Your Apple Watch is not going to save you, nor is some fad diet or magic exercise program. I say that as someone on my third Apple Watch.
Controlling your weight, excepting unusual medical circumstances, is all about the math. Some is calories and some has to do with where those calories come from. If you consume more calories than your body needs to maintain itself, your body will attempt to store that. Even if you consume the "proper" amount of caloric intake, if it is not balanced you are not going to be healthy. You do not have to be a Clinical Dietitian to figure this stuff out under normal circumstances.
We are designed to move- not sit on a couch or in a chair or laying in a bed for the bulk of the day. Beyond the burning of calories, our joints need movement in order to maintain themselves in a healthy state and the same is true of muscles and connective tissues. There are many great ways to exercise, but swimming is among the best as it uses the whole body, is aerobic, low impact and provides positive and negative resistance. You do not see many fat swimmers (people who swim regularly).
And drink enough water. Most Americans do not drink enough water- not tea, fruit juice, sports drinks or soda. Water. You would be amazed if you knew how many people come to clinics and ERs thinking something is wrong when they are just constipated. A sedentary lifestyle, not enough hydration and bad diet can do that.
Most Americans eat too much, eat too much junk, do not drink enough water and do not move enough. It does not take a watch to fix that set of problems.
While you're right about the root causes, you're missing the point. It's great that you've got a good head for the math and the root causes, but you can't say that everybody does, or has the same motivation that you do.
The Apple Watch can, and will, help people with motivational or data problems. Which, we argue, is a large percentage.
The part that he may not be aware of is that it has been shown that simply tracking an activity (be it eating or exercise) encourages more of that activity.
Agreed. I’m finding the same with sleep tracking...Now that I have numbers, I’m seeking to improve them and get more sleep.
"Some may be wondering why Apple does so much to try and keep its customers healthy. The obvious cynical view is that the company has an interest in making sure its users live as long as possible, so it can keep on collecting revenue from iPhone upgrades and other elements. Until Apple moves into the funeral business, to the company you're more valuable alive than dead. On a less cynical level, Apple does frame itself as attempting to inspire change and to better humanity. For example, in a recent letter to employees, Apple CEO Tim Cook thanked staff for "all you do to help dreamers become doers, to expand human potential, and to do the best work of their lives." It's likely that Apple considers the personal betterment of its clientele fits under this aim, and so it continues its work to make everyone better."
You missed the only reason why? It stares you in the face, so it is easy to miss. Apple struggled for the first few iterations to find a purpose for the watch beyond simply a tiny extension of your phone. They discovered fitness/health (previously just an adjunct) as a purpose for the watches existence and went after it full throttle, not because they give a damn about you, but to sell you on buying something most of us discarded when we started carrying cell phones. Apple's self interest just happens to be good for us, but anyone who thinks a corporation cares about them as an individual is delusional. On the other hand, I'm excited to get mine... hopefully by the weekend, so their diabolical plan worked.
I’m not of the opinion they didn’t realize fitness was a prime use case at launch. The early rumors were a fitbit-like device, which is why I held off fitbit until the AW came out. When it launched they had commercials for fitness use cases. The Workouts app is almost identical from my AW0 and my AW4. The standing-hours is another prime use. In fact the whole “close out your rings” was there from Day 1 and heavily featured.
It’s just a lot faster and better now. But fitness was my primary use case from launch and the rings were well featured.
It is going to take a lot more than some notifications that you can turn off on a watch most people can't afford to improve the health of humanity.
Says you. If people are buying AW for (among other things) fitness tracking, it’s unlikely they’ll turn it off. Besides which, there are few notifications for it, it’s usually viewing your activity rings, not receiving notifications. Do you even have an Apple Watch?
Ignorning your scope of all-humanity, in the western word the AW is affordable at $279 new. I’ve sold my used AW0 and AW3 for much less.
It is going to take a lot more than some notifications that you can turn off on a watch most people can't afford to improve the health of humanity.
