nah/2_00/ten_myths04.html “People have the mistaken idea that exercise is a fabulous way to lose weight,” says William Evans of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. “But exercising doesn’t burn a lot of calories.”
Walking or running a mile burns about 100 calories. But sitting still for the same time burns about 50 or 60 calories. . . .
Another misconception: You keep burning considerably more calories for a long time after you stop exercising. “Calorie expenditure is elevated for the first minute or two, but by five or six minutes the extra expenditure is pretty small, and by 40 minutes post-exercise, it’s back to where you started,” . . .
See also The myth that exercise causes weight loss.
Exercise does NOT help one lose
weight: http://ecologos.org/ex.htm MYTH:
Exercise makes one lose weight. TRUTH:
Guyton, in Textbook of Medical Physiology,
gives the Calorie expenditures of various levels of activity as: .
. . Table.
For example:
So, to "burn off" a pound of "fat", one would
have to RUN 5.3 miles/hr x 8.1 hr = 43 MILES!! Conclusion: one CAN NOT lose
weight by exercise.
Professional Fitness Specialists: http://www.personal-fitness.com/02070004.shtml Exploding Ten Exercise Myths. Myth #4: Exercise burns lots of calories. . . . “People have the mistaken idea that exercise is a fabulous way to lose weight,” says William Evans of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. “But exercising doesn’t burn a lot of calories.”
Walking or running a mile burns about 100 calories. But sitting still for the same time burns about 50 or 60 calories. “So the extra you expend isn’t huge and people get discouraged at their slow rate of weight loss.” . . .
See also: . . .
Weight Loss Myths: http://www.stretcher.com/stories/01/010319d.cfm by Greg Landry, M.S., Exercise Physiologist.
Myth #10 - You'll burn more calories jogging a mile than walking a mile.
Fact - Caloric expenditure is 62** calories per 100 pounds body weight per mile traveled (walked or jogged). For example, if you weigh 150 pounds, you expend 93 calories per mile walked or jogged (62 x 1.5). Of course, if you're jogging, you'll cover the distance in less time than if you're walking. Thus, you'll burn more calories in a given period of time if you're jogging.
** Is this the total expenditure, or only that due to moving? What is the rate for just sitting still? My guess? About 40.
Weight loss diet,diet myths: http://www.diet-i.com/weight_loss/questions.htm The 7 Big Diet Myths.
Myth 7. People
are overweight because they don't exercise
It's certainly true that lack of exercise is a contributory
factor to a general rise in weight. However, in view of the fact
that it takes 9
hours of swimming or 10 hours of brisk walking to lose 1 pound, it's clear that exercise (or lack of it) does
not have a big direct
influence on our weight.
The truth: By far the biggest cause of obesity is bad eating habits. The vast majority of people become overweight simply because they eat too many fattening foods. Exercise is important for our health and for it's indirect effects on our weight. Unless we also eat sensibly, the effect of exercise on our weight is fairly minor.
Chew gum or run: http://www.4j.lane.edu/hr/rm/benefitsnews/certified/feb282000.html Certified Newsletter Feb. 28, 00. Eugene Education Association.
Myth #4: Exercise burns lots of calories. Fact: . . . walking or running burns about 100 calories per mile versus the 50-60 calories you burn in the same amount of time sitting.
Chewing Gum and Losing Weight
Chewing gum, the act that was discouraged by teachers and dentists through the years, may in fact have at least one redeeming quality. In a study done at the Mayo Clinic and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, chewing sugarless gum increases metabolism by 20% and allowed sitting participants to burn an average of 11 more calories per hour than did those who sat without chewing. . . . these findings suggest that if no other changes were made in a person's energy intake or output, he/she might lose approximately 10 pounds of body fat over the course of a year.
Howstuffworks Does drinking ice water burn calories: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question447.htm . . . When I drink ice water, does my body burn calories warming up the ice? Answer:
For anyone trying to lose weight, this question is an exciting one! If you simply want to know if your body burns calories warming up the water, the answer is yes. But if you want to know if drinking a lot of ice water can help you lose weight, or keep weight off, this "yes" needs to be qualified with some calculations.
