If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than *cough* fit fat women.
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----- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than *cough* fit fat women.
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004, "Proctologically Violated" wrote:
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. Did Blair follow over 5,300 people with an average age of around 45 years for a period ranging from 22 to 26 years? That is what the quoted study did. That's a significant amount of people over a very significant about of time. The starting mean age is of particular significance since one would expect a fair number of deaths over that period of time. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than *cough* fitfat women.
Pho Duc wrote:
Did Blair follow over 5,300 people with an average age of around 45 years for a period ranging from 22 to 26 years? That is what the quoted study did. That's a significant amount of people over a very significant about of time. The starting mean age is of particular significance since one would expect a fair number of deaths over that period of time. Sadly, the study revolved around BMI rather than BF%. Defining "fat" by BMI rather than body composition makes the whole thing bull****. IMO. Dally |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than *cough* fit fat women.
"Dally" wrote in message ... Pho Duc wrote: Did Blair follow over 5,300 people with an average age of around 45 years for a period ranging from 22 to 26 years? That is what the quoted study did. That's a significant amount of people over a very significant about of time. The starting mean age is of particular significance since one would expect a fair number of deaths over that period of time. Sadly, the study revolved around BMI rather than BF%. Defining "fat" by BMI rather than body composition makes the whole thing bull****. IMO. The whole thing would be bull**** even with BF%. First, because bf% is so hard to measure reliably. Second, because it doesn't much matter anyway. Third, find out who funded the study, as well as researchers' affiliations and love interests. These goddamm researchers pop in and out of someone's life once every 5-10 years, and then purport conclusions as to why they died? Give me a fukn break. Better yet, give me a Ouija board. Next, call up the researchers a year from now, and ask them some questions on their protocol. They won't have a fukn clue as to what went on in that study. How do I know? Cuz I've made the goddamm phone calls, on studies a lot more concrete than this bull****. Does that tell you anything? NEXT! Old bull**** out, new bull**** in--sheeiit, fellow PhD muhfugguhs, we gots jobs to keep, tenure to procure! Blair did not use mortality. He evaluated general health as a function of fitness and fatness, real time IIRC. I guess he didn't want to wait 'til people died. More people than this were used to make bull**** conclusions about cholesterol--orders of magnitudes more people. The unfortunate fact is, the rat race is so severe in virtually all aspects of life that you can't hardly trust anything that comes out of any facet of it, especially when the "results" are vehicles to get out of the rat race--like keepin one's job. Good, classical research died a long time ago. Watson & Crick, most likely, started the fraud in modern research. ---------------------------- Mr. P.V.'d formerly Droll Troll Dally |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than *cough* fit fat women.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:34:19 -0500, Dally wrote: Pho Duc wrote: Did Blair follow over 5,300 people with an average age of around 45 years for a period ranging from 22 to 26 years? That is what the quoted study did. That's a significant amount of people over a very significant about of time. The starting mean age is of particular significance since one would expect a fair number of deaths over that period of time. Sadly, the study revolved around BMI rather than BF%. Defining "fat" by BMI rather than body composition makes the whole thing bull****. IMO. Dally It is just more attempts to put fat women down. Remember you will only stay down so long as you pay attention to trash like this. Remember also that is not the content of the article that is being disputed. it is the fact that some brain stem posted it in a fact acceptance newsgroup. PLease keep this drek out of here. LV Lady Veteran - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQGccZukoPZAZfLgsEQIAggCfUO1Ivh1lW24NaQ/DPqROXVM/ilgAn0Xj 3OVfuflFaiGmjfGncni5ZICR =euUC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than *cough* fit fat women.
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:34:19 -0500, Dally wrote:
Pho Duc wrote: Did Blair follow over 5,300 people with an average age of around 45 years for a period ranging from 22 to 26 years? That is what the quoted study did. That's a significant amount of people over a very significant about of time. The starting mean age is of particular significance since one would expect a fair number of deaths over that period of time. Sadly, the study revolved around BMI rather than BF%. Defining "fat" by BMI rather than body composition makes the whole thing bull****. IMO. Dally Not necessarily. BMI is a function many factors besides body fat, including bone size/density, muscle mass, fluid retention, etc. Thus, you cannot say an individual has too much or too little fat tissue based solely on BMI. The same cannot be said for the BMI of a population or statistically large enough sample of individuals, since variations in body fat would be the most probable cause for variations in BMI between populations or large samples of populations. If you take a population and divide it into groups based on BMI, what you really end up with is a probability, not a certainty, that an individual will be overweight due to excess body fat. If you've got a BMI of 26, there's a good chance it's due to factors besides body fat. As you increase BMI, that probability gets smaller and smaller, eventually reaching zero. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than *cough* fit fat women.
