Re: [轉貼] 破解運動的神話：運動不一定會讓你瘦！

看板FITNESS作者ulin0619 (凜靈)時間10年前 (2013/08/16 17:41)推噓8(8推 0噓 8→)

留言16則, 10人參與討論串10/14 (看更多)

※ 引述《ulin0619 (凜靈)》之銘言： : 以下不代表本人立場.. : 破解運動的神話：運動不一定會讓你瘦！ : http://ppt.cc/Ski4 : Ｑ：為了減肥，我參加了健身俱樂部，並每天花一個小時在健身房上，但體重不瘦卻反胖！ꀊ: Ｑ：我每天已挪出2~3小時從事運動，體重卻還是瘦不下來？ꀊ: Ｑ：大家都說減肥要多運動，我沒辦法做運動（可能是沒錢參加健身房、沒空，或因坐輪椅、拿拐杖等不良於行），所以，無法運動是我瘦不下來的主因！ꀊ: ………ꀊ: 　　曾幾何時，運動有助減肥的觀念就已深植在一般人的心中，然而，運動真的有助減肥嗎？為了減肥一定要去從事特別的運動（如上健身房，打籃球等）嗎？前陣子，同事拿了八月份的Time雜誌(August 17,2009)給我看，這期封面的大標是「運動神話」，上面寫道「當然，運動對你很好，但它不會讓你體重減輕。你所吃的食物才是影響體重是否會減輕的主因」。 : 這個話題蠻有趣的， Stella也常在我的部落格上看到很多人為了減肥，每天花大把時間在運動，但卻效果不彰，故決定一起來探討這個主題，並和大家分享文中的精彩內容。【本文很多資料是引自Time雜誌所提到資訊，如果大家對Time這篇文章有興趣的話，請參考August 17,2009出版的Time雜誌p26頁】 : A. 為什麼運動不會讓你更瘦？ꀊ: 「少吃多運動」是眾所皆知的減肥不二法門，因此，很多人自然地就會將運動加入自己的減肥計畫中，為了減肥而刻意從事某運動。但運動是件很辛苦的事~在炎熱的天氣下渾身大汗、枯燥地從事數十分鐘運動，之後弄得精疲力竭、全身肌肉痠痛…，因此，有些人會改選擇加入健身俱樂部，或購買瑜珈課程在冷氣房裡從事較舒適的運動；或是購買跑步機或踩腳踏車機在家運動，各種努力的目的就是試圖透過增加運動量來達到減肥或維持良好身材的目的。但是，運動真的可以讓我們變瘦嗎？ꀊ: 　　在我的印象中，運動總是伴隨著食物的*_*。國小的時候，和哥哥姊姊去市立游泳池游泳(基本上應該是玩水啦，那時候還不會游泳)，之後必然會在泳池旁邊的福利社買麵包吃（那個年代游泳池旁會有個小福利社，賣飲料和麵包和一些蛙鏡等游泳配件）。大一點的時候（那時已在從事減重營養諮詢工作），有一次和同事買了某飯店健身房的體驗卷。我們走路去健身房，在健身房跑跑步機，踩腳踏車，蠻有成就感地消耗了300多大卡的熱量，但當我們全身疲倦，頂著大太陽走路回家時，看到路邊的冰店時，很自然地買了綠豆沙和冰砂消暑、減輕疲勞。我們還邊走邊吃邊開玩 : 笑，記得，我跟同事說我們兩個剛剛運動所努力消耗的熱量全都沒了，同事則說，應該不只沒了，還負債吧>_< : ◎為什麼運動不會讓你瘦？ꀊ: 　　ꀊ: 刊在Time雜誌上，發表「為什麼運動不會讓你瘦（Why Exercise won’t make you thin）」的作者John Cloud的結論是「運動，的確對健康有幫助，但不一定能幫助你減少體重～事實上，它還可能讓你增加一些重量。」為什麼作者會說運動不見得會讓我們瘦而反而變胖呢？相信反應快的你從營養師剛剛講的親身經驗大概可猜到部份原因了～運動後吃了熱量較高的食物！ꀊ: 　　當然，身為科學家和一般人最大的不同就是一般人是用經驗談來下結論，科學家是用一些臨床研究、科學性資料來下結論，本文的作者也提了很多資料來佐證「運動不會讓你瘦」的論點，下面是一些重點摘要的歸納：ꀊ: 1.運動會刺激饑餓感！ꀊ: 　　運動雖然能燃燒較多的卡路里，而有助體重的減輕，但運動會刺激饑餓感的產生，反而讓你吃入更多的食物，讓之前所做的運動變得無效。甚至可能因為吃入的熱量大於運動所消耗的熱量，而使體重反而增加。【我超喜歡這種說法的，終於為我運動後所吃的綠豆沙找到了藉口^_^(汗)】 : 【不同角度想一想】速食店內設立「兒童遊樂場」是個”陰謀”？ : 　　兒童醫院的Gortmaker和Kendrin Sonneville醫生在國內肥胖期刊（Internal Journal of Obesity）發表一篇，他們針對538名學生所進行的為期18個月的研究，他們發現當孩子開始運動後，反而吃了更多東西～且不只多吃一點，平均所吃的熱量較他們從事運動所消耗的卡路里多了100大卡。因此，專門研究兒童肥胖的Gortmaker懷疑起速食店之所以設立兒童遊樂場的目的～或許孩子在裏面玩５分鐘，消耗了50大卡熱量，但之後反而因運動的刺激，讓他們進去店裡吃了500大卡或更多熱量的食物。 : ＞＞這個故事告訴我們，若家中有需要減肥的小朋友時，除了少讓小朋友去速食店外；不要以為他們在速食店的遊樂場中玩有消耗熱量應該沒什麼關係，而是該注意是否因”玩耍消耗了較多熱量”，反而讓小朋友吃入更多東西>_< : 2.運動產生補償心態！ꀊ: 　　運動後會產生所謂的補償心態～吃東西獎勵自己（補償之前所消耗的熱量），或是傾向減少活動量（補償之前過度勞累的運動）。ꀊ: 　　Dr. Tomothy : Church的研究發現：從事較多運動者所減輕的體重並沒有較不運動者多，部分人的體重甚至不瘦反胖！這是個針對464名原本就沒有規律運動且體重過重的婦女所做的實驗，實驗對象被分為四組，其中三組在個人運動教練的協助下每週分別從事72分鐘、136分鐘和194分鐘的運動，並持續六個月。第四組，則沒有額外從事任何運動，僅維持其日常生理活動習慣。結果發現大部分的實驗對象在運動後會傾向吃較平常（指還沒開始做這個實驗前）還多的食物；或會用其他方法來補償，例如活動量較平常回家後少了很多。他把這種現象稱為補償心態。［可能是因為運動讓這些人更餓ꄊ : A或是因為她們要獎勵(補償)自己，或兩者原因都有，不管原因為何，結果就是像Stella一樣在運動後吃了比運動所能消耗掉的熱量還多的食物>_<］ : 【不同角度想一想】想讓孩子減肥時有必要強迫他們多做運動嗎？ : 　　學者針對英國普利矛斯地區三個不同學校（每週體能教育課程的時間分別為9.2小時、2.4和1.7小時），共206名年齡7～10的小孩所作的研究發現，不管他們在學校從事了幾個小時的體能活動，當整天看下來時，三所學校的小孩的活動量是差不多的～那些在下課前在學校從事生理活動較多者，之後就不會再動更多：因為他們之間已在學校耗費了很多熱量，這些在學校活動量較大得小孩，回到家明顯會變得較靜、較少活動。反之，那些在學校活動量較少的小孩，在放學後則比較會去從事騎腳踏車或在附近跑跑等活動量較大的活動。」 : ＞＞這個故事告訴我們，如果小朋友不喜歡從事諸如慢跑等某特定運動的話，讓他們玩一些有趣且活動量較大的活動也是一個好方法^_^ : 3.運動削弱自我控制力！ꀊ: 　　心理學家Mark Muraven和Roy Baumeister觀察到一個有趣的現象～「自我控制力就如同肌肉般，會在你每天的使用後便得更脆弱（self-control is like a muscle: it weakens each day after you use it）」。