OP Update - 3000 miles in 10 months... so Why am I still fat?

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Badger_South wrote:
:: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
Snip

have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!

2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is a good
chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his performance on
the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than to give into societal
norms. And that his choice to make..


Society be damned! I want to ride faster, farther, and more comfortably on
the bike! Power to weight ratio.... that's all I'm really concerned with!

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
GaryG wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:: ...
::: GaryG wrote:
::::: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
::::: ...
:::::: Badger_South wrote:
:::::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:::::::: wrote:
::::::::
::::::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
::::::::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep
::::::::: everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see
::::::::: why
::::::::: it is so hard for everyone to think that you're simply eating
::::::::: too much to lose weight.
::::::::
:::::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and
:::::::: don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to
:::::::: the point where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
::::::
:::::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is
:::::: a good chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his
:::::: performance on the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than
:::::: to give into societal norms. And that his choice to make..
:::::
:::::
::::: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot of
::::: excess weight around his waist, he might want to lose that weight
::::: for a much more important reason than "societal norms".
:::
::: We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His waist to hip
::: ratio might be fine, too.
::
:: The overwhelming majority of folks with a BMI of 34.2 are fat. The
:: OP himself states:
::
:: "I carry almost all the weight around my waist. Personally, I think
:: I'm rather oddly shaped.
:: Chest and butt look normal... just a big fat gut in front."
::
:: This is a description of too much fat, carried around the middle, a
:: combination that has been linked to an increased risk of disease in
:: many studies.

Hey, I never said he wasn't fat, in fact, I've been talking to him about
losing weight. However, his date would seem to indicate that at 275 lbs
he
is unusually fit. All these numbers you quote don't say dick about
fitness, assuming that fatness is the only issue. I don't believe that.
Being sedentary is also a big issue and could be much more important than
how much fat one carries.

Blind faith in report research data is troublesome. In case you haven't
noticed, these people change directions very often-- based on new research
findings. IMO, it is better to pay attention to what a person does and
what
they can do, then to simply look at numbers.


::
:: BMI is not "useless". It's also not "perfect". It has the
:: advantage of being easy to calculate,

How were the charts developed? Based on what data and what group of
people?

and for most people it
:: correlates well with body fat (i.e., higher BMI = higher body fat
:: percentage).

Sure, but two people with the same BMI can be very, very different in
terms
of fitness and health, even beyond fat %.

For a small percentage of the population (e.g., body
:: builders), the correlation may not hold. But, I see a lot more fat
:: folks than body builders when I'm out and about.
::

A correlation is not everything. I too see a lot of fat people and very
few
bodybuilders. But that still doesn't mean you should lump the OP in with
other people who have a BMI of 34 given, without consideration of his
info.

:::
:::
::: To be
::::: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he doesn't die any
::::: time soon. His weight, and his waist size, are both very strong
::::: risk factors for mortality from heart disease, diabetes, cancer,
::::: etc.
:::::
::::: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers for
::::: Disease Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of disease due
::::: to his weight and waist size. If his waist size (measured at the
::::: navel) is 40" or less, his risk would be "High Risk".
:::
::: One can argue with such simplistic factors for prediction. Do they
::: factor in activity level, muscle mass, frame size, and age?
::
:: With a waist size 40", I don't think muscle mass and frame size are
:: significant moderators of disease risk. It's the fat that's the
:: problem.

Prove it. I say it is the sedentary lifestyle that's the problem, moreso
than just being fat. I use myself as evidence for that position. There
are
enough others who report similar findings to lead me to believe, in spite
of
what research says and what charts indicate, that there is more to the
story
than the mere numbers cited above.

::
:: More research does need to be done on people with high BMI's who are
:: physically active - it would be very interesting to see to what
:: extent physical activity reduces disease risk (some preliminary
:: research indicates that it can reduce, but not eliminate, disease
:: risk). Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks with high BMI's
:: are *not* physcially fit.

Agreed, however nothing is going to eliminate disease risk, it can only be
lessened. How do you define "physically fit?"

The OP can do 70-mile rides at 16 mph while weighing 275 on hilly terrain.
Are football players who run up and down the field not fit? ARe 300 lbs
bodybuilders not physically fit?

I do agree with you that there are many high BMI's people who are
definitely
NOT physically fit by any standards. I'm just saying that there are very
real exceptions and applying blanket notions and numbers is not useful in
light of MORE information.



