※ 引述《ulin0619 (凛灵)》之铭言： : 以下不代表本人立场.. : 破解运动的神话：运动不一定会让你瘦！ : http://ppt.cc/Ski4 : Ｑ：为了减肥，我参加了健身俱乐部，并每天花一个小时在健身房上，但体重不瘦却反胖！ꀊ: Ｑ：我每天已挪出2~3小时从事运动，体重却还是瘦不下来？ꀊ: Ｑ：大家都说减肥要多运动，我没办法做运动（可能是没钱参加健身房、没空，或因坐轮椅、拿拐杖等不良於行），所以，无法运动是我瘦不下来的主因！ꀊ: ………ꀊ: 　　曾几何时，运动有助减肥的观念就已深植在一般人的心中，然而，运动真的有助减肥吗？为了减肥一定要去从事特别的运动（如上健身房，打篮球等）吗？前阵子，同事拿了八月份的Time杂志(August 17,2009)给我看，这期封面的大标是「运动神话」，上面写道「当然，运动对你很好，但它不会让你体重减轻。你所吃的食物才是影响体重是否会减轻的主因」。 : 这个话题蛮有趣的， Stella也常在我的部落格上看到很多人为了减肥，每天花大把时间在运动，但却效果不彰，故决定一起来探讨这个主题，并和大家分享文中的精彩内容。【本文很多资料是引自Time杂志所提到资讯，如果大家对Time这篇文章有兴趣的话，请参考August 17,2009出版的Time杂志p26页】 : A. 为什麽运动不会让你更瘦？ꀊ: 「少吃多运动」是众所皆知的减肥不二法门，因此，很多人自然地就会将运动加入自己的减肥计画中，为了减肥而刻意从事某运动。但运动是件很辛苦的事~在炎热的天气下浑身大汗、枯燥地从事数十分钟运动，之後弄得精疲力竭、全身肌肉酸痛…，因此，有些人会改选择加入健身俱乐部，或购买瑜珈课程在冷气房里从事较舒适的运动；或是购买跑步机或踩脚踏车机在家运动，各种努力的目的就是试图透过增加运动量来达到减肥或维持良好身材的目的。但是，运动真的可以让我们变瘦吗？ꀊ: 　　在我的印象中，运动总是伴随着食物的*_*。国小的时候，和哥哥姊姊去市立游泳池游泳(基本上应该是玩水啦，那时候还不会游泳)，之後必然会在泳池旁边的福利社买面包吃（那个年代游泳池旁会有个小福利社，卖饮料和面包和一些蛙镜等游泳配件）。大一点的时候（那时已在从事减重营养谘询工作），有一次和同事买了某饭店健身房的体验卷。我们走路去健身房，在健身房跑跑步机，踩脚踏车，蛮有成就感地消耗了300多大卡的热量，但当我们全身疲倦，顶着大太阳走路回家时，看到路边的冰店时，很自然地买了绿豆沙和冰砂消暑、减轻疲劳。我们还边走边吃边开玩 : 笑，记得，我跟同事说我们两个刚刚运动所努力消耗的热量全都没了，同事则说，应该不只没了，还负债吧>_< : ◎为什麽运动不会让你瘦？ꀊ: 　 　ꀊ: 刊在Time杂志上，发表「为什麽运动不会让你瘦（Why Exercise won’t make you thin）」的作者John Cloud的结论是「运动，的确对健康有帮助，但不一定能帮助你减少体重～事实上，它还可能让你增加一些重量。」为什麽作者会说运动不见得会让我们瘦而反而变胖呢？相信反应快的你从营养师刚刚讲的亲身经验大概可猜到部份原因了～运动後吃了热量较高的食物！ꀊ: 　　当然，身为科学家和一般人最大的不同就是一般人是用经验谈来下结论，科学家是用一些临床研究、科学性资料来下结论，本文的作者也提了很多资料来佐证「运动不会让你瘦」的论点，下面是一些重点摘要的归纳：ꀊ: 1.运动会刺激饥饿感！ꀊ: 　　运动虽然能燃烧较多的卡路里，而有助体重的减轻，但运动会刺激饥饿感的产生，反而让你吃入更多的食物，让之前所做的运动变得无效。甚至可能因为吃入的热量大於运动所消耗的热量，而使体重反而增加。【我超喜欢这种说法的，终於为我运动後所吃的绿豆沙找到了藉口^_^(汗)】 : 【不同角度想一想】速食店内设立「儿童游乐场」是个”阴谋”？ : 　　儿童医院的Gortmaker和Kendrin Sonneville医生在国内肥胖期刊（Internal Journal of Obesity）发表一篇，他们针对538名学生所进行的为期18个月的研究，他们发现当孩子开始运动後，反而吃了更多东西～且不只多吃一点，平均所吃的热量较他们从事运动所消耗的卡路里多了100大卡。因此，专门研究儿童肥胖的Gortmaker怀疑起速食店之所以设立儿童游乐场的目的～或许孩子在里面玩５分钟，消耗了50大卡热量，但之後反而因运动的刺激，让他们进去店里吃了500大卡或更多热量的食物。 : ＞＞这个故事告诉我们，若家中有需要减肥的小朋友时，除了少让小朋友去速食店外；不要以为他们在速食店的游乐场中玩有消耗热量应该没什麽关系，而是该注意是否因”玩耍消耗了较多热量”，反而让小朋友吃入更多东西>_< : 2.运动产生补偿心态！ꀊ: 　　运动後会产生所谓的补偿心态～吃东西奖励自己（补偿之前所消耗的热量），或是倾向减少活动量（补偿之前过度劳累的运动）。ꀊ: 　　Dr. Tomothy : Church的研究发现：从事较多运动者所减轻的体重并没有较不运动者多，部分人的体重甚至不瘦反胖！这是个针对464名原本就没有规律运动且体重过重的妇女所做的实验，实验对象被分为四组，其中三组在个人运动教练的协助下每周分别从事72分钟、136分钟和194分钟的运动，并持续六个月。第四组，则没有额外从事任何运动，仅维持其日常生理活动习惯。结果发现大部分的实验对象在运动後会倾向吃较平常（指还没开始做这个实验前）还多的食物；或会用其他方法来补偿，例如活动量较平常回家後少了很多。他把这种现象称为补偿心态。［可能是因为运动让这些人更饿ꄊ : A或是因为她们要奖励(补偿)自己，或两者原因都有，不管原因为何，结果就是像Stella一样在运动後吃了比运动所能消耗掉的热量还多的食物>_<］ : 【不同角度想一想】想让孩子减肥时有必要强迫他们多做运动吗？ : 　　学者针对英国普利矛斯地区三个不同学校（每周体能教育课程的时间分别为9.2小时、2.4和1.7小时），共206名年龄7～10的小孩所作的研究发现，不管他们在学校从事了几个小时的体能活动，当整天看下来时，三所学校的小孩的活动量是差不多的～那些在下课前在学校从事生理活动较多者，之後就不会再动更多：因为他们之间已在学校耗费了很多热量，这些在学校活动量较大得小孩，回到家明显会变得较静、较少活动。反之，那些在学校活动量较少的小孩，在放学後则比较会去从事骑脚踏车或在附近跑跑等活动量较大的活动。」 : ＞＞这个故事告诉我们，如果小朋友不喜欢从事诸如慢跑等某特定运动的话，让他们玩一些有趣且活动量较大的活动也是一个好方法^_^ : 3.运动削弱自我控制力！ꀊ: 　　心理学家Mark Muraven和Roy Baumeister观察到一个有趣的现象～「自我控制力就如同肌肉般，会在你每天的使用後便得更脆弱（self-control is like a muscle: it weakens each day after you use it）」。讲白一点就是指当你在强迫自己为了减肥而慢跑一小时後，你的自我控制力也会等比例地跟着变弱(强迫的时间越长，自我控制力就越弱)。例如，在运动後因为运动对食慾的刺激让你觉得有点饿的感决，理智上你应该吃颗苹果就好，但随着运动时间越长你的意志力变得越弱，此时你可能抑制不了对甜食的渴望而选择了吃面包或喝杯珍珠奶茶。ꀊ: 　　因此，虽然说「如果我们能避免在运动後额外再吃东西(吃入食物或饮料)的话，运动就有助我们减肥了」，但因运动会削弱自我控制力，故只有少部分的人可以做到，且即便短时间内做得到，也无法长期持续克制自己。 : B.如何正确看待运动减肥这档事？ꀊ: 　　在看了Stella所写有关「运动不会让我们变瘦」的资料，可能很多人会出现一个疑惑，运动似乎弊多余利，看来还是不要运动比较好了？事实上，Stella写这篇文章的目的不是要让大家不去运动，而是让大家对运动有正确的认知：ꀊ: 1. 运动的确有益健康，但对减重不一定有效！ꀊ: 　　或许从我们身体的设计来看，运动并非减肥的好方法，但运动的确对健康有很多好处。运动除能强化心肺功能，有助心血管健康（例如，运动可增加好胆固醇HDL，改善胰岛素的敏感性）及帮助预防疾病外，还能促进心理健康及心智功能..等，只是它对减肥的帮助并没有你想像中大而已。（若想减肥，最有效且根本的还是从饮食着手>_<）ꀊ: 2. 