[dicktalens]

This is a joke right? I almost stopped at the first sentence.

There are many studies detailing the inefficacy of cardio for weight loss for various reasons -- from Friedenreich (2010) which actually compares cardio vs. non-cardio groups... to Willbond et. al (2010) which talks about the overestimation of caloric expenditure.

Not to mention the meta-analysis from last year: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21787904

But I guess you prefer observational, correlational studies instead. Of course people who run marathons are likely more fit. Derp.

Guess what, those who drink diet sodas are more likely to be overweight. I guess diet sodas make you fat?

[xiaoma]

It is not a joke.

Firstly, meta-analysis are generally amongst the worst things to go off (study selection makes it very difficult to control for a researcher's expectations). The link you provided doesn't even say how much cardio the subjects were doing.

Secondly, the studies I cited were massive and far better controlled than most. Feel free to offer a link to a larger and better controlled on if you can.

Thirdly your link, despite its problems, supports my argument. Participants reduced their waist circumferences by 2cm in 6 months!

Interestingly the first search result for "Friedenreich (2010)" is your own tweet, but looking further I found that he recommends exercise for cancer prevention. In fact, this presentation I found in the first page of results recommended more cario than any other type of exercise: http://wellspring.ca/Wellspring/media/common/documents/wells...

[dicktalens]

Friedenreich found that the test group lost more weight than the control group as well via. cardio. Yet I posted it in support of my argument anyway. Why?

It took an average of 35 hours of cardio to lose 1 lb of fat.

I'm not saying that it does not cause weight loss. I am saying that it's ineffective. Of course cardio will cause some weight loss vs. doing absolutely nothing. Of course it's good for your health. No one is arguing that.

Then again if you're saying that someone should run 1 hour/day for 5 days a week... which is unrealistic for 99% of the population, and unnecessarily complicates weight loss (not to mention makes it unsustainable)... then you probably don't have a problem with 35 hours to lose a pound.

[dennisgorelik]

Running 20 minutes/day 7 days a week is very realistic for 90% of the population. That's enough to keep the body in a good shape.

[btilly]

You don't have kids, do you? Become a full time parent, then see how much time you have left.

And note that in this thread the standard for what you should do is an hour a day 5 days a week rather than 20 minutes a day for 7 days a week.

[hnriot]

I do, and I don't have a problem finding 20 minutes to run every day. Become better at time management before posting nonsense like that.

[btilly]

Let me guess, your spouse isn't in a medical residency?

Before I had kids, I never had trouble finding time to exercise and had little sympathy for people who did. Since I've had kids my ability to exercise has varied with life circumstances. At the moment it is very hard for me because my wife is in a medical residency, so most of the time I'm an only parent to small kids.

In particular in periods when I exercised, I've found that between my personal rhythms and outside climate, morning is the only time that it makes sense for me to do so. (Perhaps you are happy running in 100+ degree heat, but I am not.) But when I'm on my own trying to get 2 kids up, ready, and out the door, before I start doing other stuff, I don't have 20 min where I can safely disappear on them.

[dennisgorelik]

Why would kids stop you from getting exercise? Get a stroller and give your kids a ride while you are running. Or give them bicycles and run with them.

Not sure why we all should follow "1 hour runs 5 times per week" suggestion. We are not professional runners.

[skue]

> Guess what, those who drink diet sodas are more likely to be overweight. I guess diet sodas make you fat?

Not the best analogy - because there is some evidence that artificially sweetened beverages have fueled the obesity epidemic (by possibly overriding our typical satiation point for sweet foods).

See:

* http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/32/4/688.short * http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v16/n8/abs/oby2008284a.htm...

Though not everyone agrees:

* http://jn.nutrition.org/content/142/6/1163s.abstract

Trying to sort out correlation vs. causation is particularly challenging with this debate.

[andyakb]

Diet sodas are very very low calorie (some think they all are zero, but many are like 10cal per 20oz, so still negligible but not 0). Regardless, diet sodas do not make people fat. They may somehow affect other things that then increase our likelihood of eating bad things if we do not have will power, but they do not themselves make us fat

[earnon]

Correlation does not imply causation. People who play basketball are tall. Therefore playing basketball makes you taller.

[dicktalens]

^ this is exactly what I am saying.