The big fat con story

(TopCounsel) wrote in message ...
The overall thrust of this story, that being fat is perhaps medically OK, is
grossly wrong.

I looked at the article the way I used to watch "Point-Counterpoint"
on "60 minutes" -- this is one somewhat overblown side of the
argument, which makes me more conscious that the other side of the
argument has perhaps been overblown as well.

If I'd had more philosophy courses, I might be more comfortable saying
this is a Hegelian dialectic -- stories like this are an "antithesis"
that fights against the original, orthodox thesis to produce an
improved synthesis.

It's also notable that the article mixes overweight with obese with
grossly obese. While they grade into one another, they aren't the same
thing at all.

I found it interesting that at least part of the large diabetes
increase was due to a change in definition.

I came into this thread a bit late so missed most of it but here is my
take. I am 5'7" and 155 pounds which puts me at the high end of healthy
according to the BMI charts. I can ride up to 40 miles without even taking
water at up to 14-15MPH no problem. With water and food 70 miles is not a
problem. The BMI says that healthy/skinny is about 115-120 for me, at
which point I can barely ride ten miles without dropping. These charts
must be for couch potato types, not we who like to be active. My wife and
friends even told me I looked ridiculous at 120 so I am not even going
there again. At about 145 I start to show a 6 pack, which is ridiculous
for my age, 55, and my riding does not improve, but I can run longer and
faster (less weight?).
My 2 cents is to stay where you feel best.
Bill

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

What really worried me is that the article didn't contemplate a
relationship between BMI and fitness levels. I'll bet there is one,
....
I'm also pretty appalled that it pulls fun stunts like lumping in the
"overweight" (BMI 25-30) and "obese" (BMI 30+) numbers to get the big
scary 64.5% figure. This allows fun fudges like pointing out that "fat"
people (meaning those 27 BMI types) have very good health if they keep
active, while ignoring the specific ailments that affect the (growing)
population of obese (30+ BMI) adults.

BMI is a broken diagnostic tool. It doesn't work, because it doesn't
scale correctly. It is an index based on weight divided by height
squared, when weight scales as the cube of height.

At the moment, I have a BMI of 43. If I were 5 feet tall, with
exactly the same body composition and proportions, my BMI would be 31.
That's no small difference for two people of identical physique. And
while I could never claim to cut a fashionable profile, I am fitter,
healthier, and more active than many folks of "normal" BMI.

Someone measuring 5 feet even, and barely qualifying as "obese" on the
BMI scale, would weigh 154 lbs. Obese? Maybe. Li'l dumplin'? Sure.
But looking at the other end of the scale, a 7 footer who barely
makes it to "obese" would weigh 301 lbs. For those unfamiliar with
folks that tall, that's a lean and healthy weight for a seven-footer.
Quite a bit leaner than say, Shaquille O'Neal, who with a BMI of 33 is
neither "obese" nor even heavyset for his size.

Trying to correlate BMI with any figure of merit is a fool's errand--
it simply doesn't correlate to anything, not even body shape and
composition.

Chalo Colina

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...

I've read two papers, although they may be talking from the same
study, that one reason that heavier people have a lower death rate is
not from the 'normal' deaths, but because they have more resources to
survive diseases that task the body over one long sustained period -
often coming out much lighter. Those going in light end up dead more
often.

That certainly would be true in time of famine or food scarcity, which would
be much of human history. That's why there's a historic connection between
prosperity and a few extra pounds.

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

At 5' 7" and 160 lbs, I'm a bit overweight by the BMI tables, but I
won't be dropping any more weight on purpose. I have weighed over 200
in the past, though, and found it hard to stick with any kind of
exercise at that weight. Something worth studying would be how many
severely overweight people actually do exercise regularly. I know
some do; I've seen some very large "clydesdale" cyclists go long
distances. It isn't easy, though.

"Kaputnik" wrote in message
om...
At 5' 7" and 160 lbs, I'm a bit overweight by the BMI tables, but I
won't be dropping any more weight on purpose. I have weighed over 200
in the past, though, and found it hard to stick with any kind of
exercise at that weight. Something worth studying would be how many
severely overweight people actually do exercise regularly. I know
some do; I've seen some very large "clydesdale" cyclists go long
distances. It isn't easy, though.

That's a good point, although cycling is probably more forgiving of this
than other exercise -- running, for example.

LioNiNoiL_a t_NetscapE_D 0 T_NeT wrote:

the lowest death rate was found among fit men with waist measurements
of 40 inches or more.


