Down Fall of Low Carb

wrote:

:: Oh, good grief. What would satisfy you? Does "Obesity" have to go
:: on the death certificate?

Wow...I'm not going to bother responding to your points since this entire
exchange has gone stupid. The point I originally replied to had to do with
Aaron saying this:

"Being overweight appears to me to be one of the worst things you can
do to your health -- I've known 90-year-old smokers and drinkers, but
no 90-year-old fat people -- so I can't imagine how you'd separate
those two things. If your diet causes you to gain weight or keep on
extra weight, it's unhealthy."

Now, you're pecking out BS about "morbidly obese". Where did he say that?
Aaron knows how to use words and I know how to read them. His comment said
"being overweight". Now, exactly where does one determine the point where
one is overweight? Once they are morbidly obese? Was he saying that he
doesn't see any 90-yo morbidly obese people or was he saying something else?

Surely, you'll respond by telling us what to assume he meant. Again, get
real.

And as for Doug, perhaps you should do some googling. I spent many a post
on some of this comments. The thing is, though, rarely is anything he says
harmful, IMO. Yeah, I do agree that he has his own ideas about how to do
Atkins, and I can see some value to them. But he can definitely "read" some
thing there (as far as I can tell) that doesn't seem to be there. I dont'
have problems with that as long as he says stuff like "IMO" rather than
trying say what Atkins really means or meant.

SNIP Depends on what you're talking about....I know slim people who
manage to
have decreased lifespan too. I know fat people who don't control BP and
diabetes who die from those complications. So, is it being overweight or
not dealing with related issues that kills?

This is what struck me out of that post. It made me think of
people--diabetic or not--who are fat because of some other condition that
prevents them from getting any exercise. I was in a doctor's waiting room
one day, listening to 3 diabetic people in wheelchairs while waiting for a
prescription. They were all really obese, but how much of it was because
they couldn't walk or because one or more feet had been amputated? One of
them remarked that when a doctor told her "way back when" to control her
food intake and bring her diabetes under control, she just flat didn't
believe him---after all, she felt just fine (at the time).I know a woman who
desperately needs a knee replacement but is afraid of the surgery. She
doesn't walk much and so is putting on the weight. If she dies prematurely,
is it from the obesity or from the inactivity?

Just wondering, because obesity may be from other causes than overeating....

Pat in TX

On May 13, 9:09 am, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
wrote:

:: Oh, good grief. What would satisfy you? Does "Obesity" have to go
:: on the death certificate?

Wow...I'm not going to bother responding to your points since this entire
exchange has gone stupid. The point I originally replied to had to do with
Aaron saying this:

"Being overweight appears to me to be one of the worst things you can
do to your health -- I've known 90-year-old smokers and drinkers, but
no 90-year-old fat people -- so I can't imagine how you'd separate
those two things. If your diet causes you to gain weight or keep on
extra weight, it's unhealthy."

Now, you're pecking out BS about "morbidly obese". Where did he say that?
Aaron knows how to use words and I know how to read them. His comment said
"being overweight". Now, exactly where does one determine the point where
one is overweight? Once they are morbidly obese? Was he saying that he
doesn't see any 90-yo morbidly obese people or was he saying something else?

Surely, you'll respond by telling us what to assume he meant. Again, get
real.



My comments regarding what would have to go on a death certificate to
satisfy you came about because when I asked if you didn't agree that
obesity decreases lifespan, you refused to answer the question and
instead stated that those people die of heart disease, diabetes,
etc. And I'm supposed to get real?


I only brought up morbid obesity because you refuse to acknowledge
that there is overwhelming evidence that obese people have a shorter
lifespan that those that are not obese. And that's why when it's
severe enough, they call it morbid obesity. And sure I know Aaron
used the terms overweight and fat. That is why BMI entered the
discussion, because I wanted to clarify what I meant by obese.. BMI
provides a way to do a first order catagorization of people who are
normal, overweight, obese and morbidly obese. Unless you have some
kind of definition of what is meant by fat, obese, normal, you can't
classify mortality rates at all. And I agree BMI isn't perfect, but
it one way. And when you do,the data show that those in the obese
and morbid obesity groups have shorter lifespans. So, it's not
unusual that we wouldn't encounter obese 90+ people. And Aaron's
observation was interesting. It got me thinking and my experience
agrees with it, as I've know 90+ folks, but none that were obese.
Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me and really can't see why
anyone would find this observation so controversial or objectionable.





And as for Doug, perhaps you should do some googling. I spent many a post
on some of this comments. The thing is, though, rarely is anything he says
harmful, IMO. Yeah, I do agree that he has his own ideas about how to do
Atkins, and I can see some value to them. But he can definitely "read" some
thing there (as far as I can tell) that doesn't seem to be there. I dont'
have problems with that as long as he says stuff like "IMO" rather than
trying say what Atkins really means or meant.

