Press Release: Interval Training and Healthy Eating Is Solution to Obesity, Study Shows

“A program which combines interval training and healthy eating practices seems to be perfectly indicated for those suffering from obesity, according to the results of a new study from the Montreal Heart Institute's centre for preventive medicine and physical activity (ÉPIC Centre). Results of the study were announced at the National Obesity Summit, currently taking place in Montreal... ”

Wait, was this ever under debate or not generally known by the public?

Eat less, move more = no more obesity. I can't believe scientists wasted their time on this, or that something called the "National Obesity Summit" actually exists.

Let's get a better problem like world hunger and devote resources to that. Hell, it could be a joint effort. Take some food away from the lazy, obese people and give it to the hungry. 一石二鳥.

*Edit*

I realize how angry this comes off. That's because it is. But it's not directed at you, nest0r.

I think obesity is probably more a mental problem than anything else.

Zarxrax Wrote:I think obesity is probably more a mental problem than anything else.

Food is addicting.

Sounds like something out of The Onion: "Scientists Discover New 'Exercise' Cure For Obesity..." :p

The key is to take in less calories than your body needs to maintain your current weight.
http://caloriecount.about.com/cc/calories-goal.php

It doesn't matter how you do it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08...index.html

By exercising more, you burn more calories. By eating healthier, you ideally take in less calories. But, even if you eat nothing but the healthiest foods, you're not going to lose weight if you're taking in more calories than you need to lose weight.

i feel like the title should be "interval training and healthy eating is a solution to obesity"

the lack of an article makes it feel like it should be "the"

and we all know there's many solutions to obesity

Our pharmaceutical saviors have been selling anti-fat pills for decades now. There is no need to sweat or avoid double cheeseburgers.

Amen brother.

*coughing on my own throat fat (you know, being American and all)*

Breaking news "Scientist says, 'stop staring at the sun and your eyes won't hurt.'"

People who are overweight either have gland problems (rarely) or just eat too much (way more likely).

It has little to do with your diet and more to do with the volume, but of course this is worse if you're eating 2 Mcburgers versus eating two grilled cheeses or something. It's basically about calorie intake...

By the way, if you're overweight, you don't need to exercise... that won't do crap for you.

If you are taking in 4000 (how much do obese people eat I have no idea I just pulled that number out of nowhere) calories in a day, doing 30 minutes of jogging might burn like 50-100 calories (I haven't hit the treadmills in a while...).

Exercise is good for if you want to build muscle mass but its not necessary at all to being skinny... it helps a little I guess, but when you're eating twice as many calories as you should be, doing situps is not going to help you.

bodhisamaya Wrote:Our pharmaceutical saviors have been selling anti-fat pills for decades now. There is no need to sweat or avoid double cheeseburgers.

the way things are going, people will sweat while eating double cheeseburgers.

prink Wrote:The key is to take in less calories than your body needs to maintain your current weight.
http://caloriecount.about.com/cc/calories-goal.php

Yes, but that calculator isn't so good. It uses the Harris-Benedict equation, which is the least accurate measurement available.

What you want is the Katch-McArdle method:

BMR = 370 + (21.6 x LBM)
Where LBM = [total weight (kg) x (100 - bodyfat %)]/100

Then, you need your "Activity Factor." Multiply the above number by the below number. Be truthful here...
1.2 = Sedentary (Little or no exercise and desk job)
1.3-1.4 = Lightly Active (Little daily activity & light exercise 1-3 days a week)
1.5-1.6 = Moderately Active (Moderately active daily life & Moderate exercise 3-5 days a week)
1.7-1.8 = Very Active (Physically demanding lifestyle & Hard exercise or sports 6-7 days a week)
1.9-2.0 = Extremely Active (Hard daily exercise or sports and physical job)
(note: these activity factors generally include your LIFESTYLE (work) as well as your EXERCISE (gym/ sport) and a TEF of ~ 15% - which is an average mixed diet).

Then, to lose weight, subtract 10-20% from this, or about 500 calories. A 500 calorie deficit per day will equal 3500 calorie deficit per week, which is almost exactly 1lb of fat.

