If you ony have 30 minutes... even limited activity, being non-sedentary and getting extra sleep are all good .. not optimal, but good..
It seems there is never enough time in the day, and this is often the reason people tend not to exercise even if they know they should. There are only 24 hours in a day and all of our daily behaviors can be broken down into three basic categories. Sedentary behaviors include any activity in which you aren’t active, such as sitting while watching TV, sitting while at a computer at work, driving your car, or lying down without sleeping. Active behaviors include walking, jogging, exercising, or even performing household chores such as cleaning, cooking, and vacuuming. Sleeping behaviors include naps and your nightly rest period.
Note: in research, we often break activity behaviors up, based on intensity, into light intensity (LIPA; activities that don’t require a lot of effort, but are still active, such as walking and cleaning) and moderate-to-vigorous (MVPA; activities that really make you sweat!) physical activity.
Because the total time in one day equals the sum of sleep, sedentary behavior, LIPA, and MVPA, if you increase time in one behavior, you’ll have to decrease time in another. So if we were able to add a 30 minute jog (that’s MVPA) to our day, what other behavior would we be doing 30 minutes less of? Would that jog replace watching a TV show (sedentary)? Or cleaning the kitchen (LIPA)? Or perhaps going to bed 30 minutes earlier (sleep)?
A four year old kid's brain burns an enomous amount of glucose - about 43% of the body's total energy expenditure. Body growth slows when the brain begins to require more energy - fascinating study with commentary here.
Some serious issues on childhood nutrition are raised.
When Kuzawa finally sat down with all the data and plotted the trends, two gorgeous, opposing curves materialized: The brain was burning the most energy exactly when the body’s growth slowed, he found. “I was blown away when I plotted that,” he says. “I couldn’t believe how clean it was. We hypothesized that it would be there, but I didn’t think the evidence would be that clean.”
Around age 4, the brain accounts for a whopping 43 percent of the body’s total energy expenditure, the team estimates, a massive allotment that might divert resources from a growing body. Interestingly, this age might also be around the time children physically slow down a little bit. Activity levels of preschoolers seem to be a bit lower than those of older children, earlier studies have suggested. The body might be taking a rest and instead sending its resources to the energy-hogging brain.
This brain-body tradeoff emerges around 6 months as the brain starts slurping up more glucose and the body’s weight gain starts to slow, the team reports August 25 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The trend starts to reverse near the beginning of puberty, in boys around ages 12 or 13 and in girls around ages 9 or 10.
By pinpointing when the brain is demanding the most resources, the new study offers more than interesting playground chatter for parents. The results could have serious policy implications, Kuzawa says. Knowing exactly when the brain needs the most energy could help inform programs aimed at fighting childhood hunger. “If the brain requires so much energy at that age, what are the implications of malnutrition?” Kuzawa says. Hunger is never good, but it may be especially damaging in the preschool years when the brain is hungriest.
There is on-going debate today about specific effects of specific fats, but the wholesale cutting of dietary fat intake was pretty much yesterday’s news yesterday. The relevant concept today would be plant-based eating, which at the extreme of veganism, tends to be low in fat- but as an effect rather than an objective. This was not a study of a vegan diet.
The concept of low-carb is also terribly outdated, and was silly when it was first spawned. Everything from lentils to lollipops is carbohydrate; why on earth would anyone want to treat such a vast expanse of the food supply as if it were just one thing? Sillier still, all plant food is a carbohydrate source. A truly “low carb” diet is, of necessity, low in all plant foods- including vegetables, fruits, nuts, seeds, beans, and lentils along with whole grains. This is directly at odds with everything we know about diet and health across the lifespan.
So the research question in this case was, in a word, dumb. But now let me tell you what I really think.
The study didn’t even really ask this question. If you only read the headlines, you will believe it did- and frankly, most people will only read the headlines. I read the study- and before you start arguing with me, I invite you to do the same.