I know you did weigh in against what he was saying some of the time
and I appreciated it. What I can;t understand is your vehement
objection to my simple observation that like Aaron, in my life
experience, I haven't known any 90+ obese people. In my view there
was plenty that Doug spewed as fact that you never objected to, or
called silly, while for some reason my simple observation about 90
years old, which is clearly only an observation, is so objectionable.

wrote:
:: On May 13, 9:09 am, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
::: wrote:
:::
::::: Oh, good grief. What would satisfy you? Does "Obesity" have to
::::: go on the death certificate?
:::
::: Wow...I'm not going to bother responding to your points since this
::: entire exchange has gone stupid. The point I originally replied to
::: had to do with Aaron saying this:
:::
::: "Being overweight appears to me to be one of the worst things you
::: can
::: do to your health -- I've known 90-year-old smokers and drinkers,
::: but
::: no 90-year-old fat people -- so I can't imagine how you'd separate
::: those two things. If your diet causes you to gain weight or keep on
::: extra weight, it's unhealthy."
:::
::: Now, you're pecking out BS about "morbidly obese". Where did he
::: say that? Aaron knows how to use words and I know how to read them.
::: His comment said "being overweight". Now, exactly where does one
::: determine the point where one is overweight? Once they are
::: morbidly obese? Was he saying that he doesn't see any 90-yo
::: morbidly obese people or was he saying something else?
:::
::: Surely, you'll respond by telling us what to assume he meant.
::: Again, get real.
:::
::
::
:: My comments regarding what would have to go on a death certificate to
:: satisfy you came about because when I asked if you didn't agree that
:: obesity decreases lifespan, you refused to answer the question and
:: instead stated that those people die of heart disease, diabetes,
:: etc. And I'm supposed to get real?

I didn't respond to the question because you asked a question that I never
had an objection to. Thus, we're simply talking passed one another in these
long convoluted threads. My issues weren't about simply being obese as they
are about being overweight, which I think is a very different thing. Again,
if you read Aaron's statement he doesn't even make that distinction, which
frankly, I think is a nit worth picking.

The greater issue of whether being obese decreases lifespan is still
debatable, IMO. Historically, I think research conclusions are available
which says it has contributed strongly to decreased lifespan. However, I
think lifestyle issues also weigh in heavily too. Thus, it very well could
be possible that an obese person (since that's now what we're talking about)
might not have shortened lifespan if lifestyle issues such as being
sedentary, poor diet, and control of BG, BP, and other markers are held in
check as the the person ages. I think that over the past 50 years
substanial improvements have been made on the ability of a person to
actually control many of these other factors, even though it may be harder
for a person to gain control over the weight issue.

Do you have data that controls for these issues? If you do, I'd be happy to
read them and revise my position where appropriate.


::
::
:: I only brought up morbid obesity because you refuse to acknowledge
:: that there is overwhelming evidence that obese people have a shorter
:: lifespan that those that are not obese. And that's why when it's
:: severe enough, they call it morbid obesity. And sure I know Aaron
:: used the terms overweight and fat. That is why BMI entered the
:: discussion, because I wanted to clarify what I meant by obese.. BMI
:: provides a way to do a first order catagorization of people who are
:: normal, overweight, obese and morbidly obese. Unless you have some
:: kind of definition of what is meant by fat, obese, normal, you can't
:: classify mortality rates at all. And I agree BMI isn't perfect, but
:: it one way. And when you do,the data show that those in the obese
:: and morbid obesity groups have shorter lifespans. So, it's not
:: unusual that we wouldn't encounter obese 90+ people. And Aaron's
:: observation was interesting. It got me thinking and my experience
:: agrees with it, as I've know 90+ folks, but none that were obese.
:: Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me and really can't see
:: why anyone would find this observation so controversial or
:: objectionable.

Again, you're putting the blame quite squarely on a single factor. Thus, I
won't agree because I basicaly believe that's too simplistic.

::
::
::: And as for Doug, perhaps you should do some googling. I spent many
::: a post on some of this comments. The thing is, though, rarely is
::: anything he says harmful, IMO. Yeah, I do agree that he has his own
::: ideas about how to do Atkins, and I can see some value to them.
::: But he can definitely "read" some thing there (as far as I can
::: tell) that doesn't seem to be there. I dont' have problems with
::: that as long as he says stuff like "IMO" rather than trying say
::: what Atkins really means or meant.
::
:: I know you did weigh in against what he was saying some of the time
:: and I appreciated it. What I can;t understand is your vehement
:: objection to my simple observation that like Aaron, in my life
:: experience, I haven't known any 90+ obese people.

I think "vehement" is a bit strong. It just looks that way as I'm willing
to debate a point about which I think overly simplistic views are being put
forth. My position is no more "vehement" than yours.

