Not according to Blair, Forrester, and likely others.
Nothing wrong w/ being "fat", if it is possible to ever DEFINE
"fat". Problem numero uno.
The issue is lifestyle.
Now, you can argue that there are correlations, even cause,
between lifestyle and weight, but in the cases where there is not (where
someone is just genetically heavier than their counterpart), such findings
likely do not hold water. And this is a very common occurrence.
Blair found that fat AND fit was actually "healthier" than thin
and fit, although fat and UNfit was worse than thin and unfit.
Pick yer POV, I suppose.
And who determines what is fat? The Met Life Tables??? These
bull**** bmi indexes??
But realize this:
From pure biochemical POVs, there is absolutely nothing wrong
with fat tissue, except as *mechanically* affects mobility and blood
pressure. I'm all ears to anyone who can provide a stitch of *biochemical*
evidence as to the evils of fat/fat tissue.
The presumption of the "evil of fat" fuels the absolutely
ridiculous premiss of "gaining muscle cuz.. cuz.. it burns more
calories..." Jesus Christ, do these people buy their own food? Would they
want a car that "is.. is.. more better cuz.. cuz.. it burns more GAS"??
Man, give me an effing conceptual break, pleeze...
Muscle is good, cuz it ""fuels"" activity, and therefore is an
anti-aging "tissue", if you will. Period.
But for the physiological alchemists out there, who think "evil
fat must be turned into good muscle", fat and muscle are in fact totally
independent entities. In fact, low low bodyfat significantly mitigates
*against* overall muscle tissue, cuz the body will cannibalize muscle before
it cannibalizes fat. Nutrition 201.
"Fat" fit people are, in general, very strong.
I need to increase my goddammed metabolism like a submarine
needs screened doors.
In the same, uh, vein, there is most likely absolutely nothing
wrong with cholesterol, which is also linked to overweight, and these
asshole researchers are now saying that even good cholesterol is bad. If
you, or your doctor, don't know what a foam cell is, then you have no
inkling whatsoever into the etiology of plaques, and therefore the supposed
risk factors of cholesterol.
Now there is likely a valid statistical significance to morbid
obesity and poor health/mortality. But the cited research, and that of its
flawed biased ilk, is f'sure skewed toward the absolutely ridiculous
"standards" of the Met-Life tables, which exist purely to extort great
insurance premiums out of the pockets of the Great American Pubic®©, since
very few people, even athletic people, fit those profiles.
Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell might fit them.
Who are so stupidly put together as to likely not function
correctly physiologically or biomechanically. I think that "runway walk"
might well be a neurological condition of some sort, proly due to a
deficiency in EFAs. I expect them to break into a trot, rear up, and
whinney at any given moment.
Also realize the fundamental bias in this research:
Where would half of medicine be, along with half of
pharmaceuticals, if there were no Fat Villain? Where would health clubs be,
and the weight-loss infomercial industry (which seems to have died as of
late--whuhhoppened???) without the Fat Villain?
The health industry supined and levitated like QuickDraw
McGraw's mean mangy hounddog after a heroin shot, I mean, after a dawg
biskit, when AIDS emerged.
Wow--finally--a *real* villain!!
With several really really really big bonuses:
1. Itsa Pubic Health villain.
2. We can blame it on fags!! Hoorayyyy!!!!
3. Whotta effing moral bonanza!! Falwell came in his pants,
and has been running around with a permanent erection ever since. Ergo that
chronic ****eating grin on his face.
But alas, we can't blame it on lesbians.
But fags is good.
Realize that you can't get NIH funding iffin you don't tow a
certain scientific party line. Realize that most of these researchers are
hacks, sweating their effing jobs. 1.30 vs. 1.32-- I'd be EMBARRASSED to
publish numbers like that. Shows that they don't even understand their own
statistics or epidemiological methodology. You can't trust differences like
that in "hard" science, much less soft science.
And, regardless of what university said-****-study was
"performed" at--and "perform" is oh-so apropo--they might as well have done
their ""research"" on Broadway--this has absolutely nothing to do with WHO
FUNDED the research.
Ergo,
You are likely to be as well-informed listening to Bob Barefoot
and the Eades assholes (MDs) as you would reading this **** science.
And the ""science-based"" aesthetic witchhunt continues.
Big big bidness.
Subscribe to it iffin you want, but realize that people who
live by such swords often die by the same sword. I look at skinny people,
esp. those who wear it like a badge of honor, with wishbone thighs,
concentration-camp-clavicles, and the like, and laugh.
