ARTICLE: "The Obesity Myth"

jmk wrote:
:: On 6/29/2004 4:07 PM, Roger Zoul wrote:
::: jmk wrote:
::::: On 6/29/2004 3:08 PM, Cubit wrote:
:::::: To me the intro page of the article is pure heresy. Recent
:::::: findings on the hormonal soup released by fat on the body
:::::: underscores the nature of the danger of being obese.
::::::
:::::: The article seems to suggest that 500 pound man need only
:::::: exercise to be healthy. In reality, a 500 pound man has a huge
:::::: mass of muscle needed to just make walking possible.
::::::
:::::: I did not want to click through to the rest of it. Why pollute
:::::: my mind?
::::::
::::::
::::: Well, the thing is, I have always been active. I have always
::::: hiked. I biked for 18 months before I got serious about trying a
::::: different WOE,
::::: etc. I lost 80 pounds. I feel better. I am more fit.
:::
::: Neither one of those indicators speaks to your health.
::
:: If they are not indicators of my health, they are also not
:: indicators of the author's health and that would pretty much blow
:: his thesis, wouldn't it?

No. You can still be unhealthly and be fit and you can be unhealthy and be
fat. His point, as I see it, is that overfat is not as implicitly unhealthy
as it seems many would have us believe. At a certain point, focusing on
fitness is likely more benefical to maintaining and improving health than
focusing on weight. The author's point is that most research points to
improved fitness having greater impact on health than merely losing pounds
(but this is a YMMV kind of thing because the more overfat one is, the
greater the impact it has on degrading health)

:: His thesis is that fitness is more
:: important than weight adn that fitness should be stressed to people.
:: From your response below, he measures fitness compared to himself
:: (his previous fitness level). Why is that valid for him and not
:: valid for me?

It's valid for you too. However, fitness doesn't imply good health.
However, focusing on fitness is likely to have a greater impact on health
than merely focusing on weight, assuming one is not so overweight that the
mere fact of it promotes poor health and prevents a focus on fitness.

::
:: You can feel good,
::: be fit, but still not be in good health. Or, you can be overweight
::: and be in poor health. Or, you can be overweight, get plenty of
::: exercise, and be in good health.
::
:: Well, I was overweight and not in bad health and now I am at a better
:: weight and I am more fit and I am in better health. This is based on
:: medical tests. I have never had high blood pressure, cholesterol
:: problems, bg problems, etc. I can tell that my heart is in better
:: shape now. Simply the fact that my recovery rate is much improved.

From what you say, you have certainly improved your fitness (good for you).
However, from what you say, I see no reason to assume you were in poor
health -- as you never had any problem.s You were simply unfit. I would
say that you have certainly taken steps to PROTECT your health long term and
the improved fitness will enhance your quality of life. And even if you
didn't lose another pound (I don't know where you are right now in your
journey, so please don't take that personally) those benefits would continue
as long as you remain active. OTOH, if you stopped being active, but didn't
gain another pound ever, your fitness would decrease, and eventually so
would your health. So while fitness doesn't equate to health, it does have
an impact on it. As does being overfat, obviously.

You heart may be more trained now, yes. However, it could simply be that
when you move you stress your heart less since you weigh less. Simply
losing weight can improve fitness, though it may or may not improve health.
As an example, take someone who is a type 2 diabetic that loses 100 lbs on a
low-fat /low cal diet. More than likely, their fitness will have improved.
However, the diabetes control may not have improved at all due to eating too
many carbs and not getting sufficient exercise. Their health could be poor.
There are plenty of normal weight diabetics around with more control and
poor health.

::
:::
::: I can
::::: exercise
::::: a lot more and I can look back and say, yeah, I was riding my bike
::::: 6x a
::::: week for 14 miles (yes, over 80 miles a week) at 14 mph or so but
::::: that
::::: was not fit compared to where I am at now. I can hike so much
::::: better now it isn't even funny. I just generally feel so much
::::: better and I know that I am healthier because I am fueling my
::::: body way better than I
:::
::: How do you know you're healthier? Did you lose some health
::: problems that you formerly had?
::
:: Climbing (hiking) is better, I am rarely out of breath, while blood
:: pressure was not bad before, it has improved, etc. I move better
:: and my joints are happier now.

You have less load to move around. You're fitter because of the weight loss
(in part, anyway). I hate to say this, but if you have some kind of heart
defect that you didn't know about previously, you could still drop dead from
it tomorrow. Certainly you've improved the condition of your joints due to
less weight, but not because of less fat. Some of those problems might
exist even if you were carrying muscle mass (not likely), but what I'm
saying is that the presense of fat per se wasn't the problem, it was more
the result of not having the proper frame to handle that weight.

I nmy own case, i've dropped 130 lbs, I ride my bicycle 100+ miles per week,
weight train 3X times per week. I've improved fitness. However, I'm still
a type 2 diabetic and if I didn't control my BG via exericse and diet, I
would be boing back down the road to worsening health and greater problems.



