EXERCISE is a fat lot of use, according to new research.
Tell me something I don't know already.
Several times in print, I've revealed exclusively that exercising for many years lost me no weight whatsoever.
This included taking up new or renewed hobbies such as five-a-side football and waddling down to the gym. Amount of weight lost: nil. Not an ounce. And, no, I didn't put on muscle to counteract weight lost. I'm incapable of adding muscle. I'd quail were Madonna to challenge me to an arm-wrestling contest. I'd stand a better chance at twerking.
My more regular exercise is good for both heart and morale, but it hasn't lost me any weight. To clarify opaquely: I didn't need to lose a huge amount of weight. I was 14 stones when I should have been maybe 11.5.
Now I'm 11.25 and it's all down to eating. That is to say, not eating. I'm not going to lecture you with my particular diet: down on potatoes and bread, up with greens, yada and a second helping of yada.
Instead, I cite a study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, which proclaims that excess sugar and carbohydrates - not physical inactivity - caused the recent surge in obesity.
As Dr Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist at Frimley Park Hospital in Surrey, put it: "You cannot outrun a bad diet." Give that man a deep-fried coconut. Spot-on.
Even so, his wise words will leave many confused. It's as if we're standing at American traffic lights. The sign saying "Exercise" changes to "Don't exercise". Then it says "Eat". Then "Don't eat". We end up standing in the middle of the road bewildered, before being knocked down by life.
Every meal is a punishment or sin. We're at sixes and sevens over what we ate. "Nein!" says a German reader. "I vill never give up elevenses!"
I feel your pain, Herr Blenkinsop. But this news just in: eating less is good for you. And just to clarify: the good doctor isn't saying don't exercise. He's just saying it ain't going to make you slim.
Someone mentioned print above and, some years ago, I created a great sin therein, wherein I queried the experts' claim that we were being crushed by an epidemic of obesity. "But nobody in our street is fat," I wailed scientifically.
I admit now that I was wrong. Not that anybody in our street is fat. But the masses are. I base every quest for truth on observation and impressions, not on facts and statistics, which rarely chime with reality.
Take, therefore, a wax impression of this and stick it on your piechart: recently, in a shopping centre, I thought I'd landed on another planet. I'd fallen through a black hole and ended up in the Wobble nebula. In reality, I'd just taken a bus across Edinburgh. And, in this strange new land, everyone was fat. Everyone (nearly). It was extraordinary.
The scientists had been right all along. Until the police intervened, I inspected the wobbling bottoms in the mall and felt sorry for their owners. Clearly, they'd become addicted to sugary drinks, chocolate bars, pizzas and chips, key foodstuffs designed to be delicious by a sadistic deity.
What could I tell these people? As I mounted my Irn Bru crate to orate, all I could think of was: "It is down to you. No one else is going to make you thin. Give up the sugary stuff."
The area, I may say, was proletarian, the sort of place where I feel at home. It lacked the undignified joggers and cyclists who despoil bourgeois streets and green spaces with their garish outfits and grim faces. Running and cycling won't make you slim, merely unpopular.
The worst of it is that we're bombarded by marketing designed to make us eat rubbish. Lovely, delicious, mouth-watering rubbish. Some days I could kill for a yumyum.
Cunning capitalists even associate their sugary drinks with sport, suggesting that both are wholesome and will make you look like the gods and superheroes depicted in the adverts.
Well, loosen your waistband as I drop in this nugget: their drinks will make you look like the Incredible Bulk with a one-way ticket to Hades. Eat less, brothers and sisters. And exercise if you will. Put on your best three-piece suit and walk about rapidly in the privacy of your own home. Never did me any harm.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article