Exercise 'not key to obesity fight'

Cal wrote:

Dan. wrote:How are you doing with the smoking Cal?

I haven't stopped yet. It's a worry, but look on the bright side: I haven't touched alcohol for the best part of twenty five years. I know: it's a pretty weak defence, but I'm afraid it's the best I've got.

As you are over 45, you might want to start drinking.

Simply put, alcohol can be good and bad for the heart – and it isn’t necessarily just red wine that can help you, as the media often suggests. There’s confusion because, say our experts, alcohol’s protective effects depend on a number of crucial factors:
•Overall, alcohol only gives you benefits if you drink within the government's daily unit guidelines
•Any protective benefits on the heart generally only work over the age of 45

https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/check-the- ... -the-heart

Cal wrote:

Dan. wrote:How are you doing with the smoking Cal?

I haven't stopped yet. It's a worry, but look on the bright side: I haven't touched alcohol for the best part of twenty five years. I know: it's a pretty weak defence, but I'm afraid it's the best I've got.

That's impressive in itself though, good for you.

Regards the smoking, although I don't smoke myself I know it's a well-worn saying that smoking reduces hunger levels, which in turn leads to lower calorie consumption... I would imagine it might be more difficult to fend off the hunger pangs associated with men of your age if you were in the middle of trying to quit. But then again, if you quit smoking and started to pile on the pounds, you'd just be swapping the health risks.

Have you had any periods of trying to come off the cigs? And if you did, when you did, did you notice any growth in how hungry you were?

Cal wrote:

Falsey wrote:

Cal wrote:

Falsey wrote:Cal, what is your weight these days?

I'm just under the 12st mark (I used to be almost 16st). Got near to 11.5st a few months back, but somewhere in between now. I'm cool with that, tbh. Friends say I'm quite slim enough. Gotta keep reminding myself I'm not 25 anymore.

Thats good. How is your diet now? Are you currently operating calorie neutral or still in deficit?

I'm pretty much calorie neutral, sometimes in deficit. My weight seems to have settled around or just under 12st, given that I don't exercise, and it's all driven by diet alone. I've tried cutting down on food intake even further (which got me down to 11.5st), but I just ended up too hungry for it to be sustainable or sensible so I went back on to my previous diet and all is well again. I'm always reviewing my diet and I do try to vary it from time-to-time.

While I was abroad at the start of this year I did tons of swimming (and some amazing snorkeling) and I really felt the benefit (toned-up nicely for an old geezer!) - but sadly there is no swimming pool within a reasonable distance of where I live. Swimming is my only real interest, exercise-wise. It's a problem.

Thats good, but looking at the last paragraph dont you think it'd be good for your health (and bodyweight) if you exercised as well as keeping your calories the same?

I think weight is a poor metric for measuring your well being, though. Muscle weighs 4 times more (I believe) whilst being denser, meaning you look slimmer but weigh a lot more. Bodyfat % is a good one if you can get it, but Id just ignore weight mainly and go from how you look and feel.

Im currently the heaviest Ive ever been, but am probably even fitter than I was back when I was doing my army gooseberry fool. And I definately have a better shape to me, even if my skinny abs are a thing of the past.

Muscle also uses more significantly calories than the equivalent fat.

I think guideline advice is no bad thing, generally, because it can only help people who don't know better to lead healthier lifestyles.

But I also think that everyone here at GRcade is wise enough to understand that everyone's situation is different, and that it's not ever as simple as just "eat less of x" or "do more of y".

#captainobvious

I don't want to get dragged into a Cal debate (I've managed to never take part in one before) but I saw this on the BBC homepage this morning and said to my girlfriend at the time that I bet her a load of people would read the title and justify their living habits as a result.

It's becoming a more and more supported opinion that being physically active at a low level is more important than something like going to the gym. Being sedentary for over 6 hours per day makes you up to 40% more likely to die within 15 years than someone who sits less than 3 hours per day, no matter what your other exercise habits are and being physically inactive is linked to hypertension and subsequent CV disease, stroke, diabetes, cancers, and osteoporosis as well as psychological issues like depression and anxiety. Non-communicable diseases like these cause more deaths than all other causes combined. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease and diabetes are responsible for 82% of NCD deaths. It's not so much about doing exercise any more, but being physically active.

In terms of obesity, if you want to lose weight by eating strawberry float all and doing no exercise and being physically inactive, be my guest... but don't expect to be healthy and slim. "Fit but fat" is far better in terms of health prospects than thin but inactive. I'm not going to mega-post on this like I could do (I've done a lot of research into it as part of my first class undergrad and my Masters (currently completing) courses), but to treat this as new information which validates not doing any physical activity or exercise is more than slightly ridiculous.

^^^ doesn't understand.

Dan. wrote:I think guideline advice is no bad thing, generally, because it can only help people who don't know better to lead healthier lifestyles.

But I also think that everyone here at GRcade is wise enough to understand that everyone's situation is different, and that it's not ever as simple as just "eat less of x" or "do more of y".

#captainobvious

No, getting fit and slim is literally as simple as eat less gooseberry fool do more exercise.

Dan. wrote:

Cal wrote:

Dan. wrote:How are you doing with the smoking Cal?

I haven't stopped yet. It's a worry, but look on the bright side: I haven't touched alcohol for the best part of twenty five years. I know: it's a pretty weak defence, but I'm afraid it's the best I've got.

