For Greg. I don’t think you’re offering too much disagreement. I did state that the article did highlight the difficulty of weight loss with exercise alone based on calorific considerations.

I would never advocate that approach. The real challenge is to cut food calories. Doing both is optimal, but you have to have real discipline not to overeat just because you ran a half marathon . (I’ve run maybe 50, and a dozen or so marathons.)

Thanks.

Hate to disagree, but there’s a jewel of truth to the article. Six years ago, I decided to get myself in shape. In order to lose weight, I decided to run a 5K. At 6’2″ and 242 pounds, I was VERY overweight. I found a “Couch To 5K” program and finished the run after 10-weeks of training. I lost 15 pounds.

I then decided to do a half marathon for greater weight loss. After 3 months of training and tripling my weekly mileage, I hadn’t lost a single pound.

That’s when I started exploring my diet. The conclusion I reached was that my initial 15-pound loss was a by-product of skipping business lunches for running, reducing my calorie intake.

The problem is that running 30-minutes will burn, for most of us, about 300-500 calories. For most people, that’s the equivalent of eating a ham sandwich.

I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t exercise. I do. But experience (and math) tell me we exercise for fitness, and eat for weight.

My 2-cents.

While the Time article did bring up some good points i think it is quite irresponsible to spread that message through the media.
The general public love any excuse not to exercise and what this article failed to reinforce is the psychological benefits of physical activity.We know that exercise can be twice as beneficial as anti-depressants, elevates mood, improves executive function in the brain, improves memoryIn addition it failed to acknowledge Stephen Blairs work that showed in terms of longevity it is more important to be fit than thin.

Thanks