The big fat con story

The Guardian has an excerpt from a new book by Paul Campos, "The Obesity
Myth". The excerpt is titled "The big fat con story."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/st...200549,00.html

There are some interesting points made about the relative unimportance of
body weight per se; I realize that the Guardian is not a medical journal
(and I have no idea of Campos's credentials), but it makes interesting
reading.

Of most relevance here are the following paragraphs on the relative
importance of overweight versus exercise:

"Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a wealth of evidence
indicating that cardiovascular and metabolic fitness, and the activity
levels that promote such fitness, are far more important predictors of both
overall health and mortality risk than weight. Yet none of the studies most
often cited for the proposition that fat kills makes any serious attempt to
control for these variables.

"The most extensive work of this sort has been carried out by Steven Blair
and his colleagues at Dallas's Cooper Institute, involving more than 70,000
people. What they have discovered is that, quite simply, when researchers
take into account the activity levels and resulting fitness of the people
being studied, body mass appears to have no relevance to health whatsoever.
In Blair's studies, obese people who engage in at least moderate levels of
physical activity have around one half the mortality rate of sedentary
people who maintain supposedly ideal weight levels.

"Similarly, a 1999 Cooper Institute study involving 22,000 men found the
highest death rate among sedentary men with waist measurements under 34
inches, while the lowest death rate was found among fit men with waist
measurements of 40 inches or more. A 1995 Blair study found that improved
fitness (ie, going from "unfit" to "fit"), with the latter requiring a level
of exercise equivalent to going for a brisk half-hour walk four or five
times per week, reduced subsequent mortality rates by 50%. As Blair himself
puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with weight and weight
loss. The focus is all wrong. It's fitness that is the key." "

Other interesting claims: (1) people who are overweight have less problem
with osteoporesis, (2) The diet Hillary put Bill Clinton on might have been
partly responsible for his obsession with Monica Lewinsky.

--
---
Mike Kruger
Blog: http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/

(2) The diet Hillary put Bill Clinton on might have been
partly responsible for his obsession with Monica Lewinsky.

You mean the No-Sex Diet?

You know, for a president, Clinton sure did have some
surprisingly low standards with the babes. Come on,
buddy!

I guess having a head like a weather balloon didn't help
his cause much.

Robert

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:23:56 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
wrote:
"Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a wealth of evidence
indicating that cardiovascular and metabolic fitness, and the activity
levels that promote such fitness, are far more important predictors of both
overall health and mortality risk than weight.
....
puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with weight and weight
loss. The focus is all wrong. It's fitness that is the key." "

I figured this out when I dieted myself down to the upper-limit of
my recommended weight. I felt terrible all the time, even though I
was sure to provide sufficient nutrition. I've got little chance of
being healthy if I ignore what my body tells me and force myself
down to 170 pounds; OTOH, at 210 pounds, I feel good. I'd probably
be best at 200, but hey, I get to eat all of everything I want this
way...

On the way back up from 170, I tried to level off every 5 pounds,
but I didn't feel better until maybe 195. For another 15 or 20
pounds, I can eat cheeseburgers and cake all day, and remain healthy
as long as I keep riding. My cholesterol is low, etc...I've just got
this aerobelly.
--
Rick Onanian

Rick Onanian wrote:
:: On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:23:56 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
:: wrote:
::: "Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a wealth of
::: evidence indicating that cardiovascular and metabolic fitness, and
::: the activity levels that promote such fitness, are far more
::: important predictors of both overall health and mortality risk than
::: weight.
:: ...
::: puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with weight and
::: weight loss. The focus is all wrong. It's fitness that is the key."
::: "
::
:: I figured this out when I dieted myself down to the upper-limit of
:: my recommended weight. I felt terrible all the time, even though I
:: was sure to provide sufficient nutrition. I've got little chance of
:: being healthy if I ignore what my body tells me and force myself
:: down to 170 pounds; OTOH, at 210 pounds, I feel good. I'd probably
:: be best at 200, but hey, I get to eat all of everything I want this
:: way...
::
:: On the way back up from 170, I tried to level off every 5 pounds,
:: but I didn't feel better until maybe 195. For another 15 or 20
:: pounds, I can eat cheeseburgers and cake all day, and remain healthy
:: as long as I keep riding. My cholesterol is low, etc...I've just got
:: this aerobelly.

