Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Gastronomicus t1_irvyfwl wrote

I really dislike it - snack already implies eating a small portion. Applying it to an activity that is meant to alter biomarkers of health related to blood sugar and exercise is unnecessarily confusing.

−1

Any-Teach9027 t1_irw5eik wrote

I mean, that’s exactly what the article says, small bursts of activity counteracts the bad effects of prolonged sitting. “Activity snacks” is catchy and imo not misleading at all.

1

Gastronomicus t1_irygtmq wrote

Snack refers specifically to food, not just a small portion of anything. The activities are meant to offset the effects of excessive food by exacerbated by persistent sitting. Therefore, it's confusing to refer to it as a "snack".

>and imo not misleading at all.

I never said misleading. I said confusing. Those two things are not necessarily synonymous.

0

Any-Teach9027 t1_iryjz87 wrote

“Effects of excessive food”? What you saying bro? The article does not mention people’s weight or level of food consumption as a factor at all.

0

Gastronomicus t1_irys9gg wrote

> The article does not mention people’s weight or level of food consumption as a factor at all.

Holy crap, read the damn article. It's literally about the effects of intermittent exercise on controlling skeletal muscle uptake of amino acids from food and discussion of how it influences blood sugar levels and insulin response with respect to diet. The entire basis of this field of study is on how prolonged sitting causes metabolic disruptions, exacerbated by excessive food intake.

2

Any-Teach9027 t1_iryuz1z wrote

Do you have access to the full article? Because the linked abstract do not mention diet at all and it only mentions muscle mass, not blood sugar levels, insulin resistance etc. I am just a casual reader of r/science bro, not an expert on whatever this field of study is. I am just going by the linked abstract.

1