|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The big fat con story
(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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The big fat con story
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The big fat con story
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The big fat con story
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The big fat con story
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The big fat con story
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The big fat con story
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The big fat con story
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.: - |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The big fat con story
::: 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Story - Visit to TW Bents | Michael J. Klein | General | 1 | April 15th 04 02:38 PM |
Helmet Story | Tom Kunich | General | 21 | March 27th 04 03:59 AM |
A Bicycle Story | Marian Rosenberg | General | 5 | September 7th 03 01:40 PM |