This smacks of the 'If it doesn't save everybody it's worthless' drivel. People who can't afford an Apple Watch are buying FitBits and other fitness trackers, as are people who can afford Apple kit.
Buy spurring competition and awareness, Apple is contributing to improving health whether or not someone invests in their particular walled garden. Certainly complaining about what Apple can or can't do for humanity isn't doing anything to improve the health of humanity.
In my experience, restricting sugar-based carbs and starches along with moderate activity can make a big difference to someone who’s been sedentary too long.
I heartily agree and think this is one of the easier ways to make a noticeable difference in your wellbeing, not that restricting tasty carbs is easy. Combine that with the motivation of a fitness tracker, and the noticeable difference becomes a motivation of its own.
but anyone who thinks a corporation cares about them as an individual is delusional.
You're letting your cynicism delude you. Having concern for corporate profits and for customers' welfare are not mutually exclusive. Cook has demonstrated time and again his/Apple's desire and commitment to improve our health.
No, Apple isn't doing it for free. I suppose they could just give the Watch away to every one who wants one. And no, they aren't going to design bespoke versions for each individual. Neither of those are much of a business model. Only a fool would think Apple has no desire to actually improve our health.
Calories per minute have a lot variety persons age, gender, weight, resting heart rate, all play a role
It also breaks down in how much weight a person should lose per week. I originally learned 2 lbs a week is safe, now Ive gone to 1% per week
300lbs 3lbs per week 115 1.15 per week
only thing I hate about the watch is the damn challenges. It’s trying to kill me.
My February challenge is burn 33,000 calories during the month of February. I’m tired
16,544 of 33,000 completed.
Counting calories or stepping onto a scale are the worst ways of measuring one’s fitness levels. The watch may help the sedentary types to get up and move a bit but will soon plateau if every thing else remains the same in their lifestyle.
General rules for everyone should be 1) Cut down on processed foods (saturated fats and sugar) 2) No soda drinks even the ones labeled “diet” 3) Exercise intelligently (3-4 days a week for 1 hr max per training session of interval and/or cross training) 4) Moderate your alcohol intake
No. 3 in particular will introduce your body to the after burn effect where you are essentially using fat reserves to rebuild your muscles. You will continue to burn fat for up to 48 hrs after the training session.
“You're letting your cynicism delude you. Having concern for corporate profits and for customers' welfare are not mutually exclusive. Cook has demonstrated time and again his/Apple's desire and commitment to improve our health.”
I think you can be an Apple fan and not drink the Kool-Aid. Apple will do anything to sell you stuff. They’ll use, twist and paint it red if they have to, just to sell you more. If it truly is good for you, then that’s a bonus (which they will use too), but selling you stuff is their only priority. The rest is just world-class marketing. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. It’s not cynical, it’s capitalism.
"Some may be wondering why Apple does so much to try and keep its customers healthy. The obvious cynical view is that the company has an interest in making sure its users live as long as possible, so it can keep on collecting revenue from iPhone upgrades and other elements. Until Apple moves into the funeral business, to the company you're more valuable alive than dead. On a less cynical level, Apple does frame itself as attempting to inspire change and to better humanity. For example, in a recent letter to employees, Apple CEO Tim Cook thanked staff for "all you do to help dreamers become doers, to expand human potential, and to do the best work of their lives." It's likely that Apple considers the personal betterment of its clientele fits under this aim, and so it continues its work to make everyone better."
You missed the only reason why? It stares you in the face, so it is easy to miss. Apple struggled for the first few iterations to find a purpose for the watch beyond simply a tiny extension of your phone. They discovered fitness/health (previously just an adjunct) as a purpose for the watches existence and went after it full throttle, not because they give a damn about you, but to sell you on buying something most of us discarded when we started carrying cell phones. Apple's self interest just happens to be good for us, but anyone who thinks a corporation cares about them as an individual is delusional. On the other hand, I'm excited to get mine... hopefully by the weekend, so their diabolical plan worked.