First of all, calories are case-sensitive. There are calories and then there are Calories. Calories with a big "c" are the ones used to describe the amount of energy contained in foods. A calorie with a little "c" is defined as the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius. What most people think of as a Calorie is actually a kilo-calorie: It takes one Calorie to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water 1 degree Celsius. So when you drink a 140-Calorie can of cola, you are ingesting 140,000 calories. There is no cause for alarm, because the conversion applies across the board. When you burn 100 Calories jogging a mile, you are burning 100,000 calories. . . .
Let's figure out exactly what you're burning when you drink a 16-ounce (0.5 liter) glass of ice water: Body temperature can be estimated at 37 degrees Celsius. It takes 1 calorie to raise 1 gram (0.0352 ounces) of water 1 degree Celsius. There are 454.56 grams in 16 ounces of water. So in the case of a 16-ounce glass of ice water, your body must raise the temperature of 454.56 grams of water from zero to 37 degrees C. In doing so, your body burns 16,819 calories. But that's calories with a little "c." Your body only burns 17 Calories, and in the grand scheme of a 2,000-Calorie diet, that 17 isn't very significant.
Brain Facts: http://www.brainplace.com/bp/brainfacts/default.asp . . . About 3 pounds (or 2% of body weight). Consumes about 20-30% of the body's energy (this means it uses about 20-30% of the calories you eat). If you want to lose weight you have to think harder. There are about 100 billion neurons in the brain. Each neuron or nerve cell is connected to other nerve cells in the brain, by sometimes hundreds or even thousands of connections, called dendrites. (draw a typical nerve cell). It is estimated that there are over 1,000,000,000,000,000 connections in brain, more connections than there are stars in universe. The brain is more complicated than any computer we can imagine. The world's most sophisticated computer is currently only as complicated as a rat's brain.
New Scientist The Last Word Science Questions and Answers: http://www.newscientist.com/lastword/answers/764energy.jsp?tp=energy1 Energy & Forces: Food for thought. . . . The brain is an energy-hungry organ, which presumably uses more fuel the harder it works. Could thinking hard help a person lose weight? Is reading James Joyce's Ulysses an alternative to dieting? . . .
The brain consumes about 20 per cent of the body's energy intake, despite constituting only about 2 per cent of its mass. It is indeed a very energy-hungry organ. However, cognitive processing is a relatively small part of the brain's overall function, so concentrating on passages from James Joyce's Ulysses, or any other strenuous mental activity such as revising hard, will not in itself make much difference. This is because most of the calories the brain uses support its more fundamental functions.
Brain limits: http://www.merkle.com/brainLimits.html Energy Limits to the Computational Power of the Human Brain. . . . The total energy consumption of the brain is about 25 watts [Principles of Neural Science, by Eric R. Kandel and James H. Schwartz, 2nd edition, Elsevier, 1985.].
Brain Information & Products - memory, concentration & energy: http://www.sourcenaturals.com/nutcat/neuro.html Nutrition and the Brain. . . . The brain weighs only about three pounds -- about 2% of our total weight -- yet uses 15% of the energy generated by the entire body. The reason the brain uses such a huge amount of energy has to do with the way nerve cells, or neurons, carry impulses. . . .
Middle-Age Weight Gain Study: http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/spare-tire.html Middle-Age Weight Gain: Men Unlikely To Outrun It. . . .
In a study involving 4,769 male runners under the age of 50, Paul Williams of the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)** investigated the question of whether vigorous exercise can prevent weight gain with age. Williams found that in middle-aged men, waist-line expansion is almost a force of nature. Those who exercise will be leaner than sedentary individuals but even devoted runners will find it increasingly difficult to remain sleek.
[** I find it highly ironic that such a distinguished laboratory, named after the designer of the firsat large particle accelerator, and dedicated to research in nuclear physics (and, yes, bombs), should be involved in studying the useless field of athletics; however, the present results are useful in countering the popular myth that exercise offers the Midas touch to perfect health.]
The outlook for men over the age of 50 is similar, at least around the waist. Examining a second set of 2,150 male runners (all over the age of 50), Williams found that men over the age of 50 appear to gradually lose muscle mass and weight as the years pass. Unfortunately, the runners' waist sizes generally did not deflate with age.