并非一定要从事某特别活动才叫运动！ꀊ: 　　到底运动的定义是什麽？很多人觉得＂有效的＂运动一定要汗流满身、全身热烘烘；从事这个运动必须会让你觉得很喘、很累，全身精疲力竭；运动完会觉得肚子空空的（似乎这样才表示身体消耗了很多热量）。但事实上，若想要获得运动所带来的健康益处的话，只要从事类似在工作时规律地移动那样的活动（例如从事喜欢的园艺工作、打扫家里、爬爬楼梯与多走路等）即可，并不需要强迫自己去健身房运动，或从事那种会让自己满头大汗、精疲力竭的运动。ꀊ: 【注：目前并没有清楚证据显示严格运动（如跑步）所带来的好处，较适当强度的活动（如走路拿杂货回家）多。而大部分所做运动有益健康的研究，其实验对象并非使用健身器材来运动，而是从事诸如多走路、多爬楼梯等规律的日常生活活动。较高的运动强度（如跑步），并不会带来较佳的效果。】ꀊ: 3.「好动的生活习惯」较「偶尔的运动」更有利减肥！ꀊ: 　　看到这里相信大家对「过度刻意」、「强度过强」、「压抑度过大」的运动所可能带给减重的负面影响已经有了初步了解，故想要减肥最好的运动并非上述所提到那些会动到汗流浃背、全身虚脱的「特别」运动，而是那种能够经常性执行、低生理活动的『日常生理活动』。要燃烧卡路里肌肉不一定要勉强你的肌肉去做极端的活动，而是将运动分布在整天，简单地说就是养成好动的生活习惯～例如，走路去买早餐，提早一两站下车或将车停在较远的地方增加活动量，或以爬楼梯取代电梯，勤快地打扫环境维持居家清洁，饭後去小公园走走散散步；假日时和家人去骑脚踏车 : 或出游踏青….等。ꀊ: 　　对於整天坐在办公室、缺乏日常生理活动的现代人来说，我们不可能在整天坐着後，去健身运动时不对肌肉产生压力的，这种偶而但强度过强的运动会造成肌肉疼痛，让你整天都不想再动，还可能因刺激食慾、削弱意志力，及代偿心态的产生等种种问题反而不利减重。故与其想着「运动」，但给自己一大堆诸如没钱、没场地、没时间、太累等藉口理由而老是对运动＂想而不做＂；或一个星期上健身房运动个两三天，偶而动一动，还不如改变现有的久坐不动生活，改而建立起好动的生活习惯。如此不但可避免运动可能带来对减重的负面影响，且不花一毛钱却可兼顾燃烧卡 : 路里与维护健康的目地。ꀊ: 　　在部落格上常常看到很多人为了减肥而强迫自己每日从事大量运动，如果有瘦也就罢了，许多人体重不瘦反胖，减肥减到最後「信心全失」；另外还有些人在努力一天抽几小时出来运动，努力克制自己想吃的欲望减肥时，一边又担心起，「如果以後不运动，体重是否会胖回去？」基本上，减肥这档事的重点『在於你吃了什麽，而非你多辛苦努力地去消耗掉它！』ꀊ: 　　所以，如果每日的运动对你造成很大的压力….，如果运动後你反而要花更多心力去克制对吃的欲望….，如果运动的结果并没有让你更瘦….，如果这种运动模式是你无法持久的….，如果从事运动反而让你不快乐，对减肥更加无所适从，总是担心若没时间动时会不会胖起来…，那麽，诚恳地建议你重新调整一下你对运动的态度，以「好动的生活型态」来取代目前的运动模式。ꀊ: 　　最後再次提醒大家，肥胖是一种生活习惯病～是因为现代人不良饮食（高油、高糖、高盐等食物吃太多、吃太精致等）及少动多坐的生活型态所致，不上健身房运动并非导致肥胖的原因。所以减肥最根本的对策不是去从事特别的运动，而是从饮食着手，学会选择正确的食物，改变不良饮食习惯，并配合养成好动的生活习惯！ꀊ: @本文要特别献给那些努力从事运动，但却效果不佳的人；告诉自己因为「没时间或没钱从事运动」而瘦不下来者；或因身体问题而无法做上健身房或做打篮球等活动量较大运动者，希望透过本文，让上述人能够重新拾回「成功减肥」的梦想^_^ 好啦 其实我也觉得营养师写的这篇有对有错 只是想知道各位怎麽看而已 然後我有在运动 不要再说我找藉口了 以下是营养师看的那篇文章 Why exercise won't make you thin Got a few pounds to lose? Cancel the gym membership. An increasing body of research reveals that exercise does next to nothing for you when it comes to losing weight. A result for couch potatoes, yes, but also one that could have serious implications for the government's long-term health strategy Emma John The Observer, Sunday 19 September 2010 Jump to comments (287) Exercise has been shown to be ineffective when it comes to losing weight – dieting is a better route Photograph: Getty The following correction was printed in the Observer's For the record column, Sunday 26 September 2010 Dr Timothy Church is at the Pennington Biomedical Research Centre of Louisiana State University, which is not affiliated to the University of Louisiana My mum used to complain that she couldn't lose weight. A size 18 and a couple of stone heavier than ideal, she tried in vain for years to shed the extra. Every week she headed to the gym, where she pounded the treadmill like a paratrooper, often three times a week. Most days she took the dog for a brisk, hour-long walk. She didn't eat unhealthily – the rest of the family ate exactly the same meals, and did a fraction of the exercise she did. She ought to have been the slimmest of the bunch: that she remained overweight was a frustration to her, and a mystery to all of us. From StairMasters to kettlebells, Rosemary Conley to Natalie Cassidy, we understand and expect that getting in shape is going to require serious effort on our part – and the reverse is true, too, that we expect exercise to pay back the hours of boring, sweaty graft with a leaner, lighter body. Since the days of the Green Goddess, we've known that the healthiest way to lose weight is through exercise. It's science, isn't it? Well, science has some bad news for you. More and more research in both the UK