Quote:It doesn't matter how you do it.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/0 … index.html

No. Well, yes... but no. It states right in the article that he also had protein, multivitamin, and vegetables. You need to get a good macro ration (of fat/carbs/protein). Use a site like http://www.fitday.com to track this. I recommend 40% protein, 30% fat and 30% carbs if you work out frequently (with weights)

Quote:By exercising more, you burn more calories. By eating healthier, you ideally take in less calories. But, even if you eat nothing but the healthiest foods, you're not going to lose weight if you're taking in more calories than you need to lose weight.

True.

zachandhobbes Wrote:Exercise is good for if you want to build muscle mass but its not necessary at all to being skinny... it helps a little I guess, but when you're eating twice as many calories as you should be, doing situps is not going to help you.

Sorry, no. Exercise, and here I assume you mean lifting weights, is ideal for losing weight. In fact, lifting weights (a type of anaerobic exercise) burns more calories than cardio (aerobic) exercise does. Furthermore, weight training develops lean body mass, which causes a rise in calories burnt during normal activities (such as sitting on your couch doing nothing, or studying Japanese).

Finally, to everyone who sucks in what the media says like a vacuum, training using heavy weights will NOT cause you to become some muscular "freak". If you are eating at a calorie deficit, no matter how much you lift, you will never, ever be able to put on muscle to look like a body builder. That's impossible. It will cut body fat.

Doing less weight and more reps does NOT tone. There is no such thing as toning, it is a myth. You can lose body fat, and that will define your muscles more, but you can't tone - the same way you can't reduce fat in a certain spot only (so the next time your girlfriend tries doing crunches to get rid of the stubborn belly fat, tell her to do reps of "put down the fork" instead, that's all that will work).

While this didn't take long to type out, as I've been researching nutrition and health for a long, long time, I hope at least one person bothers to read it and take away the information. Most people have no idea what they are doing when it comes to proper health, but that's OK. I'd rather have them then the people that read magazines and articles by so-called experts and think they know what they are doing - because they usually don't.

For a long time it has just been accepted that 2+2=4. Yet no one has actually done follow up studies to verify this hypothesis in a truly scientific manner and published the formula used.

For instance, if two people on one side of a room began walking toward two people on the other side of the room to hug exactly halving the distance with each step, the 2 sets of 2 people would never become 4 hugging people.

2+2≠4
Burned calories > consumed calories ≠ weight loss

Ryuujin27 Wrote:I hope at least one person bothers to read it and take away the information.

Thanks, good info. I'm curious where zachandhobbes got the bizzare notion that exercise doesn't help with weight loss. Exercise is an effective and important component of getting into shape.

zachandhobbes Wrote:By the way, if you're overweight, you don't [just] need to exercise... that [alone] won't do crap for you.

Fixed that for you.

Losing weight without exercise can accutally be pretty harmful to your health. You'd have to drop your intake to below levels that you sue without exercise, which means you're probably gonna not get the proper nutrients that you need. When I was body bulding, the people I knew who dieted alone tended be sickly, weak, depressed and had a hard time with cognitive tasks. The people who ate resonably and exercised a lot (in comparison to the usual trend) tended to be full of energy.

Of course diet + exercise + suppliments is the best way to lose weight, but everything in moderation. You cut your intake too much, you'll be sick and lack energy. Too much exercise you'll hurt yourself. Too many/dangerous suppliments, well, who knows with some of that stuff. I used to use more natural stuff, which worked pretty well for me.

One thing I've found that is completey bizarre for people who diet is that weight = obesity. So if they're 200 pounds that they have to reach 160, no matter what. The thing is, if you exercise properly, you'll gain muscle mass, which can maintain or even add to your weight! Example, I weighed about 175 and had a big gut. After 6 months of body building I weighed 170 pounds, but had a completly diferent and more 'ripped' looking body. But I only lost 5 pounds in 6 months, so I must of failed, right?

Also, Squats, Deadlifts and Bench Presses are pretty much the best weight lose. The more muscles you use to fatigue, the more you'll burn calories. And these exercises pretty much use the biggest sets of muscles in yoru body.

Also, 2+2 = 22.

I see where zachandhobbes was going - if you're eating 4000-6000 calories a day, working out for like a half hour a week isn't going to get you very far weight-wise. However, if you cut your intake down to healthier levels, and add in half an hour a day of exercise, it's going to show results a lot faster.

