The big fat con story



M

Mike Kruger

Guest
The Guardian has an excerpt from a new book by Paul Campos, "The Obesity
Myth". The excerpt is titled "The big fat con story."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1200549,00.html

There are some interesting points made about the relative
unimportance of body weight per se; I realize that the
Guardian is not a medical journal (and I have no idea of
Campos's credentials), but it makes interesting reading.

Of most relevance here are the following paragraphs on the
relative importance of overweight versus exercise:

"Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a wealth
of evidence indicating that cardiovascular and metabolic
fitness, and the activity levels that promote such fitness,
are far more important predictors of both overall health and
mortality risk than weight. Yet none of the studies most
often cited for the proposition that fat kills makes any
serious attempt to control for these variables.

"The most extensive work of this sort has been carried out
by Steven Blair and his colleagues at Dallas's Cooper
Institute, involving more than 70,000 people. What they have
discovered is that, quite simply, when researchers take into
account the activity levels and resulting fitness of the
people being studied, body mass appears to have no relevance
to health whatsoever. In Blair's studies, obese people who
engage in at least moderate levels of physical activity have
around one half the mortality rate of sedentary people who
maintain supposedly ideal weight levels.

"Similarly, a 1999 Cooper Institute study involving 22,000
men found the highest death rate among sedentary men with
waist measurements under 34 inches, while the lowest death
rate was found among fit men with waist measurements of 40
inches or more. A 1995 Blair study found that improved
fitness (ie, going from "unfit" to "fit"), with the latter
requiring a level of exercise equivalent to going for a
brisk half-hour walk four or five times per week, reduced
subsequent mortality rates by 50%. As Blair himself puts it,
Americans have "a misdirected obsession with weight and
weight loss. The focus is all wrong. It's fitness that is
the key." "

Other interesting claims: (1) people who are overweight have
less problem with osteoporesis, (2) The diet Hillary put
Bill Clinton on might have been partly responsible for his
obsession with Monica Lewinsky.

--
---
Mike Kruger Blog:
http://journals.aol.com/mikekr/ZbicyclistsZlog/
 
<< (2) The diet Hillary put Bill Clinton on might have
been partly responsible for his obsession with Monica
Lewinsky. >>

You know, for a president, Clinton sure did have some
surprisingly low standards with the babes. Come on, buddy!

I guess having a head like a weather balloon didn't help his
cause much.

Robert
 
On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:23:56 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a wealth
>of evidence indicating that cardiovascular and metabolic
>fitness, and the activity levels that promote such fitness,
>are far more important predictors of both overall health
>and mortality risk than weight.
...
>puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with
>weight and weight loss. The focus is all wrong. It's
>fitness that is the key." "

I figured this out when I dieted myself down to the upper-
limit of my recommended weight. I felt terrible all the
time, even though I was sure to provide sufficient
nutrition. I've got little chance of being healthy if I
ignore what my body tells me and force myself down to 170
pounds; OTOH, at 210 pounds, I feel good. I'd probably be
best at 200, but hey, I get to eat all of everything I want
this way...

On the way back up from 170, I tried to level off every 5
pounds, but I didn't feel better until maybe 195. For
another 15 or 20 pounds, I can eat cheeseburgers and cake
all day, and remain healthy as long as I keep riding. My
cholesterol is low, etc...I've just got this aerobelly.
--
Rick Onanian
 
Rick Onanian wrote:
:: On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:23:56 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-
:: potato.com> wrote:
::: "Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a
::: wealth of evidence indicating that cardiovascular and
::: metabolic fitness, and the activity levels that promote
::: such fitness, are far more important predictors of both
::: overall health and mortality risk than weight.
:: ...
::: puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with
::: weight and weight loss. The focus is all wrong. It's
::: fitness that is the key." "
::
:: I figured this out when I dieted myself down to the upper-
:: limit of my recommended weight. I felt terrible all the
:: time, even though I was sure to provide sufficient
:: nutrition. I've got little chance of being healthy if I
:: ignore what my body tells me and force myself down to 170
:: pounds; OTOH, at 210 pounds, I feel good. I'd probably be
:: best at 200, but hey, I get to eat all of everything I
:: want this way...
::
:: On the way back up from 170, I tried to level off every 5
:: pounds, but I didn't feel better until maybe 195. For
:: another 15 or 20 pounds, I can eat cheeseburgers and cake
:: all day, and remain healthy as long as I keep riding. My
:: cholesterol is low, etc...I've just got this aerobelly.

So, I'm curious as to what speed you average on your typical
rides, given the type of terrain you ride and how long
you've been at it.

I'm about 240 lbs right now, so I'd like an idea of what
I might be able to expect if/when I get to 210 or so
(I'm 6'1").

