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

Robert wrote:

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.

Of course not only death and taxes are certain. But you can follow
some basic preventative medical practices and surely rule out those
with obvious problems and increase your odds geometrically. If Jim
Fixx had undergone a simple exam his problem would been noted and
possibly some corrective action. At least he would have been told he
might die if he continued to run. He was having all kinds of
problems and chose to ignore them.

Nor am I overconfident that I will be shot by a sniper or run over
while running, biking or hiking.

I'm not suggesting that exercise implies invincibility and negates
the need to monitor your health, although I get a perverse pleasure
when my doc says you are 58 with a 30 year old body.

If you don't believe me then ask a cardiologist.
I run with one thank you and we often talk. My group also includes a
urologist, GP and God held me a foot geek(a Podiatrist).


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.


I don't disagree there are risks but wanted to stress to get than
exam, off your butts, weight down or at least redistributed to
muscle from fat, and lessen the obesity related problems only one
being Type !! Diabetes. Combine that with a balanced diet with a
slight decrease in caloric intake and the weight will slowly and
safely come off. All these diet plans are fingers in the dike.




He will not say, yeah go all out and really give it your all
because I gave you a stress test.

I never said that nor do I think I suggested that. I'm a avid fan of
moderation and mentor many new people into exercise.

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.

Your tone suggests that because they have these problems the risks
are too high and ring this loud alarm. Maybe it's just your choice
or words but it sounds closer to paranoia than be careful when you
start. You cite anecdotal cases which weakens your logic. There are
volumes of success stories of people found with nasty health markers
that did start an moderate(added lest you think I'm suggesting a
marathon the day after the doctors visit) exercise program and did
wonders to their health and QUALITY of life. There are oodles of
others like my self at 39 had no specific markers another than 38
inch waist on on 6'1' frame and took the warning I was heading in
the wrong direction.

I may not live one day longer, or I might have one of those freak
infarctions while taking a dump but I'll take those odds thank you.



--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

Ignoramus6480 wrote:


I bet people shovel their driveways more often than marathoners run
marathons... Just a guess.
They do a lot of running in preparation so the chances on race day
are minimized.



Anyway, obviously, the ones who die
shoveling their driveways are sedentary people and my mediocrity
principle states that one should not be too sedentary.

They take their gulp of beer after the two double whoppers and fries
and proceed out door for shoveling exercise. Talk about a sudden
shock to the body.

--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

Ignoramus6480 wrote:


Marathoners are genetically gifted people who exercise.

I disagree, they simply decided to run. If you consider not having
arthritis gifted then maybe but otherwise they are just motivated.
One can always question the motivation but true for any sport.



A question is, if those people, instead of running marathons, were
jogging and exercising more modestly, would they live longer?

Also, they do not run many marathons. If they increase the # of
marathons run, would they live longer? If they decrease that #, would
they live longer?

No data on either other than general better health. Most of us don't
exercise to live longer but to feel better while we are here. Again
there a cars, snipers and diseases that we have little control over.


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".

Superior is a poor choice of words. FWIW, we sure do feel and look
better.


--
Doug Freese
"Caveat Lector"

"jmk" wrote in message
...


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?

It was mentioned that the jogger or marathan guy did not have medical
checkups with the implication being he took care of all that by running and
assumed it would protect him from heart disease. The overtone of that
article states"excercise, not diet, may be best defense against heart
disease. If that jogger had read that he might have thought the same way.
To take it one step furthur he would have said the hell with cholesterol
checkups or statin drugs and just rely on excercise.

--
jmk in NC

On 12/9/2003 2:02 PM, Robert wrote:
"jmk" wrote in message
...


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?


It was mentioned that the jogger or marathan guy did not have medical
checkups with the implication being he took care of all that by running and
assumed it would protect him from heart disease. The overtone of that
article states"excercise, not diet, may be best defense against heart
disease. If that jogger had read that he might have thought the same way.

He MIGHT have thought that or and he MIGHT NOT have. That's just
speculation on your part.

--
jmk in NC

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

The correct word is moderation.

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

The correct word is moderation.

Just thought that you might want to know.