The study showed that in 4,769 runners between the ages of 18 and 50, weight gain occurred at the same rate almost regardless of the number of miles run per week. Per decade, the average six-foot-tall man gained about 3.3 pounds and about 3/4 inches around the waist. . . .
HOW TO GAIN WEIGHT HEALTHFULLY: http://www.naturalstrength.com/nutrition/gain.html THE ATHLETE'S KITCHEN. Copyright: Nancy Clark, MS, RD. . . 5. Do strengthening exercises (weight lifting, push-ups) to stimulate muscular development so that you bulk-up instead of fatten up. Some underweight people are afraid exercise will result in weight loss rather than weight gain. If that's your case, remember that exercise tends to stimulate the appetite; you'll want to eat more. (Yes, exercise may temporarily "kill" your appetite right after a hard workout, but within a few hours, you'll get hungry.) Exercise also increases thirst; you'll easily be able to drink extra juices. . . .
Muscle gain - how to gain weight: http://www.musclegaintips.com/ Learn How I Gained 32lbs of Muscle Mass. . . . Using these simple techniques, I not only gained 32 pounds of muscle** in 12 weeks, but I also reduced my body fat from 10% to 7%! [** We already appear to have a contradiction here. Did he gain 32 lbs. of body mass, or of muscle mass. It can't be both.]
WebMD-Lycos - Ex-Football Players Healthier?: http://webmd.lycos.com/content/article/1676.52976 . . .
And "the other thing is to teach younger players how to prepare for life after football," he says.
For example, players take in a high amount of calories and after their professional career is over, this doesn't stop; because they are exercising less, they balloon up and have an increased risk of heart disease, cholesterol problems, and multiple other health complications.
Chicago Tribune Print Edition -- Putting your heart and lungs into it: http://205.180.62.120/leisure/family/printedition/article/0,2669,SAV-0105270434,FF.html . . . Another intriguing outcome is from a Harvard alumni study that indicates former athletes who became sedentary were more at risk for heart attacks and coronary heart disease than people who were non-athletes in college but have since started moderate cardiovascular programs. It shows both that it is never too late to benefit from aerobic activity -- which mirrors similar findings for weight training -- and that you do have to keep at it. . . .
Age antidote: http://www.drlenkravitz.com/Articles/ageantidote.html . . . Will You Live Longer if You Exercise?. . . Early comparisons of university athletes with their sedentary peers failed to demonstrate any difference in longevity between the two groups. In fact, some evidence shows that many former athletes become overweight, inactive, smoke and drink more than their sedentary counterparts . . . Yet there is no evidence that life span, the theoretical number of years a person may live (which is currently 100 yr), has been extended with an active lifestyle . . .
Polk Health & FitnessAthletes risk concussions 02-07-00: http://www.polkonline.com/stories/020700/hea_gesslers-corner.shtml . . . Recent studies are showing that concussions (MTBI's) are common among athletes. Over a three-year period 5.5 percent of all reported injuries to high school athletes in 10 different sports were due to MTBI's. This is a significant number of people being injured. . . .
News Tribune: Football players most vulnerable. Two or more blows to head can produce long-lasting impairment: http://www.newstribune.com/stories/090899/fea_0908990029.asp . . . The researchers estimated that more than 62,800 concussions occur among high school students nationwide annually in the sports they studied . . . Players who had learning disorders -- 13.5 percent of the sample -- fared even worse if they had two or more concussions, suggesting that the disorders make the brain especially vulnerable to jarring injuries. About 12 percent of all collegians have learning disorders, research has shown. . . .
Tor Norretranders The
User Illusion, quotations: http://www-users.rwth-aachen.de/gunter.heim/ENGLjedi/literature/norretranders.htm Subtitle:
Cutting Consciousness Down to Size.
. . . On the energy consumption of the brain, page 117: ...the
brain already appropriates a large proportion of the body`s
overall resources: a fifth of its entire energy consumption.
On bits per second and the
brain, page 125, 126:
The eye send at
least ten million bits to the brain every second. The skin sends
a million bits a second, the ear one hundred thousand, our smell
sensors a further one hundred thousand bits a second, our taste
buds perhaps a thousand bits a second. All in all, over eleven
million bits a second from the world to our sensory mechanisms.
