Why you should ignore all that exercise nonsense I came across an annoying little piece on the L.A. Times health blog the other day. It was a typical exercise harangue, pestering people to get a minimum of an hour of exercise every day. The blog cited a recent study that found that overweight and obese women need to exercise an hour a day, five days a week to sustain weight loss. "That 30 minutes of daily exercise you think you're supposed to do to keep weight off? You need to step it up, people," the blogger Jeannine Stein wrote. "As much as twice that amount may be needed to lose weight and keep it off." The headline for the blog? "Exercise: It's an hour a day, people. Seriously." How long have we heard this idiocy from nearly everyone? The trouble is, by laying this guilt trip on the unfit, they're often causing more harm than good. Statistics that I've pointed out to you before show that in an average year, millions of exercise fanatics that work out actually end up working themselves IN to the emergency room. The exercise industry pushes people who've never done a lick of exercise in their lives into high- impact and intense workouts that often are too much for fitness newbies. The result is a whopping $20 billion in ER fees and some dangerous injuries. In spite of the fact that the uninitiated are often advised to check with their physician before embarking on an exercise program, the truth is that few of them do. So there are a lot of baby boomers that have been brainwashed into believing they need to churn out an hour of joint-murdering, heart-stressing work every day to stay healthy! The blog pointed to statistics that show women who exercise more and stick to diet kept off a 10 percent weight loss over two years, compared with others who maintained only a five percent weight loss. Does that sound off to you? All that work and strain, and the "successful" women managed a weight loss of just five percent more? Hardly a convincing enough jump in my book considering all the potential downsides that the working out can cause. It appears that Darwinism has stepped in to prevent nature from allowing more soy fans to walk the earth. According to a new report in the Journal of Human Reproduction, consumption of even small amounts of soy products can lower a man's sperm concentration. Of the men in the study, those who ate the most soy had sperm counts far lower than those who reported eating no soy at all. On average, the soy eaters had 41 million fewer sperm per milliliter. The study found that the soy eaters consumed a relatively low amount of 15 soy-based foods including tofu, soy burgers, soy ice cream (yuck), soy energy bars, and even miso soup — an average of just one serving of every other day. And remember, if the vegetarian Nazis had their way, everyone would be eating soy at practically EVERY MEAL! Of course, the soy advocates are saying this reduction in sperm is no big deal (they must be women…). They claim that if you apply this 41 million sperm per milliliter reduction to a man with an average sperm count (in the range of 80 to 120 million sperm per milliliter), that a man is still left with a sperm count that's "well above" the 20 million sperm per milliliter that's the minimum count within the normal range. That's just pure rationalization in the face of the facts if you ask me. The study's lead researcher Jorge Chavarro of the Harvard School of Public Health claims that other studies have found that soy consumption actually boosts sperm counts (I doubt it). As a result, he says, "I think there is not enough evidence to reach any strong conclusion or advise men one way or the other on whether soy foods can affect their fertility." Nonsense! None of this should be a surprise. In addition to all of the other negatives about soy that I'm always telling you about, the isoflavones in soy have long been tied to infertility in animal studies. So why should humans be any different? Take my advice: steer clear of soy if you want to keep your health – or start a family. | 