講白一點就是指當你在強迫自己為了減肥而慢跑一小時後，你的自我控制力也會等比例地跟著變弱(強迫的時間越長，自我控制力就越弱)。例如，在運動後因為運動對食慾的刺激讓你覺得有點餓的感決，理智上你應該吃顆蘋果就好，但隨著運動時間越長你的意志力變得越弱，此時你可能抑制不了對甜食的渴望而選擇了吃麵包或喝杯珍珠奶茶。ꀊ: 　　因此，雖然說「如果我們能避免在運動後額外再吃東西(吃入食物或飲料)的話，運動就有助我們減肥了」，但因運動會削弱自我控制力，故只有少部分的人可以做到，且即便短時間內做得到，也無法長期持續克制自己。 : B.如何正確看待運動減肥這檔事？ꀊ: 　　在看了Stella所寫有關「運動不會讓我們變瘦」的資料，可能很多人會出現一個疑惑，運動似乎弊多餘利，看來還是不要運動比較好了？事實上，Stella寫這篇文章的目的不是要讓大家不去運動，而是讓大家對運動有正確的認知：ꀊ: 1. 運動的確有益健康，但對減重不一定有效！ꀊ: 　　或許從我們身體的設計來看，運動並非減肥的好方法，但運動的確對健康有很多好處。運動除能強化心肺功能，有助心血管健康（例如，運動可增加好膽固醇HDL，改善胰島素的敏感性）及幫助預防疾病外，還能促進心理健康及心智功能..等，只是它對減肥的幫助並沒有你想像中大而已。（若想減肥，最有效且根本的還是從飲食著手>_<）ꀊ: 2. 並非一定要從事某特別活動才叫運動！ꀊ: 　　到底運動的定義是什麼？很多人覺得＂有效的＂運動一定要汗流滿身、全身熱烘烘；從事這個運動必須會讓你覺得很喘、很累，全身精疲力竭；運動完會覺得肚子空空的（似乎這樣才表示身體消耗了很多熱量）。但事實上，若想要獲得運動所帶來的健康益處的話，只要從事類似在工作時規律地移動那樣的活動（例如從事喜歡的園藝工作、打掃家裡、爬爬樓梯與多走路等）即可，並不需要強迫自己去健身房運動，或從事那種會讓自己滿頭大汗、精疲力竭的運動。ꀊ: 【註：目前並沒有清楚證據顯示嚴格運動（如跑步）所帶來的好處，較適當強度的活動（如走路拿雜貨回家）多。而大部分所做運動有益健康的研究，其實驗對象並非使用健身器材來運動，而是從事諸如多走路、多爬樓梯等規律的日常生活活動。較高的運動強度（如跑步），並不會帶來較佳的效果。】ꀊ: 3.「好動的生活習慣」較「偶爾的運動」更有利減肥！ꀊ: 　　看到這裡相信大家對「過度刻意」、「強度過強」、「壓抑度過大」的運動所可能帶給減重的負面影響已經有了初步了解，故想要減肥最好的運動並非上述所提到那些會動到汗流浹背、全身虛脫的「特別」運動，而是那種能夠經常性執行、低生理活動的『日常生理活動』。要燃燒卡路里肌肉不一定要勉強你的肌肉去做極端的活動，而是將運動分佈在整天，簡單地說就是養成好動的生活習慣～例如，走路去買早餐，提早一兩站下車或將車停在較遠的地方增加活動量，或以爬樓梯取代電梯，勤快地打掃環境維持居家清潔，飯後去小公園走走散散步；假日時和家人去騎腳踏車 : 或出遊踏青….等。ꀊ: 　　對於整天坐在辦公室、缺乏日常生理活動的現代人來說，我們不可能在整天坐著後，去健身運動時不對肌肉產生壓力的，這種偶而但強度過強的運動會造成肌肉疼痛，讓你整天都不想再動，還可能因刺激食慾、削弱意志力，及代償心態的產生等種種問題反而不利減重。故與其想著「運動」，但給自己一大堆諸如沒錢、沒場地、沒時間、太累等藉口理由而老是對運動＂想而不做＂；或一個星期上健身房運動個兩三天，偶而動一動，還不如改變現有的久坐不動生活，改而建立起好動的生活習慣。如此不但可避免運動可能帶來對減重的負面影響，且不花一毛錢卻可兼顧燃燒卡 : 路里與維護健康的目地。ꀊ: 　　在部落格上常常看到很多人為了減肥而強迫自己每日從事大量運動，如果有瘦也就罷了，許多人體重不瘦反胖，減肥減到最後「信心全失」；另外還有些人在努力一天抽幾小時出來運動，努力克制自己想吃的欲望減肥時，一邊又擔心起，「如果以後不運動，體重是否會胖回去？」基本上，減肥這檔事的重點『在於你吃了什麼，而非你多辛苦努力地去消耗掉它！』ꀊ: 　　所以，如果每日的運動對你造成很大的壓力….，如果運動後你反而要花更多心力去克制對吃的欲望….，如果運動的結果並沒有讓你更瘦….，如果這種運動模式是你無法持久的….，如果從事運動反而讓你不快樂，對減肥更加無所適從，總是擔心若沒時間動時會不會胖起來…，那麼，誠懇地建議你重新調整一下你對運動的態度，以「好動的生活型態」來取代目前的運動模式。ꀊ: 　　最後再次提醒大家，肥胖是一種生活習慣病～是因為現代人不良飲食（高油、高糖、高鹽等食物吃太多、吃太精緻等）及少動多坐的生活型態所致，不上健身房運動並非導致肥胖的原因。所以減肥最根本的對策不是去從事特別的運動，而是從飲食著手，學會選擇正確的食物，改變不良飲食習慣，並配合養成好動的生活習慣！ꀊ: @本文要特別獻給那些努力從事運動，但卻效果不佳的人；告訴自己因為「沒時間或沒錢從事運動」而瘦不下來者；或因身體問題而無法做上健身房或做打籃球等活動量較大運動者，希望透過本文，讓上述人能夠重新拾回「成功減肥」的夢想^_^ 好啦其實我也覺得營養師寫的這篇有對有錯只是想知道各位怎麼看而已然後我有在運動不要再說我找藉口了以下是營養師看的那篇文章 Why exercise won't make you thin Got a few pounds to lose? Cancel the gym membership. An increasing body of research reveals that exercise does next to nothing for you when it comes to losing weight. A result for couch potatoes, yes, but also one that could have serious implications for the government's long-term health strategy Emma John The Observer, Sunday 19 September 2010 Jump to comments (287) Exercise has been shown to be ineffective when it comes to losing weight – dieting is a better route Photograph: Getty The following correction was printed in the Observer's For the record column, Sunday 26 September 2010 Dr Timothy Church is at the Pennington Biomedical Research Centre of Louisiana State University, which is not affiliated to the University of Louisiana My mum used to complain that she couldn't lose weight. A