I’m not of the opinion they didn’t realize fitness was a prime use case at launch. The early rumors were a fitbit-like device, which is why I held off fitbit until the AW came out. When it launched they had commercials for fitness use cases. The Workouts app is almost identical from my AW0 and my AW4. The standing-hours is another prime use. In fact the whole “close out your rings” was there from Day 1 and heavily featured.
It’s just a lot faster and better now. But fitness was my primary use case from launch and the rings were well featured.
Not for me....
Fitness wasn't my primary use case. It was my only use case. But then I discovered all the other things it can do and it soon became a required piece of equipment -- can't live without it type thing.
I get how the article is playing with the idea of fat from WallE, etc. but the title could be easily misread... in that we're eating too much fat (which would actually not necessarily be true). The article is clearly about activity... so maybe it could be reworded a bit?
Anyway, I suppose it is good to be reminded and encouraged to get some base-level of exercise (for those who aren't there). But, for anyone who does (and the level isn't that high), diet then becomes WAY, WAY more important than exercise.
This is where I think all the hoopla around 'closing the rings' and insurance companies issuing watches and such goes off the rails. I suppose it's fine if someone gets a discounted or free watch and the insurance company fails in their goal, but I'm more concerned about a person being mislead into believing they are fixing their health.
The biggest problem, easily, is sugar (and simple carbs that turn into sugar). And, contrary to what the title seems to imply.... most people aren't eating ENOUGH good fats (and too much bad fats in most processed foods).
Then, there is a whole chain of problems with the common food supply, from toxins, to artificial or even natural colors/flavors, lack of nutrients due to 'breed for speed'... the list goes on and on.
Until some of that stuff is addressed, you can close the rings all you want and still be in quite poor health.
thedba said: Counting calories or stepping onto a scale are the worst ways of measuring one’s fitness levels.
Exactly. This should be common sense, as 1000 calories of Twinkie clearly ≠ 1000 calories of broccoli. Yet, this bad-Science™ has been engrained nearly universally in the conversation about health 'wisdom.' The body is NOT a simple calorie burning machine.
For simplicity, don't even consider calories, but what you're putting in your mouth. It's actually pretty hard to overeat on good foods. No calorie tracking needed.
After doing this for a bit and get adjusted, I find that a lot of the junk I used to eat isn't even appealing anymore. And, especially... how crazy, sickly sweet so much of what I used to eat was. I can't even believe I once could down 6-12 cans of soda per day! It's nuts. (And, diet soda might actually be worse... so just go water. Quite a bit, too. Divide your weight in lbs about in half, and target that many oz of water per day.)
thedba said: Counting calories or stepping onto a scale are the worst ways of measuring one’s fitness levels.
Exactly. This should be common sense, as 1000 calories of Twinkie clearly ≠ 1000 calories of broccoli. Yet, this bad-Science™ has been engrained nearly universally in the conversation about health 'wisdom.' The body is NOT a simple calorie burning machine.
For simplicity, don't even consider calories, but what you're putting in your mouth. It's actually pretty hard to overeat on good foods. No calorie tracking needed.
After doing this for a bit and get adjusted, I find that a lot of the junk I used to eat isn't even appealing anymore. And, especially... how crazy, sickly sweet so much of what I used to eat was. I can't even believe I once could down 6-12 cans of soda per day! It's nuts. (And, diet soda might actually be worse... so just go water. Quite a bit, too. Divide your weight in lbs about in half, and target that many oz of water per day.)
Actually the difference is that you can eat 1,000 calories of Twinkie and hardly notice. You can't eat 1,000 broccoli -- at least not in one sitting because it just won't fit. The difference is called "Caloric Density" meaning calories per pound of food.
Another example from the other side is: A half pound burger has about 700 calories. A half pound of potatoe has about half that much. Either one will make you full -- but one will also make you fat.