and the US is emerging to show that exercise has a negligible impact on weight loss. That tri-weekly commitment to aerobics class? Almost worthless, as far as fitting into your bikini is concerned. The Mayo Clinic, a not-for-profit medical research establishment in the US, reports that, in general, studies "have demonstrated no or modest weight loss with exercise alone" and that "an exercise regimen… is unlikely to result in short-term weight loss beyond what is achieved with dietary change." It sounds faintly heretical, if not downright facetious. And it's a scientific discovery that most health professionals are, naturally, keen to downplay. After all, exercise is still good for us. It's just that, in defiance of decades of New Year resolutions, it's unlikely to make us slim. Most of us have a grasp of the rudiments of weight gain and loss: you put energy (calories) into your body through food, you expend them through movement, and any that don't get burned off are stored in your body as fat. Unfortunately, the maths isn't in our favour. "In theory, of course, it's possible that you can burn more calories than you eat," says Dr Susan Jebb, head of nutrition and health research at the Medical Research Council, and one of the government's go-to academics for advice on nutrition. "But you have to do an awful lot more exercise than most people realise. To burn off an extra 500 calories is typically an extra two hours of cycling. And that's about two doughnuts." From a practical perspective, then, exercise is never going to be an effective way of slimming, unless you have the training schedule – and the willpower – of an Olympic athlete. "It's simple maths," says Professor Paul Gately, of the Carnegie Weight Management institution in Leeds. "If you want to lose a pound of body fat, then that requires you to run from Leeds to Nottingham, but if you want to do it through diet, you just have to skip a meal for seven days." Both Jebb and Gately are keen to stress that there is plenty of evidence that exercise can add value to a diet: "It certainly does maximise the amount you lose as fat rather than tissue," Jebb points out. But Gately sums it up: "Most people, offered the choice, are going to go for the diet, because it's easier to achieve." There's another, more insidious, problem with pinning all your hopes for a holiday bod on exercise. In what has become a defining experiment at the University of Louisiana, led by Dr Timothy Church, hundreds of overweight women were put on exercise regimes for a six-month period. Some worked out for 72 minutes each week, some for 136 minutes, and some for 194. A fourth group kept to their normal daily routine with no additional exercise. Against all the laws of natural justice, at the end of the study, there was no significant difference in weight loss between those who had exercised – some of them for several days a week – and those who hadn't. (Church doesn't record whether he told the women who he'd had training for three and half hours a week, or whether he was wearing protective clothing when he did.) Some of the women even gained weight. Church identified the problem and called it "compensation": those who exercised cancelled out the calories they had burned by eating more, generally as a form of self-reward. The post-workout pastry to celebrate a job well done – or even a few pieces of fruit to satisfy their stimulated appetites – undid their good work. In some cases, they