size 18 and a couple of stone heavier than ideal, she tried in vain for years to shed the extra. Every week she headed to the gym, where she pounded the treadmill like a paratrooper, often three times a week. Most days she took the dog for a brisk, hour-long walk. She didn't eat unhealthily – the rest of the family ate exactly the same meals, and did a fraction of the exercise she did. She ought to have been the slimmest of the bunch: that she remained overweight was a frustration to her, and a mystery to all of us. From StairMasters to kettlebells, Rosemary Conley to Natalie Cassidy, we understand and expect that getting in shape is going to require serious effort on our part – and the reverse is true, too, that we expect exercise to pay back the hours of boring, sweaty graft with a leaner, lighter body. Since the days of the Green Goddess, we've known that the healthiest way to lose weight is through exercise. It's science, isn't it? Well, science has some bad news for you. More and more research in both the UK and the US is emerging to show that exercise has a negligible impact on weight loss. That tri-weekly commitment to aerobics class? Almost worthless, as far as fitting into your bikini is concerned. The Mayo Clinic, a not-for-profit medical research establishment in the US, reports that, in general, studies "have demonstrated no or modest weight loss with exercise alone" and that "an exercise regimen… is unlikely to result in short-term weight loss beyond what is achieved with dietary change." It sounds faintly heretical, if not downright facetious. And it's a scientific discovery that most health professionals are, naturally, keen to downplay. After all, exercise is still good for us. It's just that, in defiance of decades of New Year resolutions, it's unlikely to make us slim. Most of us have a grasp of the rudiments of weight gain and loss: you put energy (calories) into your body through food, you expend them through movement, and any that don't get burned off are stored in your body as fat. Unfortunately, the maths isn't in our favour. "In theory, of course, it's possible that you can burn more calories than you eat," says Dr Susan Jebb, head of nutrition and health research at the Medical Research Council, and one of the government's go-to academics for advice on nutrition. "But you have to do an awful lot more exercise than most people realise. To burn off an extra 500 calories is typically an extra two hours of cycling. And that's about two doughnuts." From a practical perspective, then, exercise is never going to be an effective way of slimming, unless you have the training schedule – and the willpower – of an Olympic athlete. "It's simple maths," says Professor Paul Gately, of the Carnegie Weight Management institution in Leeds. "If you want to lose a pound of body fat, then that requires you to run from Leeds to Nottingham, but if you want to do it through diet, you just have to skip a meal for seven days." Both Jebb and Gately are keen to