Yes, and I drove 35 minutes each way to do it. It was great, but it consumed most of my free time. The time I didn't spend working out was spent eating and cleaning. I didn't any weight to lose really (lost maybe 5-10 lbs), but turned a lot of fat into muscle. Coupled with Yoga, stretching, and a balanced diet problems I'd had in the past with aches, fidgeting, and circulation went away. (it was an ~80% cardio routine, burning 800-900 calories per workout).
Incidentally, based on what I'm reading from the article, the Yoga probably counteracts the sitting problems somewhat. Holding yourself erect and breathing regularly even while seated probably is more like standing.
Also, I notice an enormous difference in my ability to sleep based on how active I was during the day. If I spent 90% of the day sitting down, I have all kinds of trouble, even if that 10% was a decent workout. The workout helps, but spending all day walking around the city makes it really easy to fall asleep.
> Exercise is the best way to reduce weight for all but the most unfit.
Not so. That hour of walking you suggest is easily replaced by simply reducing caloric intake slightly. In fact, you have to watch intake anyway, because when you exercise, your body automatically increases your appetite to compensate for the additional energy expenditure.
http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/
"He will have to climb twenty flights of stairs to rid himself of the energy contained in one slice of bread!" Newburgh observed. So why not skip the stairs, skip the bread, and call it a day?
The reasons to exercise include all sorts of health and fitness benefits, but losing weight is pretty far down the list. Even top athletes always have to be careful with diet and often weigh their food with gram scales.
One thing I have found is exercise done before eating reduces appetite. Slight reductions in food is difficult if there is an abundance of high fat/high calorie food. Especially if it tastes good. One insight into the relationship between food, exercise and culture is the Japanese in places like Okinawa [0] & Sakaemura [1] who have:
- low calorie, low fat diet
- high energy output (mostly via farming & activities such as karate)
- social networking
contributing 4-5 years on average longer lifespans it is thought through leanness. [2] They key thing appears to the combination of diet, exercise and societal connection. Exercise is one of the keys to leanness but not the only one.
One thing you can bet on. If you don't exercise, eat the wrong foods and too much of it you will loose fitness.
[0] http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/stories/s1329191.htm
[1] http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/09/1089000356464.html
[2] http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200704/000020070407A00...
In any case, I've found it far easier to manage my calorie intake when I have an extra 1000 calories/day to work with. For people who just eat because they have to, that might work. But I love food, and I think most people do as well.
Horse crud.
Exercise is the best way to reduce weight for all but the most unfit. My guess the real reason why you get statements like this is because they are factoring in the time you have to take to exercise. How much? Well minimum 10K steps. For me thats 7 almost kilometers per day. If you walk, thats about an hour. Less if you run (20-30 min) or ride (20-25 min). Remember thats a minimum. Couple that with a reduced intake of food and you will loose weight. But work gets in the way of this. Ever tried exercising 1Hr+ per day during the working week? Every day?
For most (unless you create your own job) this is not possible because your work requires your presence in one spot working hard for longer hours. [0] Thats why this kind of research could be important. It is hardly a substitute for regular exercise and movement.
[0] "1982 and 2002, the proportion of full-time workers working a 40 hour week declined from 39% to 24%" ~ http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/industrial/family/overview/statis...