|
The article title is kind of clickbait-y, isn't it? I kind of agree with the article that the diet changes are more important for the weight loss angle. However, when it comes to being healthy overall, I actually think exercise is more important. You can be overweight by BMI, physically fit, and better off overall health-wise than a thin person who is a couch potato. http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/05/can-you-be-fat-and-fit... Anecdotally, I know someone who has gone from 300lbs to 140lbs using a combination of exercise (walking) and diet changes (Weight Watchers). I think both were equally important to her success, personally. Some of the article to me was, er, a bit of a stretch. Take point 7: "Exercise may cause physiological changes that help us conserve energy". And the only linked citation is to a paper outlining that people with different genetic composition respond differently to exercise, and a meta study that involved both diet and exercise? "Starvation mode" to extreme diets is well documented, so where's the paper that links to just exercise causing slower metabolic change? I mean, perhaps it's possible, but it runs against the consensus I've heard, so basically, [Citation needed], because what was provided doesn't say what that paragraph said. I do agree with the article that policy should focus on the low-quality food angle. |