stress that there is plenty of evidence that exercise can add value to a diet: "It certainly does maximise the amount you lose as fat rather than tissue," Jebb points out. But Gately sums it up: "Most people, offered the choice, are going to go for the diet, because it's easier to achieve." There's another, more insidious, problem with pinning all your hopes for a holiday bod on exercise. In what has become a defining experiment at the University of Louisiana, led by Dr Timothy Church, hundreds of overweight women were put on exercise regimes for a six-month period. Some worked out for 72 minutes each week, some for 136 minutes, and some for 194. A fourth group kept to their normal daily routine with no additional exercise. Against all the laws of natural justice, at the end of the study, there was no significant difference in weight loss between those who had exercised – some of them for several days a week – and those who hadn't. (Church doesn't record whether he told the women who he'd had training for three and half hours a week, or whether he was wearing protective clothing when he did.) Some of the women even gained weight. Church identified the problem and called it "compensation": those who exercised cancelled out the calories they had burned by eating more, generally as a form of self-reward. The post-workout pastry to celebrate a job well done – or even a few pieces of fruit to satisfy their stimulated appetites – undid their good work. In some cases, they were less physically active in their daily life as well. His findings are backed up by a paper on childhood obesity published in 2008 by Boston academics Steven Gortmaker and Kendrin Sonneville. In an 18-month study investigating what they call "the energy gap" – the daily imbalance between energy intake and expenditure — the pair showed that when the children in their experiment exercised, they ended up eating more than the calories they had just burned, sometimes 10 or 20 times as many. "Although physical activity is thought of as an energy-deficit activity," they wrote, "our estimates do not support this hypothesis." In the 1950s, the celebrated French-American nutritionist Jean Mayer was the first to introduce a link between exercise and weight reduction. Until then, the notion that physical activity might help you lose weight was actually rather unfashionable in the scientific community – in the 1930s, a leading specialist had persuasively argued that it was more effective to keep patients on bed rest. Over the course of his career, Mayer's pioneering studies – on rats, babies and schoolgirls – demonstrated that the less active someone was, the more likely they were to be fat. Mayer himself, the son of two eminent physiologists, and a Second World War hero to boot, became one of the world's leading figures in nutrition and most influential voices in the sphere of public health. As an advisor to the White House and to the World Health Organisation, he drew correlations between exercise and fitness