I just read an intriguing story in Time magazine, "Why exercise won't make you thin," by John Cloud. The reporter was making the case that although exercise does have some clearly documented health benefits, what is not so clear is whether the intense, sporadic, gym-rat variety actually helps you lose weight. Maybe it doesn't, because you are hungrier afterwards, or you decide to reward yourself with a tasty, calorie-laden treat even if you're not hungry, or both - so you actually end up scarfing down more calories than you just burned. Plus, you may feel more tired, and do far less of the ordinary walking and wandering of everyday life than you would have if you had not just nailed your super-workout.
I have zero academic expertise on any of this, so I can't assess the specific argument from any special knowledge base. But here's what I loved about the story, and why I'm writing this post today: John Cloud did not just take the news releases at face value. He read the original research reports - indeed, he seems to do so routinely - and found that the results were not what the press releases seemed to suggest. Here's an example (emphasis added by me):
"Actually, it's not clear that vigorous exercise like running carries more benefits than a moderately strenuous activity like walking while carrying groceries. You regularly hear about the benefits of exercise in news stories, but if you read the academic papers on which these stories are based, you frequently see that the research subjects who were studied didn't clobber themselves on the elliptical machine. A routine example: in June the Association for Psychological Science issued a news release saying that "physical exercise ... may indeed preserve or enhance various aspects of cognitive functioning." But in fact, those who had better cognitive function merely walked more and climbed more stairs. They didn't even walk faster; walking speed wasn't correlated with cognitive ability."
A few paragraphs later, the reporter did something else that made me smile. He mentioned the results of another journal article he had read (yes, the original article) in which the results were inconsistent. If you are a fellow researcher, or a consumer of original research, you know how often results really are inconsistent. But you so rarely see that reported in the major media, because "maybe it works and maybe it doesn't" is not a fun story.
The Time story on exercise and weight made no specific reference to singles. I'm mentioning it here because I have so often called out reporters who seemed to write their social science stories without studying the original research report. Ideally, all journalists should always read the professional versions of the relevant studies before they report on them. But apparently, that's not the norm. So kudos to John Cloud of Time for doing it right.
Click here to read more Living Single posts. And, to readers: I'm still planning to get back to the question of "what counselors and others should know about singles," as promised. In the next two posts, though, I want to tell you about the project behind one of the links in this post, and two other projects. I'm also still planning to get to the suggestions you sent me, including the great one about how singles are portrayed on TV. As always, if you are getting impatient waiting for me to get to your topic, feel free to send a polite follow-up nudge. And thanks - I love hearing from you.