One thing someone said earlier that I agree is probably true, is that obesity is more of a mental problem. It's not enough to tell someone to "just stop eating less, exercise more". It doesn't figure out why they started eating more in the first place. I think for the minority it's because they like food. From what I've heard/read/researched, depression/shame is the most common reasons. Especially once you're a certain weight, you're ashamed/hate yourself and therefore eat more.

It's a vicious cycle that's so easy to be stuck in. So easy to judge without having been there.

Hurray for stress eating!

KMDES Wrote:Losing weight without exercise can accutally be pretty harmful to your health. You'd have to drop your intake to below levels that you sue without exercise, which means you're probably gonna not get the proper nutrients that you need. When I was body bulding, the people I knew who dieted alone tended be sickly, weak, depressed and had a hard time with cognitive tasks. The people who ate resonably and exercised a lot (in comparison to the usual trend) tended to be full of energy.

Of course diet + exercise + suppliments is the best way to lose weight, but everything in moderation. You cut your intake too much, you'll be sick and lack energy. Too much exercise you'll hurt yourself. Too many/dangerous suppliments, well, who knows with some of that stuff. I used to use more natural stuff, which worked pretty well for me.

One thing I've found that is completey bizarre for people who diet is that weight = obesity. So if they're 200 pounds that they have to reach 160, no matter what. The thing is, if you exercise properly, you'll gain muscle mass, which can maintain or even add to your weight! Example, I weighed about 175 and had a big gut. After 6 months of body building I weighed 170 pounds, but had a completly diferent and more 'ripped' looking body. But I only lost 5 pounds in 6 months, so I must of failed, right?

Also, Squats, Deadlifts and Bench Presses are pretty much the best weight lose. The more muscles you use to fatigue, the more you'll burn calories. And these exercises pretty much use the biggest sets of muscles in yoru body.

Also, 2+2 = 22.

To follow up to these points:

You're correct, losing weight without exercise is a really poor decision. To further clarify: losing weight without proper protein and fat intake, while lifting weights is a poor decision.

Why? Less bodyweight ≠ less fat. This is important. When you eat less, your body goes to stored energy sources in the body to "feed". Eating a few hundred calories under maintenance will be safe, but going the normal route of 500-1000 calories under maintenance per day will lead to a signifcant drop in muscle, not fat, without exercise and protein.

Where I am right now, do you know why I weigh myself with a scale? To make sure my weight isn't decreasing too much. If it is, I know I am either overtraining or not getting enough protein/calories.

This ties into another of KMDES points - body recomposition. After a while you won't notice the weight come off. You will, however, notice your body composition changing. I notice differences every day, and I'm just coming off a bulk (+500 calories over maintenance per day). This is usually when you want to start measuring progress according to body fat %. Get some calipers and start pinching ;-)

If anyone has any questions, or is looking for resources/more information, feel free to PM me. As I said before, I've been researching this for a while and putting my own theories to test on myself. Granted, what works for some doesn't work for all, but I've tried many different training routines, many diets, and many supplements. Hopefully I can help out.

I disagree with the calories logic. In my, admittedly very strong but respectful, opinion...

There are many ways to gain fat and many ways to lose fat. I'm glad to see that some picked up on the reality that it's not as simple as calories in vs. calories out. I repeat: it is not that simple. Yes, calories matter, but there are many other things that also matter. The law of thermodynamics that is so often used to cite some sort of proof of the theory is fine and dandy for simple machines or physics but it does not apply to the human body (or most any other complex animal).

The idea that being overweight is a 'mental' problem of willpower is silly. I would agree that it is a 'mental' problem if the theory was that it’s a problem of misinformation, lack of concern, lack of understanding, etc... which would then lead to physiological deregulations. The physiological deregulations (of which there can be many) may very well signal your brain to eat more and to crave the very things that will do it the most harm - if you want to call that a 'mental' issue.

Exercise has little to do with fat loss. It can help speed the process up but it in itself is not the cause. I do agree that exercise is critical for health, don't get me wrong... everyone should be active, but an overweight person’s body is doing everything it can not to be active for a reason. I assure you that if you are overweight; you can become healthy and lose plenty of fat all the while sitting on your butt. Once you become healthy you will actually want to be active, not because you have to. It's all about what you put in your mouth. There is far more *good* science to back this up than there is to back up the theory that it is a lack of willpower and the availability of Twinkies and Big Macs.