Having worked in public health as a researcher, educator and clinician, I'd like to support the comments that others have made about the importance of your diet - that is, what you eat and how often. And yes - exercise and movement is important too. Use whatever means helps you to create healthy habits. So if tracking's your thing, go for it, or else join or create a neighborhood walking club that can support this habit while also creating social connections.
Michael Pollan's guide is apt: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." Minimise sugar and ALL sweet additives so that you train your taste buds to want less sweet things and to prefer savoury instead.
GeorgeBMac said: Actually the difference is that you can eat 1,000 calories of Twinkie and hardly notice. You can't eat 1,000 broccoli -- at least not in one sitting because it just won't fit. The difference is called "Caloric Density" meaning calories per pound of food.
Yes, but it's actually about more than that. Your body is smart enough to consider nutrient intake, and be fooled by artificial/natural favors, and things like that. So, if you eat broccoli, your body is much more quickly going to go, 'OK, we've had enough of that.' instead of the Twinkie, where your body goes, 'That was yummy, but we're still way short on nutrients, keep eating!' or 'Wow, this seems to be a good source of XYZ-lab-generated-faux-nutrient/favor, eat more of that!'.
Also, since hormones actually control what gets used/stored, it won't 'burn' 1000 calories of either just the same when you do exercise.
GeorgeBMac said: Another example from the other side is: A half pound burger has about 700 calories. A half pound of potatoe has about half that much. Either one will make you full -- but one will also make you fat.
Yes, but probably not what you were thinking. Since the potato (though potatoes aren't particularly bad) is a carb, it's more likely to make you fat than the burger. The idea that eating fat is what makes you fat, is also a myth. In fact, not eating enough fat, and replacing it with carbs, is what tends to make people fat. (Assuming you ate good fats vs bad fats... and the burger is probably some mixture if you just get conventional beef at a fast-food joint, etc.)
sweetas said: Michael Pollan's guide is apt: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." Minimise sugar and ALL sweet additives so that you train your taste buds to want less sweet things and to prefer savoury instead.
Agreed. And, having personally done this, I can tell you that (more quickly than you think) you start recognizing how sickly-sweet things are. You can actually start to taste the nasty pure-sugar/glucose syrupy nature of so much of processed foods. When we're traveling and stuff now, and I have to grab some of the conventional stuff I used to eat, it is actually kind of nasty. And, I've started to (gasp) actually prefer having some broccoli, snap-peas, carrots, etc. with some good avocado-oil/egg/spices 'ranch' dip instead of chips, etc. (though chips are still my weakness )
samian5747 said:If it truly is good for you, then that’s a bonus (which they will use too), but selling you stuff is their only priority. The rest is just world-class marketing. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. It’s not cynical, it’s capitalism.
At one point, Cook delivered a rather scathing reply to one such demand that Apple document the ROI of every activity related to environmental concerns, stating "if you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock."
Cook stated at the time, "we do things because they are right and just and that is who we are. That's who we are as a company. I don't--when I think about human rights, I don't think about an ROI. When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can't see or to help a kid with autism, I don't think about a bloody ROI, and by the same token, I don't think about helping our environment from an ROI point of view."
In 2015, Cook similarly again noted that there was "not a business model" behind Apple's work on health-related efforts including Research Kit and that, "for those looking for an ROI, there's not one."
Comments
It’s just a lot faster and better now. But fitness was my primary use case from launch and the rings were well featured.
Ignorning your scope of all-humanity, in the western word the AW is affordable at $279 new. I’ve sold my used AW0 and AW3 for much less.
Buy spurring competition and awareness, Apple is contributing to improving health whether or not someone invests in their particular walled garden. Certainly complaining about what Apple can or can't do for humanity isn't doing anything to improve the health of humanity.
You're letting your cynicism delude you. Having concern for corporate profits and for customers' welfare are not mutually exclusive. Cook has demonstrated time and again his/Apple's desire and commitment to improve our health.
