Exercise, Not Diet, May be Best Defense Against Heart Disease

Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau 'the banana-boy'
rambled on about " Exercise, Not Diet, May be Best Defense
Against Heart Disease."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Where there it is!

Running marathons is nutty behavior.

Keep on trollin', oh-great-one...

Thanks!

I intend to.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

"jmk" wrote in message
...
On 12/8/2003 2:20 PM, Marcio Watanabe wrote:
"Robert" wrote:


Tell that to the marathon guy who died of a heart attack at 42 years of
age.


This is like giving an example of a smoker who live till age 100 to
show that smoking is not bad for your health. Lame.

In what way are these similar cases? Jim Fixx was 52 when he died in
1984. He had a family history of heart disease. His father had heart
attack at age 35 and died of a heart attack at age 43. Jim Fixx's
lifestyle most likely added years to his life.

The problem is he probably thought as most be here seem to be saying is that
"because" a person runs he has taken care of the single most important risk
factor.


In the case of the hypothetical smoker, how long *would he have lived*
if he hadn't smoked?

That's true but again a paradox comes to play. How many people suffer heart
attacks after running. It can precipitate the very thing one is avoiding.
A friend of mine had one after running and survived it. His doctor told him
he was lucky he was a runner as it helped him survive it.
????????

It really gets back to my main point in that there are many risk factors
that you have to look at if you are really interested in doing all you can
do to minimize risks. One of those is not over doing it in exercise.
Exercise helps in stroke volume, collateral circulation, insulin receptors
and HDL etc. The risk factors associated with heart disease are more
comprehensive than that.
Exercise helps avoiding some heart attacks but not all and it helps in all
cases in terms of survival rates because of collateral circulation.

jmk wrote:


In the case of the hypothetical smoker, how long *would he have lived*
if he hadn't smoked?

Probably lived much much less. He ould have been able to walk faster
and provided more opportunity to be run over.

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

Robert wrote:


In what way are these similar cases? Jim Fixx was 52 when he died in
1984. He had a family history of heart disease. His father had heart
attack at age 35 and died of a heart attack at age 43. Jim Fixx's
lifestyle most likely added years to his life.


The problem is he probably thought as most be here seem to be saying is that
"because" a person runs he has taken care of the single most important risk
factor.

In most cases it is a fact!

In the case of the hypothetical smoker, how long *would he have lived*
if he hadn't smoked?


That's true but again a paradox comes to play. How many people suffer heart
attacks after running. It can precipitate the very thing one is avoiding.

Man what a stretch. You just love pointing at the .0001 percentile
to prove some point.

A friend of mine had one after running and survived it. His doctor told him
he was lucky he was a runner as it helped him survive it.

Then he like Jim Fixx was dumb, very dumb. Before any exercise
program one should have a physical. Even the healthy exercising
person should have a yearly physical. Anyone, Jim Fixx or your
friend that assumed exercise removed the need to undergo a physical
is a moron. Jim Fixx on this point was not bright either. Physicals
are for all people.

If we assume a yearly physical where history plus blood work are
taken, it will then severely cut the odds.



It really gets back to my main point in that there are many risk factors
that you have to look at if you are really interested in doing all you can
do to minimize risks. One of those is not over doing it in exercise.


Exercise helps in stroke volume, collateral circulation, insulin receptors
and HDL etc. The risk factors associated with heart disease are more
comprehensive than that.
Exercise helps avoiding some heart attacks but not all and it helps in all
cases in terms of survival rates because of collateral circulation.

What ever happened to common sense in this equation? Have a physical
to understand your risk factors. if you paranoid havbe a stress
test. If the risk factors are nonexistent or few, then exercise to
prevent any new ones. By the way exercise prevents more than heart
attacks.


--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

"John 'the Man'" wrote in message
...
Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus25226
rambled on about " Exercise, Not Diet, May be
Best Defense
Against Heart Disease."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition
retorts, thusly ...

The best life extension strategy seems to be
mediocrity.

The correct word is moderation.

Mediocrity means a middle state and also means
moderation. So Ignoramus is perfectly correct.

Just thought that you might want to know.

Just thought that you might want to know.

"Doug Freese" wrote in Man what a stretch. You
just love pointing at the .0001 percentile
to prove some point.
It is not a stretch my friend as you know nothing of what can precipitate a
heart attack. In the people who don't excercise a simple dump in the toilet
can cause one. You see many people having heart attacks after excercise and
that is not a stretch.



A friend of mine had one after running and survived it. His doctor told
him
he was lucky he was a runner as it helped him survive it.

Then he like Jim Fixx was dumb, very dumb. Before any exercise
program one should have a physical. Even the healthy exercising
person should have a yearly physical.