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:45:36 GMT, Radioactive Man wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:34:19 -0500, Dally wrote: Pho Duc wrote: Did Blair follow over 5,300 people with an average age of around 45 years for a period ranging from 22 to 26 years? That is what the quoted study did. That's a significant amount of people over a very significant about of time. The starting mean age is of particular significance since one would expect a fair number of deaths over that period of time. Sadly, the study revolved around BMI rather than BF%. Defining "fat" by BMI rather than body composition makes the whole thing bull****. IMO. Dally Not necessarily. BMI is a function many factors besides body fat, including bone size/density, muscle mass, fluid retention, etc. Thus, you cannot say an individual has too much or too little fat tissue based solely on BMI. The same cannot be said for the BMI of a population or statistically large enough sample of individuals, since variations in body fat would be the most probable cause for variations in BMI between populations or large samples of populations. If you take a population and divide it into groups based on BMI, what you really end up with is a probability, not a certainty, that an individual will be overweight due to excess body fat. If you've got a BMI of 26, there's a good chance it's due to factors besides body fat. As you increase BMI, that probability gets smaller and smaller, eventually reaching zero. Do you mean to say that someone who is 600 lbs is that way because of body fat? Shocking!! -- kj |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than *cough* fit fat women.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:52:00 -0400, Kevin J ! wrote: On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:45:36 GMT, Radioactive Man wrote: On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:34:19 -0500, Dally wrote: Pho Duc wrote: Did Blair follow over 5,300 people with an average age of around 45 years for a period ranging from 22 to 26 years? That is what the quoted study did. That's a significant amount of people over a very significant about of time. The starting mean age is of particular significance since one would expect a fair number of deaths over that period of time. Sadly, the study revolved around BMI rather than BF%. Defining "fat" by BMI rather than body composition makes the whole thing bull****. IMO. Dally Not necessarily. BMI is a function many factors besides body fat, including bone size/density, muscle mass, fluid retention, etc. Thus, you cannot say an individual has too much or too little fat tissue based solely on BMI. The same cannot be said for the BMI of a population or statistically large enough sample of individuals, since variations in body fat would be the most probable cause for variations in BMI between populations or large samples of populations. If you take a population and divide it into groups based on BMI, what you really end up with is a probability, not a certainty, that an individual will be overweight due to excess body fat. If you've got a BMI of 26, there's a good chance it's due to factors besides body fat. As you increase BMI, that probability gets smaller and smaller, eventually reaching zero. Do you mean to say that someone who is 600 lbs is that way because of body fat? Shocking!! With observations like that I am surprised you can put one foot in from of the other without tripping. LV Lady Veteran - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQGcyuukoPZAZfLgsEQJKtwCfZbO7tczZAw8LqEvdpGhwEc 4kUm0AoKny bzJPmnzS9wm1ZxBn9da2vl9o =0YhH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than *cough* fit fat women.
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 20:16:04 GMT, Lady Veteran
wrote: Do you mean to say that someone who is 600 lbs is that way because of body fat? Shocking!! With observations like that I am surprised you can put one foot in from of the other without tripping. LV Dude, why so harsh? I don't know your group, looks like you get a lot of trolls, but you do respond in the wrong way. Why the bitterness? I happen to have a firm grasp on the obvious. Which was what the previous posters statement was. I was obviously amazed by the shocking nature of that informative post. Statements of the obvious, such as that by the previous poster, can actually be quite witty, as was that post. This amazing ability of mine to mentally wrap my mind around the obvious also allows me to see the ground and know where my legs are as I step forward, thus preventing tripping. Shocking, isn't it? -- kj |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than fit [sic] fat women. | NR | General Discussion | 0 | June 17th, 2004 02:19 AM |
Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than fit [sic] fat women. | NR | General Discussion | 0 | May 22nd, 2004 05:15 PM |
Diet Linked To Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma | pearl | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 164 | April 11th, 2004 10:29 AM |
Women warned obesity can kill | Ken Kubos | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | February 5th, 2004 10:15 PM |
On "Weighing Obesity" | Steve Chaney, aka Papa Gunnykins ® | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | September 24th, 2003 03:13 AM |