The BMI issue has been researched reasonably well. In general, higher BMI's
are associated with higher rates of mortality across broad populations.

As for "Are football players who run up and down the field not fit?" Yes,
they are. But, does that mean they have a lower risk of disease/mortality?
I kind of doubt that it does - I've read that pro football players tend to
die quite a bit earlier than others.

Clearly, there are exceptions, and more research needs to be done, but
across large populations, in many studies, high BMI has been shown to be a
risk factor. Do you have any cites that disprove the link between
BMI/fatness and mortality in "physically fit" people with high BMI's? I
would be most interested in any published studies you could cite.

Here's an abstract from the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume
341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15) that did a study of 1 million
adults, comparing BMI to mortality and filtering for smoking status, age,
and race. They found that the lowest risk of mortality was associated with
BMI's of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women.


Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of U.S. Adults

Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D., Jennifer M. Petrelli,
M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W. Heath, M.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of
the height in meters) is known to be associated with overall mortality. We
investigated the effects of age, race, sex, smoking status, and history of
disease on the relation between body-mass index and mortality.

Methods In a prospective study of more than 1 million adults in the United
States (457,785 men and 588,369 women), 201,622 deaths occurred during 14
years of follow-up. We examined the relation between body-mass index and the
risk of death from all causes in four subgroups categorized according to
smoking status and history of disease. In healthy people who had never
smoked, we further examined whether the relation varied according to race,
cause of death, or age. The relative risk was used to assess the relation
between mortality and body-mass index.

Results The association between body-mass index and the risk of death was
substantially modified by smoking status and the presence of disease. In
healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass
index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men
and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among subjects with the highest body-mass
indexes, white men and women had a relative risk of death of 2.58 and 2.00,
respectively, as compared with those with a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9.
Black men and women with the highest body-mass indexes had much lower risks
of death (1.35 and 1.21), which did not differ significantly from 1.00. A
high body-mass index was most predictive of death from cardiovascular
disease, especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95 percent confidence
interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Heavier men and women in all age groups had an
increased risk of death.

Conclusions The risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease,
cancer, or other diseases increases throughout the range of moderate and
severe overweight for both men and women in all age groups. The risk
associated with a high body-mass index is greater for whites than for
blacks.

GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:53:29 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:
It's just taking him a while to get
his head wrapped around the notion that he's eating too much. LC would be
the best for him, but calorie reduction will work too.

Is LC not a form of calorie reduction? I thought the whole point of
LC was to make it easy to reduce calories without having to count
them.
--
Rick Onanian

"Badger_South" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:24:36 GMT, "Gooserider"
wrote:


"Doug Cook" wrote in message
...
I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people! 170 responses
in
48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less controversial question like
the
role of religion in politics or something.

Nothing controversial about it. Losing weight is NOT complicated. Fat
people
like to think it is, but it isn't. I'll say this again---if you burn more
calories than you intake, you will lose weight. Period. The body is kinda
neat in the way it follows the laws of physics. Yes, you can do all sorts
of
tricks, like carbohydrate reduction and such, but it all comes down to
intake vs. output. You weigh 274 pounds, so you need to intake at least
2740
just to maintain. Since you're riding a lot, you have to be eating a lot
of
calories somewhere. You're on the right track by monitoring what you eat,
but make sure to keep portion control. Measure your food if you have to.
If
you eat 2700 kcal/day and exercise, you will lose weight. Just remember
to
keep yourself in calorie debt. Exercise is not an excuse to pig out,
until
you get to racer-weight. :-)

This just shows you how bone-headed gooserider is being.

I don't want to call BS on you, but are you claiming that people DON'T
lose weight in calorie deficit? Hogwash. There isn't a person on the face of
the earth who, given a long enough period of aerobic exercise and caloric
deficit, will not lose weight. It's simple. That's why morbidly obese people
lose weight when placed on caloric restriction. That's why famine victims
are thin. It's why Chinese peasants, who eat mainly carbohydrates, are thin.
They exercise all day and burn off what they eat. I know you're on the low
carb bandwagon, and that's great. It's a nice trick to lose weight, but it's
not the only way. It's not even the best way. It's just another way. I
guarantee you if Mister Cook eats 2000 calories a day of ANYTHING and
continues to exercise as he is, he will experience massive weight loss. He's
eating too many calories, evidently.