Having a physical does not prevent a heart attack and I don't know who told
you that. You can have a tread mill test one day and have a heart attack
the next and it has happened. It is not a sensitive indicator. People will
over exert themselves as in my buddies case where he was running with some
of his partners. He played the macho role of not wanting to slow down. You
are trying to deny any role of excercise in precipitating a heart attack.

Anyone, Jim Fixx or your
friend that assumed exercise removed the need to undergo a physical
is a moron. Jim Fixx on this point was not bright either. Physicals
are for all people.

You are not involved with health care as you place why too much reliance on
a physical.


If we assume a yearly physical where history plus blood work are
taken, it will then severely cut the odds.

I knew a surgeon who was under stress because of a law suit decided to go
out jogging and he never came back alive. Another friend of mine got a
heart attack right after playing basketball.

A physical or blood tests can only tell you if you are at risk in a general
sense but anything more specific like it an angiogram requires money and
therefore people will and do get heart attacks after physicals and blood
work.
What ever happened to common sense in this equation? Have a physical
to understand your risk factors. if you paranoid havbe a stress
test. If the risk factors are nonexistent or few, then exercise to
prevent any new ones. By the way exercise prevents more than heart
attacks.

I think you lack common sense if you come out of a doctors office over
confident that you will not get a heart attack after having a physical and
stress test. If you don't believe me then ask a cardiologist. I am not
paranoid you need to understand the limitations of those things. Any doctor
you see knows this and will always warn you to take it slow and in
moderaton. He will not say, yeah go all out and really give it your all
because I gave you a stress test.
People who are encouraged to exercise are those with high cholesterols, high
blood pressure, diabetics and they all come out of the doctors office and
told to do so and their odds are not cut as you imply. Their disease
doesn't just go away because they visit a doctor. They are also in a high
risk group for heart disease so you lost me with that paranoia talk.

On 12/8/2003 4:22 PM, Robert wrote:
"jmk" wrote in message
...

On 12/8/2003 2:20 PM, Marcio Watanabe wrote:

"Robert" wrote:



Tell that to the marathon guy who died of a heart attack at 42 years of

age.


This is like giving an example of a smoker who live till age 100 to
show that smoking is not bad for your health. Lame.

In what way are these similar cases? Jim Fixx was 52 when he died in
1984. He had a family history of heart disease. His father had heart
attack at age 35 and died of a heart attack at age 43. Jim Fixx's
lifestyle most likely added years to his life.


The problem is he probably thought as most be here seem to be saying is that
"because" a person runs he has taken care of the single most important risk
factor.

What makes you say that? Do you have any references supporting your
statement?

--
jmk in NC

On 12/8/2003 4:34 PM, Ignoramus25226 wrote:
In article , Robert wrote:

That's true but again a paradox comes to play. How many people suffer heart
attacks after running. It can precipitate the very thing one is avoiding.
A friend of mine had one after running and survived it. His doctor told him
he was lucky he was a runner as it helped him survive it.
????????


The best life extension strategy seems to be mediocrity. No not be too
fat, too sedentary, too big muscled, to nor run too fast too long
etc. Just be a well exercised, well eating, flexible, all around
healthy and balanced person instead of trying to set records.

Well, to some extent you may be correct -- overdoing it may be almost as
bad as underdoing it. OTOH, "Figures out of the U.S. suggest that four
or five people die every year running marathons. That’s out of the
450,000 who ran marathons in 2002."
(http://www.cbc.ca/sports/columns/running/death.html). How many people
died of heart attacks in 2002 while shovelling their driveways? I
actually know of one personally :-(.

--
jmk in NC

On 12/9/2003 8:47 AM, Ignoramus6480 wrote:
I bet people shovel their driveways more often than marathoners run
marathons... Just a guess. Anyway, obviously, the ones who die
shoveling their driveways are sedentary people and my mediocrity
principle states that one should not be too sedentary.

Maybe. Maybe not. I don't shovel the driveway. We don't typically get
snow here (not enough to shovel). In fact, large parts of the country
don't get snow :-)

--
jmk in NC

On 12/9/2003 9:21 AM, Ignoramus6480 wrote:

Marathoners are genetically gifted people who exercise.

Not necessarily. Maybe the top few finishers but what about the several
hundred/thousand people behind them?

Just saying that marathoners die less often from marathons than
sedentary people die from driveway shoveling, does not make one way of
life superior to the other. It is just "food for thought".

Actually, what I was saying is that it is no fair to compare people who
run marathons (Jim Fixx dies at age 52 therefore running is bad) with
smokers (someone who smokes lives to be 100 therefore smoking is good).
I provided additional information about Jim Fixx's family history of
heart disease and stated that his running may have increased his life
span. I also never said that sedendary people died from driveway
shovelling. You said that the people who died of heart attacks when
shoveling were sedentary. You made a lot of assumptions about the
lifestyles of the people involved. Excercise, nutrition and family
history all play important roles in our health.

--
jmk in NC