:: --
:: Rick Onanian
 
I wrote:
>:: On the way back up from 170, I tried to level off every
>:: 5 pounds, but I didn't feel better until maybe 195. For
>:: another 15 or 20 pounds, I can eat cheeseburgers and
>:: cake all day, and remain healthy as long as I keep
>:: riding. My cholesterol is low, etc...I've just got this
>:: aerobelly.
On Tue, 11 May 2004 21:40:44 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>So, I'm curious as to what speed you average on your
>typical rides, given the type of terrain you ride and how
>long you've been at it.

I try to ride the flattest terrain I can. The reality is
that I live in Rhode Island which doesn't have any
portion of pavement that goes more than a mile without
going up or down.

Today, riding partially with a group, I averaged 15 mph for
34 miles. Usually, I fail to pace myself well, and the end
result is an average between 13 and 14.5, and I feel
terrible afterwards. Tonight I feel great.

Of course, the hills around here do have one advantage: Max
43 mph, and I didn't even decide to try for a high speed
until after I was already on the hill.

>I'm about 240 lbs right now, so I'd like an idea of what
>I might be able to expect if/when I get to 210 or so
>(I'm 6'1").

I'm a few inches shorter than you, medium to large frame
(body frame, not bike frame ;).
--
Rick Onanian
 
Originally posted by Mike Kruger
The Guardian has an excerpt from a new book by Paul Campos, "The Obesity
Myth". The excerpt is titled "The big fat con story."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1200549,00.html


I agree Mike, I found the article very interesting indeed. After years of struggling with my weight, I've finally tossed out the scales. My goal is to improve my fitness; if the wieght comes off or the dress size goes down, that's nice but I'd rather be strong than slim and maybe I'm one of those people who has to make a choice.

After 40+ years, I've finally accepted that I'm not going to be tall and leggy. I'm short with a "mature" build. Now the goal is to make that short mature build into a mean keen hill climbing machine....and God, I'm having a blast doing it.:D
 
On Tue, 11 May 2004 21:16:04 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:23:56 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-
>potato.com> wrote:
>>"Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a wealth
>>of evidence indicating that cardiovascular and metabolic
>>fitness, and the activity levels that promote such
>>fitness, are far more important predictors of both overall
>>health and mortality risk than weight.
>...
>>puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with
>>weight and weight loss. The focus is all wrong. It's
>>fitness that is the key." "
>
>I figured this out when I dieted myself down to the upper-
>limit of my recommended weight. I felt terrible all the
>time, even though I was sure to provide sufficient
>nutrition. I've got little chance of being healthy if I
>ignore what my body tells me and force myself down to 170
>pounds; OTOH, at 210 pounds, I feel good. I'd probably be
>best at 200, but hey, I get to eat all of everything I want
>this way...

Hmm. I'm doing LC, but at a rate of biking 100 miles per
week, I can eat pretty much whatever I want and still lose
weight. I'm down six pounds this month, and have actually
been overeating a little.

What's your current weekly mileage?

-B
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 May 2004 21:16:04 -0400, Rick Onanian
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:23:56 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-
>>potato.com> wrote:
>>>"Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a
>>>wealth of evidence indicating that cardiovascular and
>>>metabolic fitness, and the activity levels that promote
>>>such fitness, are far more important predictors of both
>>>overall health and mortality risk than weight.
>>...
>>>puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with
>>>weight and weight loss. The focus is all wrong. It's
>>>fitness that is the key." "
>>
>>I figured this out when I dieted myself down to the upper-
>>limit of my recommended weight. I felt terrible all the
>>time, even though I was sure to provide sufficient
>>nutrition. I've got little chance of being healthy if I
>>ignore what my body tells me and force myself down to 170
>>pounds; OTOH, at 210 pounds, I feel good. I'd probably be
>>best at 200, but hey, I get to eat all of everything I
>>want this way...
>
>Hmm. I'm doing LC, but at a rate of biking 100 miles per
>week, I can eat pretty much whatever I want and still lose
>weight. I'm down six pounds this month, and have actually
>been overeating a little.

If you're losing weight you have a net deficit of calories,
which means you are not over-eating. Six pounds in a month
is pretty fast weight loss, how long have you been getting
results like that?

I am riding about 10-12 hours a week and maintaining pretty
steady weight... it does take a lot of food, but I don't
have much weight to lose, maybe another 5-10 tops so I don't
worry about it.

Back to the topic though, while active overweight people may
have a reasonably healthy heart, in the long run many of
them will develop joint problems due to excess weight
(knees, ankles, hips). These problems are very hard to fix
later in life and often contribute to further increases in
weight - joint problems tend to increase sedentary behavior
since moving hurts. Debilitating back pain caused/worsened
by excess weight is epidemic in this country, it virtually
supports the painkiller industry.
 