I partly agree with the topic of the post for sure - but you have to define what 'healthy eating' means. I'm pretty certain it doesn't mean starvation (caloric deficit). I also think that interval training, because its generally of high intensity, and heavy weight training is the best for health, but again... no specific training is the 'solution to obesity'.

No I'm not an advocate for the obese; I don't think it's OK or natural, and I'm not overweight myself. Yea, I do indeed think that there is a serious problem with the general population, generally in societies that eat a Western diet and then see their weight and incidences of diabetes and heart disease skyrocket. That should be a clue, the conventional logic is seriously flawed... in my opinion.



(If you want more info on my reasoning, check out http://amzn.com/1400033462 - it's not perfect but he's at least pointing in the right direction.)

lecz0r, I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your post.

You don't agree with the calorie logic? I mean, that's fine, as it really is more than that in truth. As I mentioned, it is important to watch your intake of other nutrients - particularly the big three of fat, carbs, and protein. Naturally you want to watch sugar intake as well, as insulin spikes will cause the body to react in a way that it stores fat.

However, you equate a caloric deficit to "starvation." This isn't true at all. Even eating at a 500 calorie deficit per day, I don't experience any signs of starvation. A caloric deficit can result in your body activating some kind of "starvation mode" where it stores everything it can as fat, but this generally happens when men and women consume less than 1500 and 1200 calories per day, respectively.

Despite this, I propose that, particularly for the obese, it really is a calorie in vs calorie out deal. If you eat less than your body burns, you will lose weight, no matter what. I believe someone else said that you can eat as healthy as you want to, but if you still stuff yourself and eat over your maintenance, you are going to gain weight. There is no debating this.

And I don't think I ever made the arugment (or anyone else for that matter) that you need to exercise to lose weight. I simply conjectured that you will lose more efficiently, meaning a higher fat to muscle ratio, of weight if you lift weights. Also, let's face it, if you are trying to lose weight without exercise, it's like showing up with a knife to a gun fight, to use an old addage. Why would you do that?

This is interesting:
Three Meals Superior for Appetite Control
especially in conjunction with this:
Fasted Training Boosts Muscle Growth?

Author seems knowledgeable and quotes relevant studies on the subject.

I, too, have been scouring the internet on forums about nutrition, longevity, and bodybuilding for a long time. In the end, my conclusions are very simple and straightforward but involve little science. At the same time, I think those who have done a little search (via internet, or even mainstream ways like tv, newspapers) to explain why the science backs up their "correct" thought process on dieting, obesity, and health are VASTLY OVERSIMPLIFYING the matter. We can't use simple equations to model our calorie output or simply say fat people are lazy and overeat, so they must eat less and exercise more, although that's what everyone believes. There are some obese people who eat so little and still can't lose weight. Here's some of my little known gems from around the web worth reading to expand your viewpoint:

DIETING/OBESITY MYTHS

--eat less, exercise more? that's the key to weight loss right? Not! Here's an experiment nobody told you about (because the diet industry would lose all it's beloved customers)
http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010...n-fat.html
http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010...human.html

--In the US it's easy to get fat on 2-3000 calories a day...why is it that these women are struggling even eating up to 16,000 cal/day?
http://ryan-koch.blogspot.com/2009/10/tr...tices.html

--our society's so obsessed with dieting to lose weight. we think: i must eat less to lose weight because eating more will make us gain weight. that last half of that sentence is something everybody just accepts, but what does science actually tell us about the ANTI-DIET. What happens when ppl are forced to eat 10000 calories a day? The result will surprise you.
http://weightfocus.blogspot.com/2009/08/...study.html


---the sad reality of prolonged dieting: metabolic damage. 3hrs a day of cardio + 1200 cal/day diet and still not losing weight? Here's what the experts say

---"If you want to lose weight it has to be a full-time job. 'On a scale of 1 to 10...how important is it for you to lose weight and get in shape?...Don't think. ..If it's lower than 9, you're not ready and you're going to fail.'" -Susan Estrich That's why 90% of dieters fail; the only ones who succeed are mostly the obsessed, neurotic, unhealthy ones who satisfy the above condition.