No, Apple isn't doing it for free. I suppose they could just give the Watch away to every one who wants one. And no, they aren't going to design bespoke versions for each individual. Neither of those are much of a business model. Only a fool would think Apple has no desire to actually improve our health.
The watch may help the sedentary types to get up and move a bit but will soon plateau if every thing else remains the same in their lifestyle.
General rules for everyone should be
1) Cut down on processed foods (saturated fats and sugar)
2) No soda drinks even the ones labeled “diet”
3) Exercise intelligently (3-4 days a week for 1 hr max per training session of interval and/or cross training)
4) Moderate your alcohol intake
No. 3 in particular will introduce your body to the after burn effect where you are essentially using fat reserves to rebuild your muscles. You will continue to burn fat for up to 48 hrs after the training session.
I think you can be an Apple fan and not drink the Kool-Aid. Apple will do anything to sell you stuff. They’ll use, twist and paint it red if they have to, just to sell you more. If it truly is good for you, then that’s a bonus (which they will use too), but selling you stuff is their only priority. The rest is just world-class marketing. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. It’s not cynical, it’s capitalism.
The article is clearly about activity... so maybe it could be reworded a bit?
Anyway, I suppose it is good to be reminded and encouraged to get some base-level of exercise (for those who aren't there). But, for anyone who does (and the level isn't that high), diet then becomes WAY, WAY more important than exercise.
This is where I think all the hoopla around 'closing the rings' and insurance companies issuing watches and such goes off the rails. I suppose it's fine if someone gets a discounted or free watch and the insurance company fails in their goal, but I'm more concerned about a person being mislead into believing they are fixing their health.
The biggest problem, easily, is sugar (and simple carbs that turn into sugar). And, contrary to what the title seems to imply.... most people aren't eating ENOUGH good fats (and too much bad fats in most processed foods).
Then, there is a whole chain of problems with the common food supply, from toxins, to artificial or even natural colors/flavors, lack of nutrients due to 'breed for speed'... the list goes on and on.
Until some of that stuff is addressed, you can close the rings all you want and still be in quite poor health.
For simplicity, don't even consider calories, but what you're putting in your mouth. It's actually pretty hard to overeat on good foods. No calorie tracking needed.
After doing this for a bit and get adjusted, I find that a lot of the junk I used to eat isn't even appealing anymore. And, especially... how crazy, sickly sweet so much of what I used to eat was. I can't even believe I once could down 6-12 cans of soda per day! It's nuts. (And, diet soda might actually be worse... so just go water. Quite a bit, too. Divide your weight in lbs about in half, and target that many oz of water per day.)
Another example from the other side is: A half pound burger has about 700 calories. A half pound of potatoe has about half that much. Either one will make you full -- but one will also make you fat.
Michael Pollan's guide is apt: "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." Minimise sugar and ALL sweet additives so that you train your taste buds to want less sweet things and to prefer savoury instead.
Also, since hormones actually control what gets used/stored, it won't 'burn' 1000 calories of either just the same when you do exercise.
Yes, but probably not what you were thinking. Since the potato (though potatoes aren't particularly bad) is a carb, it's more likely to make you fat than the burger. The idea that eating fat is what makes you fat, is also a myth. In fact, not eating enough fat, and replacing it with carbs, is what tends to make people fat. (Assuming you ate good fats vs bad fats... and the burger is probably some mixture if you just get conventional beef at a fast-food joint, etc.)
Agreed. And, having personally done this, I can tell you that (more quickly than you think) you start recognizing how sickly-sweet things are. You can actually start to taste the nasty pure-sugar/glucose syrupy nature of so much of processed foods. When we're traveling and stuff now, and I have to grab some of the conventional stuff I used to eat, it is actually kind of nasty. And, I've started to (gasp) actually prefer having some broccoli, snap-peas, carrots, etc. with some good avocado-oil/egg/spices 'ranch' dip instead of chips, etc. (though chips are still my weakness