BASF-Group Innovations
actualized Innovation Award Sibutramine: http://www.basf.de/en/corporate/innovationen/realisiert/innovationspreis/sibutram.htm Sibutramine:
breakthrough in the fight against pathological obesity.
A novel therapy against one
of the most urgent health problems in the western world -- this
innovation brought an award to a team from BASF's Pharmaceuticals
Division in Great Britain and the U.S. The researchers developed
the active ingredient sibutramine against pathological obesity.
This is not a "slimming pill" for cosmetic treatment. .
. .
Sibutramine acts against pathological obesity by supporting the natural weight-control functions in the body: it prevents resorption of the messenger substances serotonin and noradrenalin in the brain, allowing them to act at higher concentration on the nerve cells, increasing the feeling of satiety. In addition, there are indications of an increase in metabolic activity, resulting in increased consumption of calories. . . .
AA-35: http://www.dui.com/NIH/alcoholdigestion.html National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. . . .
Although alcohol has a relatively high caloric value, 7.1 Calories per gram (as a point of reference, 1 gram of carbohydrate contains 4.5 Calories, and 1 gram of fat contains 9 Calories), alcohol consumption does not necessarily result in increased body weight. An analysis of data collected from the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I) found that although drinkers had significantly higher intakes of total calories than nondrinkers, drinkers were not more obese than nondrinkers. In fact, women drinkers had significantly lower body weight than nondrinkers. As alcohol intake among men increased, their body weight decreased (17). An analysis of data from the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II) and other large national studies found similar results for women (18), although the relationship between drinking and body weight for men is inconsistent. Although moderate doses of alcohol added to the diets of lean men and women do not seem to lead to weight gain, some studies have reported weight gain when alcohol is added to the diets of overweight persons (19,20).
When chronic heavy drinkers substitute alcohol for carbohydrates in their diets, they lose weight and weigh less than their nondrinking counterparts (21,22). Furthermore, when chronic heavy drinkers add alcohol to an otherwise normal diet, they do not gain weight (21).
lifeOctober 14,1998: http://www.bermudasun.org/issues/oct14_98/lifeoct14_98.html You can be fat and healthy. Bermuda Sun Newspaper, Oct 14, 1998.
THAT IS THE message Dr. Glen Gaesser, associate professor of exercise physiology at the University of Virginia, and author of the book Big Fat Lie, is trying to drive home to the millions of people who believe you have to be thin to be healthy.
"It is most important to convince people that being fit and being healthy is not solely determined by what you weigh, but how you live your life. You can be fat and fit," . . .
junkscience.com -- all the junk that's fit to debunk -- over 1,000,000 served: http://www.junkscience.com/oct99.htm
junk commentary of the day: "The Real Skinny on Health" -- The Los Angeles Times editorializes that Americans are "dangerously fat" -- a comment emanating from this week's focus on obesity in the Journal of the American Medical Association. While being overweight may be undesirable for a number of reasons, Americans aren't eating themselves to death. Despite the prevalence of pear shapes, pot bellies, multiple chins, flabby arms, and thunder thighs, the fact remains that U.S. life expectancy is ever-increasing. It may be that if people took better care of themselves, average life expectancy would increase by even more. But a less than optimum increase in life expectancy hardly constitutes a public health calamity.
The myth that scalp massage is beneficial
When my wife and I go to a hairdresser, I too, lie back, place the back of my neck against the rounded edge of a porcelain washbowl, and get a hair wash, complete with repeated massaging of the scalp. Why, I ask, is my scalp being massaged? I am told that it is good for blood circulation, which might be good for healthy hair and the prevention of hair loss. I don't believe any of it. I think that I am being sold the sizzle of a steak that does not exist.
My understanding, based upon medical information, is that the scalp is one of the regions of the body that is the most richly supplied with blood, and that massaging offers no benefit of any kind. All that it might do is wash your hair much more than is needed.
See the following site for more expert advice than mine -- on this and related topics:
American Osteopathic College of Dermatology - Common Beauty Myths: http://www.aocd.org/skin/myths.html
. . . old notions have been replaced by a whole new crop of beauty myths. Here are 10 of them and some help in separating fact from fiction. . . .
Go Home. Go up to Page contents. Go back to several modern myths. Go to Health contents.
You can e-mail me at waynerp@sympatico.ca