That's impressive in itself though, good for you.

Regards the smoking, although I don't smoke myself I know it's a well-worn saying that smoking reduces hunger levels, which in turn leads to lower calorie consumption... I would imagine it might be more difficult to fend off the hunger pangs associated with men of your age if you were in the middle of trying to quit. But then again, if you quit smoking and started to pile on the pounds, you'd just be swapping the health risks.

Have you had any periods of trying to come off the cigs? And if you did, when you did, did you notice any growth in how hungry you were?

I haven't, really. I did try out E-cigs for a short while but since I just wasn't getting the 'hit' I abandoned them. My brother (five years older than me and previously a lifelong smoker) has been on E-cigs since last October - BUT he has noticeably gained weight and has even admitted he can't stop eating since he stopped smoking proper cigs - even his wife said the same about him.

The joke in the modelling world is that 'cigarettes and coffee is the most effective diet in the world'. Sadly, as I am finding, there is some truth in that. If I didn't smoke I'd be back on the Ben & Jerrys quicker than a rat up an aqueduct. It's crazy: I do this cockamaime 'mental reasoning' that goes: 'do I want to be fat or risk lung cancer?' You know which one I choose and I cannot defend it in any possible way, except to say, well, I'm not fat.

Cal wrote:I've kept all that weight off (three years in June) by maintaining a strict diet that excludes all the rubbish that used to pile on the pounds. Staying slim requires no exercise at all - I've always known that because I'm living proof it.

Cal wrote:If I didn't smoke I'd be back on the Ben & Jerrys quicker than a rat up an aqueduct. It's crazy: I do this cockamaime 'mental reasoning' that goes: 'do I want to be fat or risk lung cancer?' You know which one I choose and I cannot defend it in any possible way, except to say, well, I'm not fat.

Living proof, indeed.

If you don't want to eat Ben & Jerry's don't strawberry floating buy it. It's a lot easier to not eat a chocolate bar than to run one off.

I've wasted my life

Fatal Exception wrote::lol: If you don't want to eat Ben & Jerry's don't strawberry floating buy it. It's a lot easier to not eat a chocolate bar than to run one off.

You don't need to run it off, just don't eat for a fortnight.

Eat it whilst running obviously. You sweat it straight out.

Mini E wrote:It's becoming a more and more supported opinion that being physically active at a low level is more important than something like going to the gym. Being sedentary for over 6 hours per day makes you up to 40% more likely to die within 15 years than someone who sits less than 3 hours per day, no matter what your other exercise habits are and being physically inactive is linked to hypertension and subsequent CV disease, stroke, diabetes, cancers, and osteoporosis as well as psychological issues like depression and anxiety. Non-communicable diseases like these cause more deaths than all other causes combined. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease and diabetes are responsible for 82% of NCD deaths. It's not so much about doing exercise any more, but being physically active.

To be fair, not everyone has the luxury of not being sedentary for (say) six hours each day. I need to spend my days sat down quietly in a library or lecture hall (or at the very least next to a computer), and if I don't I don't get paid and I have bigger immediate problems than what my health will be like in 15 years.

Obviously I'm not saying "don't exercise," obviously it would be better for my health if I were paid to run around and lift weights all day (or whatever), I'm saying just that maintaining that basic level of activity throughout each day might be impossible when your work requires you to sit down and focus.

Karl wrote:

Mini E wrote:It's becoming a more and more supported opinion that being physically active at a low level is more important than something like going to the gym. Being sedentary for over 6 hours per day makes you up to 40% more likely to die within 15 years than someone who sits less than 3 hours per day, no matter what your other exercise habits are and being physically inactive is linked to hypertension and subsequent CV disease, stroke, diabetes, cancers, and osteoporosis as well as psychological issues like depression and anxiety. Non-communicable diseases like these cause more deaths than all other causes combined. Cardiovascular disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease and diabetes are responsible for 82% of NCD deaths. It's not so much about doing exercise any more, but being physically active.

To be fair, not everyone has the luxury of not being sedentary for (say) six hours each day. I need to spend my days sat down quietly in a library or lecture hall (or at the very least next to a computer), and if I don't I don't get paid and I have bigger immediate problems than what my health will be like in 15 years.

Obviously I'm not saying "don't exercise," obviously it would be better for my health if I were paid to run around and lift weights all day (or whatever), I'm saying just that maintaining that basic level of activity throughout each day might be impossible when your work requires you to sit down and focus.

I'm doing some research into this exact topic at the moment and the implementation of active workstations. Ideally you want to be on your feet for 15-20 minutes per hour if you're in a seated job so sit-stand desks allow this. The practicalities of implementing these are easier said than done, obviously. It's much easier to say "this is good, this is bad" than it is to implement it.

Fair enough! Thanks for replying; I hope your research goes well.

Thanks - there's an argument to be made that your employers have a duty of care under Health & Safety at Work Act (1974) so if it's something you wanted to pursue with your employer you do have a leg to stand on

One of the guys at work had a sit stand desk, they are so impractical it is ridiculous he ended up just sitting because he was able to do gooseberry fool all when he was standing.

I work in an office on computers all day. I get up an about for a few minutes at a time for breaks or if I need to go to the datacentres, but 15-20 minutes an hour out of my day to get moving is not applicable to a working life where people also expect me to deliver things.