:: In my view there
:: was plenty that Doug spewed as fact that you never objected to, or
:: called silly, while for some reason my simple observation about 90
:: years old, which is clearly only an observation, is so objectionable.

You know as well as I do that n=2 is a poor base from which to draw
conclusions. But more than that, being simplistic never helps anyone. The
message I hear is "Oh, I'm way too fat and I can't deal with it, so I should
expect to die early." This kind of simplistic thinking has far reaching
impacts, IMO. Insurance companies draw rates based on BMI only (because it's
simple). Worse yet, people assume there is little they can do to improve
their odds other than lose weight. I'm not convinced of that. What would
happen if those people didn't manage to lose a single pound but instead
improved BG, BP, Chol, and because less sedentary? Would that add years to
their lives or not? If you claim that it's simply a matter of the amount of
fat on their bodies, then obviously these people are doomed to your supposed
fate.

On May 14, 1:41 pm, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
wrote:

:: On May 13, 9:09 am, "Roger Zoul" wrote:::: wrote:

:::
::::: Oh, good grief. What would satisfy you? Does "Obesity" have to
::::: go on the death certificate?
:::
::: Wow...I'm not going to bother responding to your points since this
::: entire exchange has gone stupid. The point I originally replied to
::: had to do with Aaron saying this:
:::
::: "Being overweight appears to me to be one of the worst things you
::: can
::: do to your health -- I've known 90-year-old smokers and drinkers,
::: but
::: no 90-year-old fat people -- so I can't imagine how you'd separate
::: those two things. If your diet causes you to gain weight or keep on
::: extra weight, it's unhealthy."
:::
::: Now, you're pecking out BS about "morbidly obese". Where did he
::: say that? Aaron knows how to use words and I know how to read them.
::: His comment said "being overweight". Now, exactly where does one
::: determine the point where one is overweight? Once they are
::: morbidly obese? Was he saying that he doesn't see any 90-yo
::: morbidly obese people or was he saying something else?
:::
::: Surely, you'll respond by telling us what to assume he meant.
::: Again, get real.
:::
::
::
:: My comments regarding what would have to go on a death certificate to
:: satisfy you came about because when I asked if you didn't agree that
:: obesity decreases lifespan, you refused to answer the question and
:: instead stated that those people die of heart disease, diabetes,
:: etc. And I'm supposed to get real?

I didn't respond to the question because you asked a question that I never
had an objection to. Thus, we're simply talking passed one another in these
long convoluted threads. My issues weren't about simply being obese as they
are about being overweight, which I think is a very different thing. Again,
if you read Aaron's statement he doesn't even make that distinction, which
frankly, I think is a nit worth picking.


Again, I agree that there is a difference between being modestly
overweight and being obese. Which is why I used the term obese,
rather than fat and offerd BMI as one measuere used to catagorize
obese, vs overweight and normal people. I never expected it to be so
controversial.




The greater issue of whether being obese decreases lifespan is still
debatable, IMO.

That finally answers part of the question. It's now clear that you
aren't convinced that obesity leads to a shortened lifespan.



Historically, I think research conclusions are available
which says it has contributed strongly to decreased lifespan. However, I
think lifestyle issues also weigh in heavily too. Thus, it very well could
be possible that an obese person (since that's now what we're talking about)
might not have shortened lifespan if lifestyle issues such as being
sedentary, poor diet, and control of BG, BP, and other markers are held in
check as the the person ages. I think that over the past 50 years
substanial improvements have been made on the ability of a person to
actually control many of these other factors, even though it may be harder
for a person to gain control over the weight issue.

Do you have data that controls for these issues? If you do, I'd be happy to
read them and revise my position where appropriate.

:

No, while data that conrols for some things is likely available, I
haven't seen any.


:
::
:: I only brought up morbid obesity because you refuse to acknowledge
:: that there is overwhelming evidence that obese people have a shorter
:: lifespan that those that are not obese. And that's why when it's
:: severe enough, they call it morbid obesity. And sure I know Aaron
:: used the terms overweight and fat. That is why BMI entered the
:: discussion, because I wanted to clarify what I meant by obese.. BMI
:: provides a way to do a first order catagorization of people who are
:: normal, overweight, obese and morbidly obese. Unless you have some
:: kind of definition of what is meant by fat, obese, normal, you can't
:: classify mortality rates at all. And I agree BMI isn't perfect, but
:: it one way. And when you do,the data show that those in the obese
:: and morbid obesity groups have shorter lifespans. So, it's not
:: unusual that we wouldn't encounter obese 90+ people. And Aaron's
:: observation was interesting. It got me thinking and my experience
:: agrees with it, as I've know 90+ folks, but none that were obese.
:: Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me and really can't see
:: why anyone would find this observation so controversial or
:: objectionable.

Again, you're putting the blame quite squarely on a single factor. Thus, I
won't agree because I basicaly believe that's too simplistic.