So, I'm curious as to what speed you average on your typical rides, given
the type of terrain you ride and how long you've been at it.

I'm about 240 lbs right now, so I'd like an idea of what I might be able to
expect if/when I get to 210 or so (I'm 6'1").

:: --
:: Rick Onanian

I wrote:
:: On the way back up from 170, I tried to level off every 5 pounds,
:: but I didn't feel better until maybe 195. For another 15 or 20
:: pounds, I can eat cheeseburgers and cake all day, and remain healthy
:: as long as I keep riding. My cholesterol is low, etc...I've just got
:: this aerobelly.
On Tue, 11 May 2004 21:40:44 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:
So, I'm curious as to what speed you average on your typical rides, given
the type of terrain you ride and how long you've been at it.

I try to ride the flattest terrain I can. The reality is that I live
in Rhode Island which doesn't have any portion of pavement that goes
more than a mile without going up or down.

Today, riding partially with a group, I averaged 15 mph for 34
miles. Usually, I fail to pace myself well, and the end result is an
average between 13 and 14.5, and I feel terrible afterwards. Tonight
I feel great.

Of course, the hills around here do have one advantage: Max 43 mph,
and I didn't even decide to try for a high speed until after I was
already on the hill.

I'm about 240 lbs right now, so I'd like an idea of what I might be able to
expect if/when I get to 210 or so (I'm 6'1").

I'm a few inches shorter than you, medium to large frame (body
frame, not bike frame .
--
Rick Onanian

On Tue, 11 May 2004 21:16:04 -0400, Rick Onanian wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:23:56 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
wrote:
"Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a wealth of evidence
indicating that cardiovascular and metabolic fitness, and the activity
levels that promote such fitness, are far more important predictors of both
overall health and mortality risk than weight.
...
puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with weight and weight
loss. The focus is all wrong. It's fitness that is the key." "

I figured this out when I dieted myself down to the upper-limit of
my recommended weight. I felt terrible all the time, even though I
was sure to provide sufficient nutrition. I've got little chance of
being healthy if I ignore what my body tells me and force myself
down to 170 pounds; OTOH, at 210 pounds, I feel good. I'd probably
be best at 200, but hey, I get to eat all of everything I want this
way...

Hmm. I'm doing LC, but at a rate of biking 100 miles per week, I can eat
pretty much whatever I want and still lose weight. I'm down six pounds this
month, and have actually been overeating a little.

What's your current weekly mileage?

-B

In article ,
Badger_South wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 21:16:04 -0400, Rick Onanian wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:23:56 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
wrote:
"Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a wealth of evidence
indicating that cardiovascular and metabolic fitness, and the activity
levels that promote such fitness, are far more important predictors of both
overall health and mortality risk than weight.
...
puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with weight and weight
loss. The focus is all wrong. It's fitness that is the key." "

I figured this out when I dieted myself down to the upper-limit of
my recommended weight. I felt terrible all the time, even though I
was sure to provide sufficient nutrition. I've got little chance of
being healthy if I ignore what my body tells me and force myself
down to 170 pounds; OTOH, at 210 pounds, I feel good. I'd probably
be best at 200, but hey, I get to eat all of everything I want this
way...

Hmm. I'm doing LC, but at a rate of biking 100 miles per week, I can eat
pretty much whatever I want and still lose weight. I'm down six pounds this
month, and have actually been overeating a little.

If you're losing weight you have a net deficit of calories, which
means you are not over-eating. Six pounds in a month is pretty fast
weight loss, how long have you been getting results like that?

I am riding about 10-12 hours a week and maintaining pretty steady
weight... it does take a lot of food, but I don't have much weight
to lose, maybe another 5-10 tops so I don't worry about it.

Back to the topic though, while active overweight people may have
a reasonably healthy heart, in the long run many of them will develop
joint problems due to excess weight (knees, ankles, hips). These
problems are very hard to fix later in life and often contribute
to further increases in weight - joint problems tend to increase
sedentary behavior since moving hurts. Debilitating back pain
caused/worsened by excess weight is epidemic in this country, it
virtually supports the painkiller industry.