I wish to take this opportunity to toast my fellow fat and fit
Falstaffian 40-inchers to a long, happy, hale and hearty life: Salud!

I raise my glass to you, stout fellow!

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:

I agree Mike, I found the article very interesting indeed. After years
of struggling with my weight, I've finally tossed out the scales. My
goal is to improve my fitness; if the wieght comes off or the dress size
goes down, that's nice but I'd rather be strong than slim and maybe I'm
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 and
leggy. I'm short with a "mature" build. Now the goal is to make that
short mature build into a mean keen hill climbing machine....and God,
I'm having a blast doing it.


I'm overweight - female, 40+. One of my docs thinks any woman who is overweight
is *obviously* depressed. He's a twit, especially as he's not exactly Mr Slim &
Trim himself. I'd like to lose some weight, and am careful about what I eat,
yet I still remain overweight. I can lose a bit and then I plateau at a weight
which is still considered to be overweight in terms of BMI. That plateauing is
a pain-in-the-arse. Yet thanks to cycling regularly, I'm fitter than I've been
in many a long year and a good deal fitter than many a slim & trim young thing
around. Yesterday, at the supermarket (where the shopping trolley was full of
fruit, veg, etc. and distinctly short on the bad stuff, the lady on the
checkout was passing the time of day about the weather (a British staple topic
of conversation). She was saying how it's forecast to be very good weather by
the end of the week, and my response was that I'd look forward to that, as it
means I can get out on my bike and really enjoy it. Anyhow - conversation
developed into cycling - and I said that on the last nice Saturday we had, I'd
done a 50 miler and that it was a joy due to the gloriously sunny but not too
hot weather with little wind. Said checkout person's bottom jaw dropped to the
ground. Similarly the person next in the queue who had been listening in, also
had the same phemonenon - bottom jaw dropping to the ground... They could not
envisage anyone doing that length of ride. Indeed the checkout lady, who
occasionally cycles, said anything over 5 miles and she was knackered. She was
about my age and a fair bit slimmer.

I usually cycle about 12 - 15 miles a day, so my cycling is regular exercise,
and often with a rear rack carrying a load of shopping - so it's useful
exercise. I'm getting to the point where the scales are going out of the window
and I'm concentrating on general fitness and finally realising that yes, there
is life for a woman even if she is bigger than a dress size 10 ;-) I may not be
a speed demon on my bike, but I'm fitter than many my age :-)

Cheers, helen s




--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
**$o m$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--



I must agree with you Helen. Stay active, burn the fuel you consume,
you will not only feel healthier, you will know you are well.
The scale is not as valid as most think! It seems there are a very many
"overweight" cyclists who exercise vigorouresly and are "officially" too
heavy. Big deal! Stay well, enjoy the experience.
Best regards, Bernie

In article , says...
I came into this thread a bit late so missed most of it but here is my
take. I am 5'7" and 155 pounds which puts me at the high end of healthy
according to the BMI charts. I can ride up to 40 miles without even taking
water at up to 14-15MPH no problem. With water and food 70 miles is not a
problem. The BMI says that healthy/skinny is about 115-120 for me, at
which point I can barely ride ten miles without dropping. These charts
must be for couch potato types, not we who like to be active. My wife and

They are. If you read the "find print" in any accurate article about
BMI, they will state specifically that they are designed for inactive,
non-fit people.

friends even told me I looked ridiculous at 120 so I am not even going
there again. At about 145 I start to show a 6 pack, which is ridiculous
for my age, 55, and my riding does not improve, but I can run longer and
faster (less weight?).
My 2 cents is to stay where you feel best.
Bill


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

I must agree with you Helen. Stay active, burn the fuel you consume,
you will not only feel healthier, you will know you are well.
The scale is not as valid as most think! It seems there are a very many
"overweight" cyclists who exercise vigorouresly and are "officially" too
heavy. Big deal! Stay well, enjoy the experience.
Best regards, Bernie

Just back from my daily cycle ride as means of transport to do the Thursday
business chores in town. Lovely morning, nice cycling.Picked up a copy of
Cycling Weekly and am now sitting with coffee and will read my weekly comic too
:-) On Sunday will be doing the local sponsored cycle ride for local kid's
hospices. It's a gentle 33 miles in the morning. If it's a nice day with the
weather gods smiling and no wind, I might go round twice. If it's raining or
windy, I won't go round twice!

Cheers, helen s



--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
**$om $

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--