were less physically active in their daily life as well. His findings are backed up by a paper on childhood obesity published in 2008 by Boston academics Steven Gortmaker and Kendrin Sonneville. In an 18-month study investigating what they call "the energy gap" – the daily imbalance between energy intake and expenditure — the pair showed that when the children in their experiment exercised, they ended up eating more than the calories they had just burned, sometimes 10 or 20 times as many. "Although physical activity is thought of as an energy-deficit activity," they wrote, "our estimates do not support this hypothesis." In the 1950s, the celebrated French-American nutritionist Jean Mayer was the first to introduce a link between exercise and weight reduction. Until then, the notion that physical activity might help you lose weight was actually rather unfashionable in the scientific community – in the 1930s, a leading specialist had persuasively argued that it was more effective to keep patients on bed rest. Over the course of his career, Mayer's pioneering studies – on rats, babies and schoolgirls – demonstrated that the less active someone was, the more likely they were to be fat. Mayer himself, the son of two eminent physiologists, and a Second World War hero to boot, became one of the world's leading figures in nutrition and most influential voices in the sphere of public health. As an advisor to the White House and to the World Health Organisation, he drew correlations between exercise and fitness that triggered a revolution in thinking on the subject in the 60s and 70s. "Getting fit" became synonymous not just with healthier living, but with a leaner, meaner body, and the ground was laid for a burgeoning gym industry. Each successive postwar generation was enjoying an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, and those lifestyles have been accompanied by an apparently inexorable increase in obesity. Three in five UK adults are now officially overweight. And type II diabetes, which used to be a disease that affected you at the end of your life, is now the fastest-rising chronic disorder in paediatric clinics. But have we confused cause and effect? Terry Wilkin, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the Peninsula Medical School in Plymouth, argues that we have. The title of his latest research is: "Fatness leads to inactivity, but inactivity does not lead to fatness". Wilkin is nearing the end of an 11-year study on obesity in children, which has been monitoring the health, weight and activity levels of 300 subjects since the age of five. When his team compared the more naturally active children with the less active ones, they were surprised to discover absolutely no difference in their body fat or body mass. That's not to say that exercise is not making the children healthy in other ways, says Wilkin, just that it's having no palpable effect on their overall size and shape. "And that's a fundamental issue," he adds, "because governments, including ours, use body mass as an outcome measure." In other words, obesity figures are not going to improve through government-sponsored programmes that focus primarily on exercise while ignoring the behemoth of a food industry that is free to push high-calorie junk to kids (and, for that matter, adults). For one thing, Wilkin believes he has discovered another form of "compensation", similar to Timothy Church's discovery that we reward