---ate 2.5 lbs of potatoes yesterday. is it possible to eat 5 lbs and if so can one thrive? Yes it seems. Chris Voigt ate 20 potatoes a day for 60 days. WITHOUT much of a calorie deficit, he still lost 23 lbs and look what happened to his health markers http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/20...of-20.html

---NIH (national institutes of Health) stupidity: "...the NIH has explained that their very definition of an obesity expert is 'someone who runs a weight loss clinic.' These people...are then asked to OBJECTIVELY evaluate the threat posed by obesity and the beneit provided by the clinics they run" (The Obesity Myth by Paul Campos) Of course these "experts" will say obesity is a huge threat. It's their livelihood.



EXERCISE MYTHS

--"People are thinking about exercise completely wrong. Exercise is something you do to stimulate metabolic adaptations, which in turn changes the composition of your body, insulin sensitivity, and so forth. It has nothing to do with burning calories during the exercise itself. Burn too many calories in fact and you limit your body’s ability to adapt to become spontaneously leaner."
http://180metabolism.com/blog/?p=109

---By the end of an experiment done on 2 twins, one twin was running 6 sets of 50 meter sprints - less than one minute of workout - 3 times a week, and the other built up to 10 miles per day, 3 times per week. they started with bodyfat around 24%. AT the end, the one girl had a body fat% of 10%, the other 19.5%. One gained 9 pounds of lean mass, the other loss 2 lbs of lean mass. Can you guess which one? http://180metabolism.com/blog/?p=109



NUTRITION/FOOD MYTHS

---SUGAR is 50% glucose, 50% fructose. Glucose is used in the body as the main source of energy. So how is it that sugar could cause disease? Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it only causes disease in the context of an otherwise bad diet.

---Nutrition education is so pathetic it can't account for such blatant holes: "what if I told you there was a country where it's documented that the population derives about 50% of it's energy, not from just fat, but from saturated fat! That is, they get about 60% of total energy from fat, 50% of which is saturated." Heart risk was minimal there before adopting western foods.
http://freetheanimal.com/2009/01/saturated-fat.html

---"The Masai traditionally get almost 2/3 of their calories from milk fat, half of which is saturated. In 1964, Dr. George V. Mann published a paper showing that traditional Masai warriors eating nothing but very fatty milk, blood and meat had an average cholesterol of 115 mg/dL in the 20-24 year age group. For comparison, he published values for American men in the same age range: 198 mg/dL"
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/20...rting.html

---The Framingham study, the longest lasting, most respected study into the causes of heart disease (started in 1948) reported that ‘In Framingham, Massachusetts, the MORE saturated fat one ate, the MORE cholesterol one ate, the MORE calories one ate, the LOWER people's serum cholesterol.' Dr William Castelli - director of the Framingham study at the time - 1992."
“There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and mortality over the following 18 years (11% overall and 14% CVD death rate increase per 1 mg/dL per year drop in cholesterol levels).” In other words, as cholesterol fell death rates went up!!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3560398

---" The U.S. National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) is a gov't org that educates physicians and the general public about the "dangers" of elevated cholesterol."
8 out of its 9 board members have financial ties to drug companies like Merck and Pfizer. How much more biased can it get?
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/20...erest.html


+1 on Astendra's link of the leangains guy. I don't know how healthy his plan is, but you can't deny that he gets his clients ridiculous results.
http://leangains.blogspot.com/2010/05/cl...pdate.html


Some other links to fcuk with your mind and make you reconsider your notions of health
raypeat.com


If you are researching and you haven't been confused, then you probably haven't searched long enough because there are so much conflicting studies out there.

elhnad Wrote:--eat less, exercise more? that's the key to weight loss right? Not! Here's an experiment nobody told you about (because the diet industry would lose all it's beloved customers)
http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010...n-fat.html
http://180degreehealth.blogspot.com/2010...human.html

I don't have the time to respond to all of your links (though I only agree with various small points in a few of them), but these two stuck out and annoyed me with their biased writing.

They did this study while feeding the participants only 1,500 calories a day. If they did any exercise, they would go below that, thus causing their body to go into starvation, which they mention. Why is it then that the author acts surprised when they gain bodyfat after re-feeding?