It was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and redounds much to the shame of this generally prestigious journal. Allegedly, the researchers compared a low-fat to a low-carb diet. But in fact, they compared a diet that allowed up to 30% of calories from fat to a diet that allowed up to 40 grams of daily carbohydrate.
Looking at calories (because yes, they still count), calories were lowest during the first 3 months for both study arms, but especially so for the low-carb folks where during those first 3 months they reported consuming 190 fewer daily calories than the low fat folks. That difference decreased as the study went on. In fact compared with their first 3 months' reporting, by year's end the low-carbers had upped their total daily calories by 15%, while the low fat folks had only upped theirs by 7.5% with the gap between them now being fewer than 100 calories. Consequently I'd also have loved to see longer term outcomes as I don't think it's a given that there'd be any real difference 2 years out given the more rapidly rising calorie (and carb) counts of this study's so called low-carb arm.
But is this really a low-carb diet study?
Nope. This simply isn't a low-carb study. It's not a low-fat study either by the way.
It's plainly not a low-carb diet study as the low-carb folks, though they were certainly prescribed a low-carb diet, never adhered to one, where even during their diets' honeymoon phase they were consuming over 25% of their total daily calories from carbs, a percentage that rose to 34% by year's end - both far higher than a true low-carb diet would require. Similarly for low-fat where participants weren't even prescribed a low-fat diet, as a diet with 30% of calories coming from fat by definition isn't low-fat. All that said, I'd be willing to wager that the protein distribution among the low-carb diet folks was in fact markedly different from the low-fat folks, as during those 20 hours of RD counselling I've little doubt that the utility of consuming a protein source with every meal and snack in helping to stick to a low-carb approach was emphasized.
Kim Goodsell was running along a mountain trail when her left ankle began turning inward, unbidden. A few weeks later she started having trouble lifting her feet properly near the end of her runs, and her toes would scuff the ground. Her back started to ache, and then her joints, too.
This was in 2002, and Kim, then 44 years old, was already an accomplished endurance athlete. She cycled, ran, climbed, and skied through the Rockies for hours every day; she was a veteran of Ironman triathlons. She’d always been the strong one in her family. When she was four, she would let her teenage uncles stand on her stomach as a party trick. In high school, she was an accomplished gymnast and an ardent cyclist. By college, she was running the equivalent of a half marathon on most days. It wasn’t that she was much of a competitor, exactly—passing someone in a race felt more deflating than energizing. Mostly Kim just wanted to be moving.
So when her limbs started glitching, she did what high-level athletes do, what she had always done: she pushed through. But in the summer of 2010, years of gradually worsening symptoms gave way to weeks of spectacular collapse. Kim was about to head to Lake Superior with her husband, CB. They planned to camp, kayak, and disappear from the world for as long as they could catch enough fish to eat. But in the days before their scheduled departure, she could not grip a pen or a fork, much less a paddle. Kim, a woman for whom extreme sports were everyday pursuits, could no longer cope with everyday pursuits. Instead of a lakeside tent, she found herself at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
After four days of tests, Kim’s neurologist told her that she had Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease, a genetic disorder that affects the peripheral neurons carrying signals between the spinal cord and the extremities. It’s rare and carries a varying suite of symptoms, but Kim’s are typical, starting at the feet and heading upward. The neurologist explained that as her neurons died, the surviving cells picked up the slack by sprouting new branches—a workaround that masked the underlying degeneration until the rate of cell death outpaced the rate of compensation. Hence Kim’s crash.
The neurologist told her to come back in a year so he could check how quickly the disease was progressing, but it would certainly progress. Charcot–Marie–Tooth has no cure.
The Goodsells drove home, and Kim, exhausted, slept for two days. When she woke up, she got to work. “My reaction to things that I have no control over is to find out as much as I can about them,” she says. She started by reviewing her clinic notes, and quickly she noticed something odd: there was hardly any mention of her heart.