On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:19:15 -0600, "Doug Cook"
wrote:


"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
Badger_South wrote:
:: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: wrote:
::
Snip

have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!

2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is a good
chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his performance on
the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than to give into societal
norms. And that his choice to make..


Society be damned! I want to ride faster, farther, and more comfortably on
the bike! Power to weight ratio.... that's all I'm really concerned with!


Infidel! If that's the up with which you could not put, ye'd ne'er end the
plea with propositions such as much!

Ya know this whole last badinage has been like jockeying for position on a
jolly good ride up the pair oh knees!

So throw another logarithym on the fire and pass me that freakin' gatorade
ya bandit!

-B

On Fri, 21 May 2004 19:38:17 GMT, "Gooserider"
wrote:


"Badger_South" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:24:36 GMT, "Gooserider"
wrote:


"Doug Cook" wrote in message
...
I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people! 170 responses
in
48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less controversial question like
the
role of religion in politics or something.

Nothing controversial about it. Losing weight is NOT complicated. Fat
people
like to think it is, but it isn't. I'll say this again---if you burn more
calories than you intake, you will lose weight. Period. The body is kinda
neat in the way it follows the laws of physics. Yes, you can do all sorts
of
tricks, like carbohydrate reduction and such, but it all comes down to
intake vs. output. You weigh 274 pounds, so you need to intake at least
2740
just to maintain. Since you're riding a lot, you have to be eating a lot
of
calories somewhere. You're on the right track by monitoring what you eat,
but make sure to keep portion control. Measure your food if you have to.
If
you eat 2700 kcal/day and exercise, you will lose weight. Just remember
to
keep yourself in calorie debt. Exercise is not an excuse to pig out,
until
you get to racer-weight. :-)

This just shows you how bone-headed gooserider is being.

I don't want to call BS on you, but are you claiming that people DON'T
lose weight in calorie deficit? Hogwash. There isn't a person on the face of
the earth who, given a long enough period of aerobic exercise and caloric
deficit, will not lose weight. It's simple. That's why morbidly obese people
lose weight when placed on caloric restriction. That's why famine victims
are thin. It's why Chinese peasants, who eat mainly carbohydrates, are thin.
They exercise all day and burn off what they eat. I know you're on the low
carb bandwagon, and that's great. It's a nice trick to lose weight, but it's
not the only way. It's not even the best way. It's just another way. I
guarantee you if Mister Cook eats 2000 calories a day of ANYTHING and
continues to exercise as he is, he will experience massive weight loss. He's
eating too many calories, evidently.

Naw man, I was just blinding you with science...

You're all good.

-B

"Gooserider" wrote in message
...

"Badger_South" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 May 2004 11:24:36 GMT, "Gooserider"
wrote:


"Doug Cook" wrote in message
...
I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people! 170 responses
in
48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less controversial question like
the
role of religion in politics or something.

Nothing controversial about it. Losing weight is NOT complicated. Fat
people
like to think it is, but it isn't. I'll say this again---if you burn
more
calories than you intake, you will lose weight. Period. The body is
kinda
neat in the way it follows the laws of physics. Yes, you can do all
sorts
of
tricks, like carbohydrate reduction and such, but it all comes down to
intake vs. output. You weigh 274 pounds, so you need to intake at least
2740
just to maintain. Since you're riding a lot, you have to be eating a
lot
of
calories somewhere. You're on the right track by monitoring what you
eat,
but make sure to keep portion control. Measure your food if you have
to.
If
you eat 2700 kcal/day and exercise, you will lose weight. Just remember
to
keep yourself in calorie debt. Exercise is not an excuse to pig out,
until
you get to racer-weight. :-)

This just shows you how bone-headed gooserider is being.

I don't want to call BS on you, but are you claiming that people DON'T
lose weight in calorie deficit? Hogwash. There isn't a person on the face
of
the earth who, given a long enough period of aerobic exercise and caloric
deficit, will not lose weight. It's simple. That's why morbidly obese
people
lose weight when placed on caloric restriction. That's why famine victims
are thin. It's why Chinese peasants, who eat mainly carbohydrates, are
thin.
They exercise all day and burn off what they eat. I know you're on the low
carb bandwagon, and that's great. It's a nice trick to lose weight, but
it's
not the only way. It's not even the best way. It's just another way. I
guarantee you if Mister Cook eats 2000 calories a day of ANYTHING and
continues to exercise as he is, he will experience massive weight loss.
He's
eating too many calories, evidently.