::

And here's where you go completely astray. I'm not putting blame
anywhere. I never said obesity is a single factor. All I was saying
was

1 - In my life expeience I haven't known any obese 90+ year olds

2 - There is plenty of statistical evidence that shows obese people
have shortened lifespans, so #1 above isn't surprising.


Now, how this gets turned into maybe it's not the obesity that's doing
it, but being sedentary, poor diet, uncontrolled BG levels, etc is
beyond me. I'm not arguing any of that. It doesn't change the fact
that obese people as a group have a shortened lifespan. If obesity
causes the sedentary lifestyle or if the sedentary lifestyle causes
the obesity, it doesn't change the fact that as a group, obese people
die sooner.






::
::: And as for Doug, perhaps you should do some googling. I spent many
::: a post on some of this comments. The thing is, though, rarely is
::: anything he says harmful, IMO. Yeah, I do agree that he has his own
::: ideas about how to do Atkins, and I can see some value to them.
::: But he can definitely "read" some thing there (as far as I can
::: tell) that doesn't seem to be there. I dont' have problems with
::: that as long as he says stuff like "IMO" rather than trying say
::: what Atkins really means or meant.
::
:: I know you did weigh in against what he was saying some of the time
:: and I appreciated it. What I can;t understand is your vehement
:: objection to my simple observation that like Aaron, in my life
:: experience, I haven't known any 90+ obese people.

I think "vehement" is a bit strong. It just looks that way as I'm willing
to debate a point about which I think overly simplistic views are being put
forth. My position is no more "vehement" than yours.

:: In my view there
:: was plenty that Doug spewed as fact that you never objected to, or
:: called silly, while for some reason my simple observation about 90
:: years old, which is clearly only an observation, is so objectionable.

You know as well as I do that n=2 is a poor base from which to draw
conclusions. But more than that, being simplistic never helps anyone. The
message I hear is "Oh, I'm way too fat and I can't deal with it, so I should
expect to die early."

Don;t know who you heard that from, certianly not me. I would say
though that obesity leads to many health complications that will
shorten your lifespan and quality of life, and to avoid that you
should lose weight.


This kind of simplistic thinking has far reaching
impacts, IMO. Insurance companies draw rates based on BMI only (because it's
simple).

Yes, they may, use BMI as one indicator, because there is statistical
basis for it. However, it's only one factor, which together with a
whole bunch of other ones determines the rate. Many policies are
issued with no physical, so, what other measure should they use.
Would you give the same rate to a 5-10 175lb guy and one that weighed
250?


Worse yet, people assume there is little they can do to improve
their odds other than lose weight. I'm not convinced of that. What would
happen if those people didn't manage to lose a single pound but instead
improved BG, BP, Chol, and because less sedentary? Would that add years to
their lives or not? If you claim that it's simply a matter of the amount of
fat on their bodies, then obviously these people are doomed to your supposed
fate.

Sure, doing some of those things will likely improve their lifespan.
I would never argue that it wouldn't. But I doubt it's going to
increase their lifespan or quality of life as much as losing weight
would. And I don't think you'd argue that it's better to get things
under control by losing weight than by taking 6 different drugs, which
is what most people today who are obese and under a Dr care would do
to get BG, BP, Chole, etc under control.

"Roger Zoul" writes:

You look out at "a" population (on that which you see) and you draw
conclusions. "Ah, none of these old people are fat. Therefore, being
"fat" is unhealthy. Yet, you made no mention of the slim people you
didn't see that are dead as well. Why don't you count them
alongside the fat people who also aren't there?

So *all* slim people have to reach old age before you're willing to
claim something statistically interesting might be happening? Come
on.

If 10% of all left-handed baseball players had batting averages over
..400, and only 1% of right-handed players did so, that would be
statistically significant, and left-handed prospects would be more
valuable in general. You wouldn't say, "Yeah, but what about the
other 90% of left-handers who don't hit .400? Why don't you count
them?" The answer is: I am counting them, by elimination.

In my family, the people who have lived to 90+ were slim; and the ones
who were still healthy and active at that age, and not abed in a
nursing home, tend to be the ones who were slim all their lives. When
I see the old guys roll up in their Rascals to the coffee shop
downstairs every morning, I see a bunch of thin guys. After a while,
I start to think, hmm, maybe there's a connection here.

I'm not writing a thesis here, for cripes sake, or working from a
government grant. I'm just musing on my observations, and noting that
some of our priorities where health risks are concerned don't seem to
be proportional to the actual danger. It seems to me that obesity --
or certain factors that cause obesity -- shortens the average lifespan
more consistently than many things that we worry a lot more about.
That's all.



--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

"Most of us inhabit at least two worlds: the real world, where we're
at the mercy of circumstance; and the world within, the unconscious, a
safe place where we can escape." -- The Maxx