::
:::
::::: was before I lost that weight. So, when the author says that he
::::: is fit
::::: and active, what does that mean? Fit and active compared to...
:::
::: Compared to himself.
::
:: He
::
:: One can improve fitness without losing a pound. Or,
::: one can lose a lot of weight and become fitter for a particular
::: activity just due to being lighter. Hiking and bicycling, for
::: example. Those are two exercises where simply losing pounds will
::: improve your fitness for doing those activities. However, that
::: doesn't mean that further training at a new & lighter weight won't
::: give rise to yet greater fitness.
::
:: Yes, one can improve fitness without weight loss. I did that for a
:: few years before improving my WOE/WOL.
::
::::: At a
::::: healthy weight for his body type compared to...
:::
::: Healthy doesn't not mean fit and neither term has to do with the
::: amount of bodyfat one carries.
::
:: I actually do think that fitness is a large component of a healthy
:: lifestyle.

Absolutely. Even moreso that trying to lose the last bit of extra fat that
people carry around, imo. And that, I think, is the point the author is
trying to make. We are blindly attacking fatness, making it the thing to
remove, rather than finding ways to get people more active. That plus
limiting the excessive consumption we have become accumtomed to would
probably eliminate the obesity issue. The message wouldn't on be "eat less,
exercise more", which no one wants to hear, it would be "eat well and
active."

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:03:44 -0400, jmk
announced in front of God and everybody:

If they are not indicators of my health, they are also not indicators of
the author's health and that would pretty much blow his thesis, wouldn't
it? His thesis is that fitness is more important than weight adn that
fitness should be stressed to people. From your response below, he
measures fitness compared to himself (his previous fitness level). Why
is that valid for him and not valid for me?

Have you considered reading the damn thing yourself, rather than
making Roger explain it to you?

Just a thought.

Dawn

On 6/30/2004 1:04 PM, Dawn Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:03:44 -0400, jmk
announced in front of God and everybody:


If they are not indicators of my health, they are also not indicators of
the author's health and that would pretty much blow his thesis, wouldn't
it? His thesis is that fitness is more important than weight adn that
fitness should be stressed to people. From your response below, he
measures fitness compared to himself (his previous fitness level). Why
is that valid for him and not valid for me?


Have you considered reading the damn thing yourself, rather than
making Roger explain it to you?

Just a thought.

I did read the article.

--
jmk in NC

Dominic Shields wrote:

Can I introduce you to two people beloved of epidemiologists - "Uncle
Norman" and "The Last Person"

Well, obviously being "the last person" didn't do much good for my friend,
or his grieving family!
--
Debbie

Dominic Shields wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:21:32 GMT, "Debbie Cusick"
wrote:


Dominic Shields wrote:


Can I introduce you to two people beloved of epidemiologists - "Uncle
Norman" and "The Last Person"

Well, obviously being "the last person" didn't do much good for my friend,
or his grieving family!


As you know, stats apply to large numbers to indicate tendencies, when
people use the phrase "Play the percentage shot" in various sports
they don't indicate a certainty, they indicate that experience shows
this is the one most likely to come off in an advantageous way.

Applied to health I have never smoked, I don't imagine that I could
not contract lung cancer, but I am playing the percentages.

Oh well lunger cancer is just one form of cancer and heart disease is just one
of the causes of death. We can play percentages for particular causes of death
but I don't think we have much leverage over the overall death rate.

Oh well lunger cancer is just one form of cancer and heart disease is just
one
of the causes of death. We can play percentages for particular causes of
death
but I don't think we have much leverage over the overall death rate.

A lunger is most at risk, when he lunges at a man with a gun.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:07:48 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
wrote:

One can improve fitness without losing a pound.

Or 2.

Or,
one can lose a lot of weight and become fitter for a particular activity
just due to being lighter. Hiking and bicycling, for example. Those are
two exercises where simply losing pounds will improve your fitness for doing
those activities.

It may improve your performance but weight loss itself is not
inversely related to fitness....as you yourself have often said.


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:22:42 +0100, Ada Ma
wrote:

Oh well lunger cancer is just one form of cancer and heart disease is just one
of the causes of death. We can play percentages for particular causes of death
but I don't think we have much leverage over the overall death rate.

The leverage you want is over your quality of life.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:04:10 -0700, Dawn Taylor
wrote:

Have you considered reading the damn thing yourself, rather than
making Roger explain it to you?

Just a thought.

Dawn

Speaking of thoughts, what happened to the one where you claimed you
have too little time to idiot bash anymore?

Just a thought.

Mu
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 10:04:10 -0700, Dawn Taylor
wrote:

Have you considered reading the damn thing yourself, rather than
making Roger explain it to you?

Just a thought.

Dawn

Speaking of thoughts, what happened to the one where you claimed you
have too little time to idiot bash anymore?

Just a thought.

Mu
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.