First of all, the extended time on that intense of a low-calorie cut will cause the body to think there is a severe shortage of food. So, once they start re-feeding (an act that shouldn't be done on that low of a calorie cut, and also should only be done for a day/weekend) naturally the body will begin to store everything as fat, to save up in case something similar happens again.

Next, let's look at the amount of food they ate on their re-feed. They began with multiple days at 6000+ calories, and continued this re-feed for 33 weeks? Are you ****ing kidding me? You would have to literally be mentally challenged to think that anything but a huge spike in body fat would happen when doing that.

I'm not going to go on, but needless to day that study is ridiculous. I can't believe they were paid to do that to those poor people.

Nutrition and health requires a lifestyle change. You can just eat less for a little while, exercise a bit and expect everything to be OK. No, you have to make the time for your body, and keep it nice and healthy through every day choices. Don't do extreme things. Use the formula I posted before, then subtract 500 calories from that. Now eat that. To be even more healthy, include a 35%/40%/25% ratio of fat/protein/carbs.

It's pretty easy.

6000 calories/day

0.o

Who eats that much?

Ryuujin27 Wrote:I don't have the time to respond to all of your links (though I only agree with various small points in a few of them), but these two stuck out and annoyed me with their biased writing.

Of course it's biased; it's his opinions and he's trying to edutain to reach as wide an audience as possible. I don't think that's a bad thing. Secondly, the majority of the links didn't have major emphatic points in them and if they did, it was not my intent to say, "hey agree with all this". They were linked to show what kind of things that are out there that are counter to the mainstream dogma. How can one agree or disagree with somebody's anthropological reporting on various observations of different cultures or results and quotes that came from controlled studies unless they're committing fraud.

Ryuujin27 Wrote:Nutrition and health requires a lifestyle change. You can just eat less for a little while, exercise a bit and expect everything to be OK. No, you have to make the time for your body, and keep it nice and healthy through every day choices. Don't do extreme things. Use the formula I posted before, then subtract 500 calories from that. Now eat that. To be even more healthy, include a 35%/40%/25% ratio of fat/protein/carbs.

It's pretty easy.

While I agree with your first few sentences, It's really not that easy as that simple formula. You're basically equating humans with similar body profiles under the exact same metabolism governed by Lean Body Mass and exercise activity when individual differences in how they expend heat and how they even process the calories they eat may account for vast differences in energy expenditures. There are too many people with ravaged metabolisms who have failed doing what's been suggested above and it's not completely because they're lazy or undisciplined. Again, that's why there are some very obese people who eat little and can't lose weight. Again, that's why I included the link of the people eating 16000 calories and having trouble gaining weight. In any case, besides the fact that it's impossible to accurately measure how much of a calorie deficit people are creating without state of the art equipment, who's to say if they drop 3500 calories all of that will be fat? Surely some of that will be lean body mass lost.

Secondly, YOU may think 1500 calories is retarded and exercising with that calorie amount is even stupider, but how many people do you think in this country are convinced that's the way to lose weight and be "healthy"? A lot of young girls I bet think 1500 calories is the right amount or may be approaching the upper bound of what they SHOULD be eating. And this was the whole point of including those links: to show that what many people think are healthy is actually injurious and more likely to put on fat afterward. I mean how many people think a diet is done for the short-term? A lot and then they get so confounded by how the weight just seems to come back. The link is trying to show that dieting short term is just asking for it to come back, although more comes back as FAT.

Ryuujin27 Wrote:They began with multiple days at 6000+ calories, and continued this re-feed for 33 weeks? Are you ****ing kidding me? You would have to literally be mentally challenged to think that anything but a huge spike in body fat would happen when doing that.

This is written in a way that makes it seem like they kept up eating 6000+ calories for 33 weeks. That isn't what happened. In any case this is an indictment on most dieters as being mentally challenged since I'm sure most dieters don't expect the body fat regain to happen when they resume their pre-dieting lifestyles.

Ryuujin27 Wrote:I'm not going to go on, but needless to day that study is ridiculous. I can't believe they were paid to do that to those poor people.

Although maybe not to that extreme, much of the current mentality towards dieting is reflected in this study, so I think there's much to gain in being aware of it and not that ludicrous at all. Thank the government for sponsoring experiments like that and these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_h...te_note-15