Good post...the law of thermodynamics has not (AFAIK) been repealed.

Personally, I think low-cal works for some folks because protein and fats
provide our bodies with stuff that tastes good and makes us feel
"satisfied". I'm not an Atkins fan because I work out a lot and need enough
carbs to train, but I have found more success with a "higher lean protein +
veggies + good fats" approach than I did on a low-fat regimen. On low-fat I
had more cravings and would often find myself hungry 2 hours after a meal.
Plus, I would get sleepy in the afternoons more often.

People are different and some folks can be successful on low-carb and others
on low-fat. The trick is finding out what works for you.

GG
http://www.WeightWare.com
Your Weight and Health Diary

"Doug Cook" wrote in message
...
I know I asked for some thoughts, but come on, people! 170 responses in
48hrs? Maybe I should have asked a less controversial question like the
role of religion in politics or something. Or maybe you all should be
spending more time on your bikes and less in front of the computer!

Here are some generalized opinions culled from those replies and my
response
to them.

1. I don't realize how much I'm really eating - Maybe, but I've started
keeping track again of everything that enters my mouth (I've done this
before). In the last two days (two typical days to the best of my
judgment)
my caloric intake has not exceeded 2700. I'll keep tracking for a week or
two to see if that changes, but I doubt it will. I just can't eat that
much. Maybe I'm binging on the weekends.

2. I'm not burning as much as I think I am on my rides - Maybe, but my
computer is correctly set, and I do wear a HRM. Every calculator I can
find
tells me I'm burning at least 6400 calories a week on my rides, and some
estimate it as high as 10,000. I keep a ride dairy, so I know I'm not
over
estimating my miles. Remember, I weigh 274.

3. I have a diabetic condition that is preventing me from losing weight -
This worried me. My family does have a history of Type II when they get
old
and fat, but I have had none of the symptoms. But I did get a HbA1c test.
4.7%. 7% is considered threshold level for some kind of diabetic
disorder.

So... after 170 posts (for which I'm grateful, don't get me wrong), I'm
back
to beginning. I guess I'll go see a medical pro. Get all the offiicial
tests on the treadmill and all that. Who do I see? A sports
physiologist?

Thanks


Doug - one possibility that I haven't seen mentioned in other posts...

How much alcohol do you consume? Your description of a normal body except
for a big gut sounds suspiciously like a "beer gut" (aka, an alcoholic's
gut). If you're knocking back a 6-pack most evenings, that could account
for your shape.

GG

Doug Cook wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:: ...
::: Doug Cook wrote:
:::
::: Do you have a scale and measure and weigh what you eat? I assume
::: you're making your own meals and not eating out, right?
::
:: Yes, I have a digital scale that weighs down to the gram.

Good.

::
::::
::::: 2. I'm not burning as much as I think I am on my rides - Maybe,
::::: but
::::: my computer is correctly set, and I do wear a HRM. Every
::::: calculator
::::: I can find tells me I'm burning at least 6400 calories a week on
::::: my rides, and some estimate it as high as 10,000. I keep a ride
::::: dairy, so I know I'm not over estimating my miles. Remember, I
::::: weigh 274.
:::
::: I weigh 235. Yesterday I did 35 miles. My HRM said I burned 2741
::: kcals. Fitday.com said I burned 1697 kcals and Cyclistat said I
::: burned 1680 kcals. Now, you'd think the HRM is more accurate since
::: it know more about what I'm doing. But that is quite a large
::: variation in what I burned. I wonder if any of them are right --
::: and a lot of people will tell you that all of these are
::: overestimates.
::
:: That's exactly why I thought I'd go get tested. Isn't hopping on the
:: treadmill with all the tubes and blood-lettings the most accurate
:: way of determining Basal Metebolic Rate, amount of calories burning
:: during exercise, Vo2Max, etc.?

Oh, I didn't get that you meant this kind of test....I think that's an
excellent idea. Go for it!

::
::: I'm a T2. My resting GB is about 80 to 85 and my HbA1c was 5.1%..
::: I control my T2 with diet (low carb) and exercise. If you're not on
::: a LC diet, I doubt you're a T2.
:::
:::::
::::: So... after 170 posts (for which I'm grateful, don't get me
::::: wrong), I'm back to beginning. I guess I'll go see a medical
::::: pro. Get all the offiicial tests on the treadmill and all that.
::::: Who do I see? A sports physiologist?
:::::
:::
::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep everything
::: else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see why it is so hard
::: for everyone to think that you're simply eating too much to lose
::: weight.
::
::
:: But raising the amount burned by 500 cals per day won't accomplish
:: the same thing? I'd love to be able to say, "Sorry, I have to
:: spend another half hour on the bike!"