Paul Southworth wrote:
:: In article ,
:: Badger_South wrote:
::: On Tue, 11 May 2004 21:16:04 -0400, Rick Onanian
::: wrote:
:::
:::: On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:23:56 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
:::: wrote:
::::: "Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a wealth of
::::: evidence indicating that cardiovascular and metabolic fitness,
::::: and the activity levels that promote such fitness, are far more
::::: important predictors of both overall health and mortality risk
::::: than weight.
:::: ...
::::: puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with weight and
::::: weight loss. The focus is all wrong. It's fitness that is the
::::: key." "
::::
:::: I figured this out when I dieted myself down to the upper-limit of
:::: my recommended weight. I felt terrible all the time, even though I
:::: was sure to provide sufficient nutrition. I've got little chance of
:::: being healthy if I ignore what my body tells me and force myself
:::: down to 170 pounds; OTOH, at 210 pounds, I feel good. I'd probably
:::: be best at 200, but hey, I get to eat all of everything I want this
:::: way...
:::
::: Hmm. I'm doing LC, but at a rate of biking 100 miles per week, I
::: can eat pretty much whatever I want and still lose weight. I'm down
::: six pounds this month, and have actually been overeating a little.
::
:: If you're losing weight you have a net deficit of calories, which
:: means you are not over-eating. Six pounds in a month is pretty fast
:: weight loss, how long have you been getting results like that?
::
:: I am riding about 10-12 hours a week and maintaining pretty steady
:: weight... it does take a lot of food, but I don't have much weight
:: to lose, maybe another 5-10 tops so I don't worry about it.
::
:: Back to the topic though, while active overweight people may have
:: a reasonably healthy heart, in the long run many of them will develop
:: joint problems due to excess weight (knees, ankles, hips).

How overweight do people have to be to develop joint problems? I see many
normal weight older people with joint problems, too. ARe you sure there are
not other reasons why people develop joint problems?

Do you have any data/cites on this or is this just more commonsensical
information?

These
:: problems are very hard to fix later in life and often contribute
:: to further increases in weight - joint problems tend to increase
:: sedentary behavior since moving hurts. Debilitating back pain
:: caused/worsened by excess weight is epidemic in this country, it
:: virtually supports the painkiller industry.

Mike Kruger wrote:
The Guardian has an excerpt from a new book by Paul Campos, "The Obesity
Myth". The excerpt is titled "The big fat con story." http://www.guardi-
an.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1200549,00.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/-
weekend/story/0,3605,1200549,00.html


I agree Mike, I found the article very interesting indeed. After year
of struggling with my weight, I've finally tossed out the scales. M
goal is to improve my fitness; if the wieght comes off or the dress siz
goes down, that's nice but I'd rather be strong than slim and maybe I'
one of those people who has to make a choice

After 40+ years, I've finally accepted that I'm not going to be tall an
leggy. I'm short with a "mature" build. Now the goal is to make tha
short mature build into a mean keen hill climbing machine....and God
I'm having a blast doing it.:


-

::: Hmm. I'm doing LC, but at a rate of biking 100 miles per week, I
::: can eat pretty much whatever I want and still lose weight. I'm down
::: six pounds this month, and have actually been overeating a little.
::
:: If you're losing weight you have a net deficit of calories, which
:: means you are not over-eating. Six pounds in a month is pretty fast
:: weight loss, how long have you been getting results like that?

I've kinda lost the attribution as to whom I'm responding, but if I can
clarify...

I've upped the mileage in the last four weeks, by about double from 50miles
per week to 100. During all that time, I've been trying to lose fat weight.
I still have 20-30lbs left to go to get under 20% fat (between 12 and 15%
is my goal, then re-assess).

So I'm obviously, now, in some kind of caloric deficit due to the higher
energy expenditure. I was using the term 'overeating' in a relative manner.
IOW, I'm used to eating less and still not losing that quickly. Now I can
indulge a bit more than I'm used to and not only maintain, but actually
lose weight. Six pounds a month is a little higher than usual (1 to 1.5lbs
per week seems to be optimal)

I'm hoping that I've reached the point where I can eat as much as I want
(within reason), but since I'm working out on the bike so much, I'll still
be in deficit enough to continue losing fat. Thus the low carb/ higher
protein (which, for me, helps to lose fat while not sacrificing too much
muscle) works pretty well for this goal.

(It's important to note that you have to find your own 'level' of dieting
by experimentation. What works for me might be wrong for someone else.)

-B

::
:: I am riding about 10-12 hours a week and maintaining pretty steady
:: weight... it does take a lot of food, but I don't have much weight
:: to lose, maybe another 5-10 tops so I don't worry about it.