Posts by dierdredarling

Original Post by medstud:

Original Post by susiecue:

@medstudent

This site tends to break links by putting extra spaces in them.  Here's the working link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/ 050830065729.htm  I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the poster was contradicting herself.  She clearly stated that the study had shown that calorie restriction prolonged the lives of rodents (which it does, in part by delaying puberty and stunting growth - not something you want to be recommending to humans and also indicating that it only "works" if you start at a very young age; do you plan to recommend that parents starve their young children?) but that the same effects have not been shown on humans (i.e. life is not extended by 40-50%; it may be extended by 1 or 2% but that would be very difficult to prove as it's impossible to determine when a subject would have died had they been eating a normal caloric intake).

A *good* doctor wouldn't recommend a nutritionally deficient diet to a patient - which might well lead to malnutrition and related illnesses - just because of a couple of animal studies they don't really understand.  Unfortunately, not all doctors out there are good doctors.  I left my last doctor because he didn't know the difference between aspirin and wart remover.

 Okay dude, a source from 2005 is not reliable.  So everything you posted in regards to that source is ignored. Sorry, but I don't trust outdated sources in regards to advancing research discoveries :(

You left your last doctor because he didn't know the difference between aspirin and wart remover? I call BS on that one. You were probably trying to score pain killers and he refused to prescribe them.

Totally right, dude.  The original source for the theory of relativity published in like, what?  1916?  Gravity was in the 1680s.  Who needs all that old, outdated stuff, this is 2009 baby!

Thanks for the reply, but this leads into another question (and a shameless bump).

My burn meter (with light activity selected) factors in an additional 300 burned throughout the day, however, that is the amount I happen to burn off through my exercise routine.  I suppose my question is:  If I want to calculate the amount of calories I have burned in a day, is it more accurate to begin with a “sedentary” burn level selected and individually factor in the exercise I have done?  Or should I keep the “light activity” selection and also log the approximate amount of calories burned through exercise?  The second option seems as if I’m double logging the exercise I have actually done. 

Second question:  How does exercise affect the metabolism?  Would regular exercise (and a healthy diet) boost the amount of calories naturally burned?