Okay, that'll work! However, you might want to spend that extra time
lifting weights -- that will prevent muscle loss and help with bone density
issues that are *supposed* to be a problems with cyclist (I have no idea how
true that is, however).

GaryG wrote:
:: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:: ...
::: GaryG wrote:
::::: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
::::: ...
:::::: GaryG wrote:
:::::::: "Roger Zoul" wrote in message
:::::::: ...
::::::::: Badger_South wrote:
::::::::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
::::::::::: wrote:
:::::::::::
:::::::::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just
:::::::::::: bump calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks.
:::::::::::: Keep everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I
:::::::::::: don't see
:::::::::::: why
:::::::::::: it is so hard for everyone to think that you're simply
:::::::::::: eating too much to lose weight.
:::::::::::
::::::::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this
::::::::::: and don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will
::::::::::: increase to
::::::::::: the point where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
:::::::::
::::::::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There
::::::::: is
::::::::: a good chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with
::::::::: his performance on the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to,
::::::::: other than to give into societal norms. And that his choice
::::::::: to make..
::::::::
::::::::
:::::::: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot of
:::::::: excess weight around his waist, he might want to lose that
:::::::: weight for a much more important reason than "societal norms".
::::::
:::::: We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His waist to
:::::: hip ratio might be fine, too.
:::::
::::: The overwhelming majority of folks with a BMI of 34.2 are fat.
::::: The
::::: OP himself states:
:::::
::::: "I carry almost all the weight around my waist. Personally, I
::::: think I'm rather oddly shaped.
::::: Chest and butt look normal... just a big fat gut in front."
:::::
::::: This is a description of too much fat, carried around the middle,
::::: a combination that has been linked to an increased risk of
::::: disease in many studies.
:::
::: Hey, I never said he wasn't fat, in fact, I've been talking to him
::: about losing weight. However, his date would seem to indicate that
::: at 275 lbs he is unusually fit. All these numbers you quote don't
::: say dick about fitness, assuming that fatness is the only issue. I
::: don't believe that. Being sedentary is also a big issue and could
::: be much more important than how much fat one carries.
:::
::: Blind faith in report research data is troublesome. In case you
::: haven't noticed, these people change directions very often-- based
::: on new research findings. IMO, it is better to pay attention to
::: what a person does and what they can do, then to simply look at
::: numbers.
:::
:::
:::::
::::: BMI is not "useless". It's also not "perfect". It has the
::::: advantage of being easy to calculate,
:::
::: How were the charts developed? Based on what data and what group of
::: people?
:::
::: and for most people it
::::: correlates well with body fat (i.e., higher BMI = higher body fat
::::: percentage).
:::
::: Sure, but two people with the same BMI can be very, very different
::: in terms of fitness and health, even beyond fat %.
:::
::: For a small percentage of the population (e.g., body
::::: builders), the correlation may not hold. But, I see a lot more
::::: fat folks than body builders when I'm out and about.
:::::
:::
::: A correlation is not everything. I too see a lot of fat people and
::: very few bodybuilders. But that still doesn't mean you should lump
::: the OP in with other people who have a BMI of 34 given, without
::: consideration of his info.
:::
::::::
::::::
:::::: To be
:::::::: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he doesn't die
:::::::: any time soon. His weight, and his waist size, are both very
:::::::: strong risk factors for mortality from heart disease,
:::::::: diabetes, cancer, etc.
::::::::
:::::::: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers for
:::::::: Disease Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of disease
:::::::: due
:::::::: to his weight and waist size. If his waist size (measured at
:::::::: the navel) is 40" or less, his risk would be "High Risk".
::::::
:::::: One can argue with such simplistic factors for prediction. Do
:::::: they factor in activity level, muscle mass, frame size, and age?
:::::
::::: With a waist size 40", I don't think muscle mass and frame size
::::: are significant moderators of disease risk. It's the fat that's
::::: the problem.
:::
::: Prove it. I say it is the sedentary lifestyle that's the problem,
::: moreso than just being fat. I use myself as evidence for that
::: position. There are enough others who report similar findings to
::: lead me to believe, in spite of what research says and what charts
::: indicate, that there is more to the story than the mere numbers
::: cited above.
:::
:::::
::::: More research does need to be done on people with high BMI's who
::::: are physically active - it would be very interesting to see to
::::: what
::::: extent physical activity reduces disease risk (some preliminary
::::: research indicates that it can reduce, but not eliminate, disease
::::: risk). Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks with high BMI's
::::: are *not* physcially fit.
:::
::: Agreed, however nothing is going to eliminate disease risk, it can
::: only be lessened. How do you define "physically fit?"
:::
::: The OP can do 70-mile rides at 16 mph while weighing 275 on hilly
::: terrain. Are football players who run up and down the field not
::: fit? ARe 300 lbs bodybuilders not physically fit?
:::
::: I do agree with you that there are many high BMI's people who are
::: definitely NOT physically fit by any standards. I'm just saying
::: that there are very real exceptions and applying blanket notions
::: and numbers is not useful in light of MORE information.
:::
:::
::
:: The BMI issue has been researched reasonably well. In general,
:: higher BMI's are associated with higher rates of mortality across
:: broad populations.

