Banner Archive

Marvel Comics Timeline
Godzilla Timeline



« Science: November 2014 | Main | Science: January 2015 »


Water Bears are pretty awesome

I propose devoting some serious budget dollars to figuring out how to grow them beyond their normal millimeter-long size. And also officially name them Water Bears instead of tardigrades.

By fnord12 | December 11, 2014, 6:10 PM | Science | Comments (1)| Link

Exercise Alone Ain't Gonna Cut It

We like food over here in the SuperMegaMonkey household. So, conversations about exercise and weight and health take place with regular frequency. I have been known to say it's a damn good thing we're vegan what with the pounds of butter i can consume in a week.

One of the things we believe is people trying to lose weight with exercise alone are never going to manage it because food is super caloric (and delicious) and exercise burns hardly any of those calories. Now science is here to back us up.

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."
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."

I google mapped it. Nottingham is 67.4 miles from Leeds on foot. I don't like running across the street much less in increments of distance that can be measured in miles.

The article goes on to say that we often also compensate for extra physical activity either by consuming more calories than we burned through exercise or by being less active in the rest of our day. Motherfucker!

So, if you want to lose weight, you should exercise and count your calories, otherwise you'll unwittingly consume twice as much for dinner and end up with a calorie surplus greater than if you hadn't exercised at all. Our bodies are assholes like that.

Also, the article says a slice of Domino's pepperoni pizza (who the hell is eating Domino's? go get some real pizza, ferchrissakes!) is equivalent to 45 minutes of swimming.

a) who eats just 1 slice of pizza?
b) i don't think i could manage 1 minute of swimming, let alone 45

An apple is the same as 15 minutes of weight lifting. An apple! Gah!

By min | December 3, 2014, 2:32 PM | Science | Comments (3)| Link

« Science: November 2014 | Main | Science: January 2015 »