They are in for a rude age-related awakening.
Unfortunately, the full-size photos of the NYC marathon
winners fuels the absurdity. Good gawd, I wanna stop and give those two a
sandwich.
Oprah further fuels it with her ridiculous pubic, and
disingenous, obsession with weight loss, when she should be lifting goddamm
weights. Billy Blanks' Tae-Boo, it seems, was not effective. Gee, how
could that be??? Go figger.
I guess none of this **** is ever going to be over... until
mebbe the Fat Lady sings??? Charging the Skinny Spectators top dollar, I
would hope.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d, quite proud of his one big ab.
HoloBarre Indeed Lives.
formerly Droll Troll
"Radioactive Man" wrote in message
...
On 27 Mar 2004 19:26:52 +0100,
(NR) wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Am J Epidemiol 2002 Nov 1;156(9):832-41
Fitness and fatness as predictors of mortality from all causes and from
cardiovascular disease in men and women in the lipid research clinics
study.
Stevens J, Cai J, Evenson KR, Thomas R.
Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599, USA.
The relative size of the effects of fitness and fatness on longevity has
been studied in only one cohort. The authors examined this issue using
data
from 2,506 women and 2,860 men in the Lipid Research Clinics Study. The
mean age was 46.6 years in women and 45.1 years in men at baseline
(1972-1976). Fitness was assessed using a treadmill test, and fatness was
assessed as body mass index calculated from measured height and weight.
Participants were followed for vital status through 1998. Hazard ratios
were calculated using proportional hazard models that included covariates
for age, education, smoking, alcohol intake, and the dietary Keys score.
Fitness and fatness were both associated with mortality from all causes
and
from cardiovascular disease. For mortality from all causes, the adjusted
hazard ratios were 1.32 among the fit-fat, 1.30 among the unfit-not fat,
and 1.57 among the unfit-fat women compared with fit-not fat women. Among
men the same hazard ratios were 1.44, 1.25, and 1.49. There were no
significant interactions between fitness and fatness in either men or
women. The authors conclude that both fitness and fatness are risk
factors
for mortality, and that being fit does not completely reverse the
increased
risk associated with excess adiposity.
1.32 vs. 1.30 is not a significant difference. If you changed the
focus to men, your subject line would be much more relevant. From the
data you've presented, one would conclude that unfittness and obesity
are roughly equal in their effect on mortality in women. But for men,
the risk due to obesity far outweighs the risk due to lack of fitness,
meaning that fat men die at pretty much the same rate, whether or not
they're "in shape".
****
Jennifer Portnick wept.
NR
http://www.pat-acceptance.org/kookrant.html
http://www.pat-acceptance.org/kookrant2.html
If I catch you busting into a mass and vilifying a church, the last thing
you'll hear in your entire life, will be the ratatatatat of an automatic.
- --Steve Chaney to Mark Ira Kaufman
Message-ID:
Young Mr. Chaney, the man who has told me that he wants to murder me and
sodomize women in my family, has said, repeatedly, that advocates for
choice had vandalized churches.
- --Mark Ira Kaufman
Message-ID:
she probably has to have her picture taken by satellite because no normal
camera can fit all that whale blubber into one picture.
- --Steve Chaney
Message-ID:
Excessively fat women look ugly. It is impractical to try and have sex
when
she's 100lbs overweight and the weight is all fat - but most women ain't
that big.
- --Steve Chaney
Message-ID:
You of course do know what a lot of Asian women prefer, right? Besides,
after ****ing a cute asian chick, experience tells me it isn't all that
except that she looks good on your arm. In bed it ain't much at all. If
the
lights go out, any guy whose hormones are more fixed on performance than
looks, is going to go to sleep right there and then.
- --Steve Chaney
Message-ID:
Clarice and Allisson were well beyond a BMI of 25 in their pictures where
they were called cows.
- --Steve Chaney
Message-ID:
If Dutton knocked on Steve's door and Steve shot him in the face, I would
really not care.
- --Crash Street Kidd about Steve Chaney
Message-ID:
Stephen A Chaney admits to sodomizing his daughter if he forges me now.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBQGXCnDL3IlvsWvnjEQL10wCfa0pSpgS8QpKDYwkCilHmUo 3c7T0AoPoG
yvcay1FI181JzQJC+UF/t90u
=v+dY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----