I don't disagree with that.

::
:: As for "Are football players who run up and down the field not fit?"
:: Yes, they are. But, does that mean they have a lower risk of
:: disease/mortality? I kind of doubt that it does - I've read that pro
:: football players tend to die quite a bit earlier than others.

I think it does. I think the reasons pro football players die early is many
reasons. 1) they quit being active but keep other bad habits (probably the
most telling reason), 2) they get beat down during their careers, just for
two.

::
:: Clearly, there are exceptions, and more research needs to be done,
:: but across large populations, in many studies, high BMI has been
:: shown to be a risk factor. Do you have any cites that disprove the
:: link between BMI/fatness and mortality in "physically fit" people
:: with high BMI's? I would be most interested in any published
:: studies you could cite.

I'm currently reading (okay, about to read - i just got this today) the book
"The Obesity Myth: Why America's Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to your
Health" by Pal Campos. I'll let you know what I find out here.


::
:: Here's an abstract from the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume
:: 341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15) that did a study of 1
:: million adults, comparing BMI to mortality and filtering for smoking
:: status, age, and race. They found that the lowest risk of mortality
:: was associated with BMI's of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in
:: women.

See -- this is one point that the author of that book makes. Look at the
BMI of the lowest risk -- those are pretty high numbers for men -- heck,
that's almost fat! So it certainly doesn't follow that lower BMI = longer
life.

::
::
:: Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of U.S. Adults
::
:: Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D., Jennifer M. Petrelli,
:: M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W. Heath, M.D.
::
:: ABSTRACT
::
:: Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the
:: square of the height in meters) is known to be associated with
:: overall mortality. We investigated the effects of age, race, sex,
:: smoking status, and history of disease on the relation between
:: body-mass index and mortality.
::
:: Methods In a prospective study of more than 1 million adults in the
:: United States (457,785 men and 588,369 women), 201,622 deaths
:: occurred during 14 years of follow-up. We examined the relation
:: between body-mass index and the risk of death from all causes in
:: four subgroups categorized according to smoking status and history
:: of disease. In healthy people who had never smoked, we further
:: examined whether the relation varied according to race, cause of
:: death, or age. The relative risk was used to assess the relation
:: between mortality and body-mass index.
::
:: Results The association between body-mass index and the risk of
:: death was substantially modified by smoking status and the presence
:: of disease. In healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the
:: curve for body-mass index and mortality was found at a body-mass
:: index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among
:: subjects with the highest body-mass indexes, white men and women had
:: a relative risk of death of 2.58 and 2.00, respectively, as compared
:: with those with a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9. Black men and
:: women with the highest body-mass indexes had much lower risks of
:: death (1.35 and 1.21), which did not differ significantly from 1.00.
:: A high body-mass index was most predictive of death from
:: cardiovascular disease, especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95
:: percent confidence interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Heavier men and women in
:: all age groups had an increased risk of death.
::
:: Conclusions The risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular
:: disease, cancer, or other diseases increases throughout the range of
:: moderate and severe overweight for both men and women in all age
:: groups. The risk associated with a high body-mass index is greater
:: for whites than for blacks.
::
:: GG
:: http://www.WeightWare.com
:: Your Weight and Health Diary