that triggered a revolution in thinking on the subject in the 60s and 70s. "Getting fit" became synonymous not just with healthier living, but with a leaner, meaner body, and the ground was laid for a burgeoning gym industry. Each successive postwar generation was enjoying an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, and those lifestyles have been accompanied by an apparently inexorable increase in obesity. Three in five UK adults are now officially overweight. And type II diabetes, which used to be a disease that affected you at the end of your life, is now the fastest-rising chronic disorder in paediatric clinics. But have we confused cause and effect? Terry Wilkin, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the Peninsula Medical School in Plymouth, argues that we have. The title of his latest research is: "Fatness leads to inactivity, but inactivity does not lead to fatness". Wilkin is nearing the end of an 11-year study on obesity in children, which has been monitoring the health, weight and activity levels of 300 subjects since the age of five. When his team compared the more naturally active children with the less active ones, they were surprised to discover absolutely no difference in their body fat or body mass. That's not to say that exercise is not making the children healthy in other ways, says Wilkin, just that it's having no palpable effect on their overall size and shape. "And that's a fundamental issue," he adds, "because governments, including ours, use body mass as an outcome measure." In other words, obesity figures are not going to improve through government-sponsored programmes that focus primarily on exercise while ignoring the behemoth of a food industry that is free to push high-calorie junk to kids (and, for that matter, adults). For one thing, Wilkin believes he has discovered another form of "compensation", similar to Timothy Church's discovery that we reward ourselves with food when we exercise. Looking at the question of whether it was possible to change a child's physical activity, Wilkin's team put accelerometers on children at schools with very different PE schedules: one which offered 1.7 hours a week, and another that offered nine hours. "The children did 64% more PE at the second school. But when they got home they did the reverse. Those who had had the activity during the day flopped and those who hadn't perked up, and if you added the in-school and out-of-school together you got the same. From which we concluded that physical activity is controlled by the brain, not by the environment – if you're given a big opportunity to exercise at one time of day you'll compensate at another." Wilkin argues that the environmental factors we tend to obsess about in the fight against obesity – playing fields, PE time in school, extracurricular activities, parental encouragement – are actually less of a factor in determining what exercise we do than our own bodies. "An evolutionary biologist would say physical