Unfit thin women have a lower mortality rate than *cough* fit fat women.

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-----

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-----

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.

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

"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

-----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-----

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.

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

-----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-----

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