Does Research Make You Stupid?

The UK Independent runs a story today entitled "Does Running make You Fat?" This nugget of sagacity explains "Many of us take up jogging to help lose weight. But the latest research shows it could have just the opposite effect. Sophie Morris, who ran a marathon and ended up heavier, explains why."

It turns out that Sophie Morris pigged out after her runs. ""People gravitate towards rewarding themselves after exercise with sweet treats," says researcher James Duigan. Morris confirms by informing us that her runs were accompanied by "Two breakfasts, minimum, and then protein-based snacks before and after runs. Ah yes, and the cake"

Does anyone know the meaning of "it"? Running did not have the opposite effect, overeating did.

Well running tends to cause people to overeat does it not? No. Some of the blobbiest people I see are riding shopping carts down the candy aisle at Walmarts, and I am scientifically certain that they don't run -- or jog -- anywhere. It -- jogging or running -- did not cause them to blob out and waddle down the candy aisle. Sugar did.

The problem with all these health and medical research studies is that they don't adhere to the simple rules of grammar and thus create a confusing profusion of "astonishing new discoveries" which conflict with "astonishing old discoveries" leaving the public beaten into perpetual befuddlement by too much cheap information.

Everyone's metabolism and body is slightly different. But within a general range certain evident rules apply. Exercise expends calories. The body wants to replenish the calories expended. This is known as hunger. If you replace what you spend, you will stay the same weight. If you replace less, you will loose weight and if you replace more you will gain weight. The trick is managing one's hunger and understanding what foods trigger more hunger than they satisfy. The answer once again is : sugars. (Sugar, refined grains, junk foods.)

After a long intense run, most people do want quick-energy; that is, sugar. In what is certainly an amazing act of telepathic or gravitational communication (worthy of a study), the Snickers bar on the counter triggers the salivary glands. "An apple is rarely appealing after you've worked up a sweat," our researchers inform us. Well.... duh. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to indulge our tastebuds or get into shape?

"We feel we have worked hard and desrve a reward...." Well... duh again. What kind of reward do we want? Do we want the reward of tasty food or do we want the reward of looking good because we are in fact feeling good? It is amazing how much "research" and much "training advice" simply distracts people from making clear cut decisions and sticking with them.

The Independent article goes on to provide a bunch of interesting statistics on how low level aerobic activity (raking leaves) stimulates more hunger more quickly after work than high intensity anaerobic activity which tends to depress hunger, but how, on the other hand a balance of 27.5% low level aerobic + 32.5% hi intensity anaerobic aerobic excercise followed by 50% medium intensity resistance training will achieve the optimum hunger suppression/stimulation ratio.... Or whatever.

The eager acolyte, after hours on his or her butt figuring out the best possible routine, then tries to accomodate his work outs into the appropriate breakdown... has a miserable time, tries to tune out from the whole grim process by listenign to stock options on his iThing while jogging, doesn't pay attention to that little soreness around the ankle, injures himself and (with secret relief at having a bona fide excuse) "skips" the morning run while rustling up some bacon and eggs.... and toast n' jam.

Isn't it wonderful we live in the Age of Research?

.