activity is the only voluntary means you have of varying or regulating your energy expenditure. In other words, what physical activity you do is not going to be left to the city council to decide. It's going to be controlled, fundamentally, from within." His thesis has caused controversy among his peers – there have been cavils that his study sample is inconclusively small – and not all obesity experts appreciate the message. "We haven't had the sensitivity in the studies to really determine the longitudinal determinants of obesity in children yet," says Dr Ken Fox, professor of exercise and health science at Bristol University and advisor to the government's obesity strategy. "It's far too early to start discounting things as important as physical activity. Those who are saying it has no impact are neglecting a huge amount of the literature. I am suspicious of anyone who polarises obesity as one thing over another when there is strong agreement that it has multiple causes." "Terry's point is right," says Paul Gately, "but it's not right in the context of public health promotion. In people who have lost weight and kept weight off, physical activity is almost always involved. And those people who just do diet are more likely to fail, as are those who just do exercise. You need a combination of the two, because we're talking about human beings, not machines. We know that dietary behaviour is quite a negative behaviour – we're having to deny ourselves something. There aren't any diets out there that people enjoy. But people do enjoy being physically active." "What we want to avoid is people thinking they can control their weight simply by dieting," adds Jebb, who points out that this is the very scenario that encourages anorexia in teenage girls. "Just restricting your diet is not going to be the healthiest way to live." Traditional dieting clubs like Weightwatchers and Slimming World promote exercise as a key part of a weight-loss strategy: scientific studies show that exercise is an important factor in maintaining weight loss and, Jebb adds, some studies suggest it can help in preventing weight gain. But it is still much harder to exercise when you're already overweight, and "high energy density" foods are quick to get us there – overeating by just 100 calories a day can lead to a weight increase of 10lb over a year. "Education must come first," says Wilkin. "Eating habits have to change to a much lower calorie intake, much lower body weight, and we would be fitter as a result because we would be able to do more physical activity." He would like to see higher levels of tax on calorie-dense food, similar to those levied on tobacco, which have proved effective in the campaign against smoking. Does the coalition government – which will launch a White Paper on the subject this autumn – agree? Anne Milton, minister for public health, is not keen to commit to any particular strategy before its publication. "There's not a magic bullet here," she says. "Despite the best