ourselves with food when we exercise. Looking at the question of whether it was possible to change a child's physical activity, Wilkin's team put accelerometers on children at schools with very different PE schedules: one which offered 1.7 hours a week, and another that offered nine hours. "The children did 64% more PE at the second school. But when they got home they did the reverse. Those who had had the activity during the day flopped and those who hadn't perked up, and if you added the in-school and out-of-school together you got the same. From which we concluded that physical activity is controlled by the brain, not by the environment – if you're given a big opportunity to exercise at one time of day you'll compensate at another." Wilkin argues that the environmental factors we tend to obsess about in the fight against obesity – playing fields, PE time in school, extracurricular activities, parental encouragement – are actually less of a factor in determining what exercise we do than our own bodies. "An evolutionary biologist would say physical activity is the only voluntary means you have of varying or regulating your energy expenditure. In other words, what physical activity you do is not going to be left to the city council to decide. It's going to be controlled, fundamentally, from within." His thesis has caused controversy among his peers – there have been cavils that his study sample is inconclusively small – and not all obesity experts appreciate the message. "We haven't had the sensitivity in the studies to really determine the longitudinal determinants of obesity in children yet," says Dr Ken Fox, professor of exercise and health science at Bristol University and advisor to the government's obesity strategy. "It's far too early to start discounting things as important as physical activity. Those who are saying it has no impact are neglecting a huge amount of the literature. I am suspicious of anyone who polarises obesity as one thing over another when there is strong agreement that it has multiple causes." "Terry's point is right," says Paul Gately, "but it's not right in the context of public health promotion. In people who have lost weight and kept weight off, physical activity is almost always involved. And those people who just do diet are more likely to fail, as are those who just do exercise. You need a combination of the two, because we're talking about human beings, not machines. We know that dietary behaviour is quite a negative behaviour – we're having to deny ourselves something. There aren't any diets out there that people enjoy. But people do enjoy being physically active." "What we want to avoid is people thinking they can control their weight simply by dieting," adds Jebb, who points out that this is the very scenario that encourages anorexia in teenage girls. "Just restricting your diet is not going to be the healthiest way to live." Traditional dieting clubs like Weightwatchers and Slimming World promote exercise as a key part of a weight-loss strategy: scientific studies show that exercise is an important factor in maintaining weight loss and, Jebb adds, some studies suggest it can help in preventing weight gain. But it is still much harder to exercise when you're already overweight, and "high energy density" foods are quick to get us there – overeating by just 100 calories a day can lead to a weight increase of 10lb over a year. "Education must come first," says Wilkin. "Eating