"A growing body of scientific evidence shows that exercise alone has almost no effect on weight loss..."

"... [R]esearchers who reviewed surveys of millions of American adults found that physical activity increased between 2001 and 2009, particularly in counties in Kentucky, Georgia and Florida. But the rise in exercise was matched by an increase in obesity in almost every county studied. There were even more striking results in a 2011 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found that people who simply dieted experienced greater weight loss than those who combined diet and exercise. How can this be explained?"

Asks a WaPo article titled "Take off that Fitbit. Exercise alone won�t make you lose weight.The obesity problem has little to do with our sedentary lifestyles."

Do you think it's hard to explain? I think the more interesting question is: Why are we so easily drawn into the theory that exercise is the answer? To my question, I would say: 1. Exercise seems virtuous and we like to call others to virtue, 2. Exercise (unlike not eating so much) can be seen by others and admired and encouraged (you look like you're doing something), 3. We love to eat, the primal urge is so basic and ever-present, and we don't want to give that up, 4. We want to believe we accumulate virtue points for the exercise we do and feel entitled to spend those points on what we really love, eating.

Of course, #4 is the answer to the article's "How can this be explained?"

"Salad is a necessity, a type of proto-Soylent... it says, 'I�m taking care of a basic bodily need, but it�s just crunchy water!'"

"Salad, at its best, feels like a strategically good choice without being truly satisfying to the soul, like dating someone who�s not that smart, but has a beach-adjacent timeshare. Salad has its faults, and it knows it. It�s healthy, but it will never win the popularity contest against your Chipotle burritos, or even your Quizno�s subs. So the one thing salad should really never be is less healthy than a Big Mac.... And yet, a new report from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine points out 100 restaurant salads that are 'worse' than a Big Mac."

"New Apostle of Hygienic Living Founds System on This Rule: 'Breathe Deep/Chew Long/Drink Enough/Eat Little.'"

"BACK TO NATURE" MOVEMENT GROWS/Civilization to Save Itself by Abandoning Artificial Modes of Life."

A New York Times article published November 16, 1907. A summary of the rules:



Found through a search for the word "eugenics" in the NYT archive. Context:
Click for more �

"By glamorizing a limited budget in a piously frugal 'look what you can do with it' sort of way, it suggests that people who aren�t eating as beautifully are doing it wrong and deserving of additional scorn."

"This isn�t an exercise in actually eating what SNAP recipients can eat, and it creates false impressions of what this lived reality actually is, making it easier for people to make false comparisons to their own situation."

A former nutritionist named Stephanie Jolly told Darlena Cunha, a home-based parent and former television producer. Cunha has an article in WaPo titled "How Gwyneth Paltrow hurt America�s poor and hungry/Her uber-privileged food stamp challenge obscures the many obstacles low income people face."

We were just talking about Paltrow's food-stamp challenge here. There are lots of good comments in there. And Dan from Madison has his own blog post, here:

I decided to go to my local grocery store to see if I could get enough food to live on for one week for $29.... Vegetables, frozen, are a great deal.... The chicken thighs were an easy choice for protein.... The mayo cost us $1.59 - but that will help stretch all of that tuna that only cost us .625 per can (there was a deal at 4 for $2.50).  I would plan on tuna fish sandwiches or that PB and J for lunches at my job, and would bring an apple or banana along.  The bread was only .89 for the loaf.  For breakfast I could imagine a fried egg atop toast with a little yogurt and/or fruit on the side.  The cans of chicken noodle soup were an astounding .49 each.  For dinners, I imagined rice (.99 for the bag - and that is a lot of rice), and chicken with vegetables.... So the total for all of this food above was $23.99...

To that, Dan added a "flask of Shellback Spiced rum... $4.19." He declares: "I think I pretty conclusively proved that one person could easily eat for $29 for a week and still have money left over for bad habits like drinking."

Does that count as the "scorn" Stephanie Jolly was talking about? And, more importantly, will Dan be "eating beautifully"?

Gwyneth Paltrow does the food stamp challenge... too well.

I think the challenge is supposed to demonstrate how hard it is to eat for a week on $29:

This is what $29 gets you at the grocery store�what families on SNAP (i.e. food stamps) have to live on for a week. pic.twitter.com/OZMPA3nxij
� Gwyneth Paltrow (@GwynethPaltrow) April 9, 2015

But this array clearly demonstrates how to do it right: Rice and beans are the core staples that combine calories with some decent protein. Eggs are great protein and are completely delicious and versatile. There are additional starches for variety: a yam, corn, and tortillas. And there's plenty of fresh greenery, including the splurgy avocado and limes. The main thing missing is oil.

The Washington Post doubts that this is enough food: "It just might leave her consuming fewer than 1,000 calories a day for a week...."

Why do they write crap like that? Everything is in the picture. It would be easy to count the total calories and divide by 7. What's with the "just might" business?

"What to Eat at Every Single Major League Baseball Stadium."

Including "A two-pound pretzel (with various dipping sauces)." (Dodger Stadium.)

"Why I�m Fed Up With Those Photos of 'School Lunches Around the World.'"

"First, most people understandably but mistakenly believe these photos depict actual lunches served in actual schools...."