efforts of government actually the public's health hasn't improved hugely.Change4Life [the government's current healthy-living initiative] is doing a good job. But we think there's still lots more we can do with it." Any drastic measures to curb the excesses of junk food marketing seem unlikely – both Milton and Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley stress the importance of working "with" industry – and much of her language is concerned with "individual choice". When it comes to losing weight, it seems there's only one real choice – stop eating so much food. Running on empty: fat is a feminine issue The good news The latest scientific findings from the US suggest that an intense workout in the gym is actually less effective than gentle exercise in terms of weight loss. Barry Braun, associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Massachusetts, says that the evidence emerging from his research team shows that moderate exercise such as "low-intensity ambulation" (ie walking) may help to burn calories "without triggering a caloric compensation effect" – ie without making you reach for a snack the moment you're done. In one experiment, Braun showed that simply standing up instead of sitting used up hundreds more calories a day without increasing appetite hormones in your blood. The bad news Perhaps offering one reason for a multi-billion-pound weight-loss industry aimed almost exclusively at women, research has confirmed that it is more difficult for women to shed the pounds than men, because women's bodies are simply more efficient at storing fat. In one of Braun's experiments, in which overweight men and women were monitored while walking on treadmills, the women's blood levels of insulin decreased while appetite hormones increased; the men's, meanwhile, displayed no such change. "Across the evidence base, it seems that it's tougher for women to lose weight than men," affirms Ken Fox, professor of exercise and health sciences at Bristol University. Snack attack: how long it takes to burn off 10 favourite foods One portion of Tesco lasagne (560 cal): 45 minutes of spinning One slice of Domino's pepperoni pizza (198 cal): 45 minutes of swimming Morrisons' chocolate-chip muffin (476 cal): 58 minutes of climbing Packet of Walkers cheese and onion crisps (184 cal): 35 minutes of frisbee Subway tuna wrap (310 cal): 1 hour and 10 minutes of body pump Bacon sandwich on white bread (430 cal): 58 minutes of football Coffee Republic ham and cheese toastie (436 cal): 1 hour and 30 minutes of netball Granny Smith apple (62 cal): 15 minutes of weightlifting M&S hot cross bun (159 cal): 20 minutes of skipping Mars bar (280 cal): 50 minutes of aqua aerobics Emma John is deputy editor of the Observer Magazine -- Sent from my Android -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 49.219.55.49

→

ulin0619

08/16 17:43, , 1^F

08/16 17:43, 1^F

→

hsupaijay

08/16 19:03, , 2^F

08/16 19:03, 2^F

→

cloudccw

08/16 19:04, , 3^F

08/16 19:04, 3^F