habits have to change to a much lower calorie intake, much lower body weight, and we would be fitter as a result because we would be able to do more physical activity." He would like to see higher levels of tax on calorie-dense food, similar to those levied on tobacco, which have proved effective in the campaign against smoking. Does the coalition government – which will launch a White Paper on the subject this autumn – agree? Anne Milton, minister for public health, is not keen to commit to any particular strategy before its publication. "There's not a magic bullet here," she says. "Despite the best efforts of government actually the public's health hasn't improved hugely.Change4Life [the government's current healthy-living initiative] is doing a good job. But we think there's still lots more we can do with it." Any drastic measures to curb the excesses of junk food marketing seem unlikely – both Milton and Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley stress the importance of working "with" industry – and much of her language is concerned with "individual choice". When it comes to losing weight, it seems there's only one real choice – stop eating so much food. Running on empty: fat is a feminine issue The good news The latest scientific findings from the US suggest that an intense workout in the gym is actually less effective than gentle exercise in terms of weight loss. Barry Braun, associate professor of kinesiology at the University of Massachusetts, says that the evidence emerging from his research team shows that moderate exercise such as "low-intensity ambulation" (ie walking) may help to burn calories "without triggering a caloric compensation effect" – ie without making you reach for a snack the moment you're done. In one experiment, Braun showed that simply standing up instead of sitting used up hundreds more calories a day without increasing appetite hormones in your blood. The bad news Perhaps offering one reason for a multi-billion-pound weight-loss industry aimed almost exclusively at women, research has confirmed that it is more difficult for women to shed the pounds than men, because women's bodies are simply more efficient at storing fat. In one of Braun's experiments, in which overweight men and women were monitored while walking on treadmills, the women's blood levels of insulin decreased while appetite hormones increased; the men's, meanwhile, displayed no such change. "Across the evidence base, it seems that it's tougher for women to lose weight than men," affirms Ken Fox, professor of exercise and health sciences at Bristol University. Snack attack: how long it takes to burn off 10 favourite foods One portion of Tesco lasagne (560 cal): 45 minutes of spinning One slice of Domino's pepperoni pizza (198 cal): 45 minutes of swimming Morrisons' chocolate-chip muffin (476 cal): 58 minutes of climbing Packet of Walkers cheese and onion crisps (184 cal): 35 minutes of frisbee Subway tuna wrap (310 cal): 1 hour and 10 minutes of body pump Bacon sandwich on white bread (430 cal): 58 minutes of football Coffee Republic ham and cheese toastie (436 cal): 1 hour and 30 minutes of netball Granny Smith apple (62 cal): 15 minutes of weightlifting M&S hot cross bun (159 cal): 20 minutes of skipping Mars bar (280 cal): 50 minutes of aqua aerobics Emma John is deputy editor of the Observer Magazine -- Sent from my Android --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 49.219.55.49