Paul Southworth wrote:
:: In article <[email protected]>,
:: Badger_South <[email protected]> wrote:
::: On Tue, 11 May 2004 21:16:04 -0400, Rick Onanian
::: <[email protected]> wrote:
:::
:::: On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:23:56 GMT, "Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-
:::: potato.com> wrote:
::::: "Over the past 20 years, scientists have gathered a
::::: wealth of evidence indicating that cardiovascular and
::::: metabolic fitness, and the activity levels that
::::: promote such fitness, are far more important
::::: predictors of both overall health and mortality risk
::::: than weight.
:::: ...
::::: puts it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with
::::: weight and weight loss. The focus is all wrong. It's
::::: fitness that is the key." "
::::
:::: I figured this out when I dieted myself down to the upper-
:::: limit of my recommended weight. I felt terrible all the
:::: time, even though I was sure to provide sufficient
:::: nutrition. I've got little chance of being healthy if I
:::: ignore what my body tells me and force myself down to
:::: 170 pounds; OTOH, at 210 pounds, I feel good. I'd
:::: probably be best at 200, but hey, I get to eat all of
:::: everything I want this way...
:::
::: Hmm. I'm doing LC, but at a rate of biking 100 miles per
::: week, I can eat pretty much whatever I want and still
::: lose weight. I'm down six pounds this month, and have
::: actually been overeating a little.
::
:: If you're losing weight you have a net deficit of
:: calories, which means you are not over-eating. Six pounds
:: in a month is pretty fast weight loss, how long have you
:: been getting results like that?
::
:: I am riding about 10-12 hours a week and maintaining
:: pretty steady weight... it does take a lot of food, but I
:: don't have much weight to lose, maybe another 5-10 tops
:: so I don't worry about it.
::
:: Back to the topic though, while active overweight people
:: may have a reasonably healthy heart, in the long run many
:: of them will develop joint problems due to excess weight
:: (knees, ankles, hips).

How overweight do people have to be to develop joint
problems? I see many normal weight older people with joint
problems, too. ARe you sure there are not other reasons why
people develop joint problems?

Do you have any data/cites on this or is this just more
commonsensical information?

These
:: problems are very hard to fix later in life and often
:: contribute to further increases in weight - joint
:: problems tend to increase sedentary behavior since moving
:: hurts. Debilitating back pain caused/worsened by excess
:: weight is epidemic in this country, it virtually supports
:: the painkiller industry.
 
>::: Hmm. I'm doing LC, but at a rate of biking 100 miles per week, I
>::: can eat pretty much whatever I want and still lose weight. I'm down
>::: six pounds this month, and have actually been overeating a little.
>::
>:: If you're losing weight you have a net deficit of
>:: calories, which means you are not over-eating. Six
>:: pounds in a month is pretty fast weight loss, how long
>:: have you been getting results like that?

I've kinda lost the attribution as to whom I'm responding,
but if I can clarify...

I've upped the mileage in the last four weeks, by about
double from 50miles per week to 100. During all that time,
I've been trying to lose fat weight. I still have 20-30lbs
left to go to get under 20% fat (between 12 and 15% is my
goal, then re-assess).

So I'm obviously, now, in some kind of caloric deficit due
to the higher energy expenditure. I was using the term
'overeating' in a relative manner. IOW, I'm used to eating
less and still not losing that quickly. Now I can indulge a
bit more than I'm used to and not only maintain, but
actually lose weight. Six pounds a month is a little higher
than usual (1 to 1.5lbs per week seems to be optimal)

I'm hoping that I've reached the point where I can eat as
much as I want (within reason), but since I'm working out on
the bike so much, I'll still be in deficit enough to
continue losing fat. Thus the low carb/ higher protein
(which, for me, helps to lose fat while not sacrificing too
much muscle) works pretty well for this goal.

(It's important to note that you have to find your own
'level' of dieting by experimentation. What works for me
might be wrong for someone else.)

-B

>::
>:: I am riding about 10-12 hours a week and maintaining
>:: pretty steady weight... it does take a lot of food, but
>:: I don't have much weight to lose, maybe another 5-10
>:: tops so I don't worry about it.
 
On Wed, 12 May 2004 03:51:36 GMT, Brunswick_kate
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I agree Mike, I found the article very interesting indeed.
>After years of struggling with my weight, I've finally
>tossed out the scales. My goal is to improve my fitness; if
>the wieght comes off or the dress size goes down, that's
>nice but I'd rather be strong than slim and maybe I'm one
>of those people who has to make a choice.
>
>After 40+ years, I've finally accepted that I'm not going
>to be tall and leggy. I'm short with a "mature" build. Now
>the goal is to make that short mature build into a mean
>keen hill climbing machine....and God, I'm having a blast
>doing it.:D

That's great. I'd set the limits (for me) at: o No obvious
sub-cutaneous fat bulging off of me o Having a shape
(waistline) o Not carrying excess (fat) weight that it slows
me down on the bike.

The goal would be: o Being able to see my abs o Getting back
into the clothes I wore in college o Working out enough that
I'm in a slight caloric deficit.

I did this goal in 2001, but due to some setbacks,
regained some weight. I'm now hopefull with the extra
mileage I'm putting in the recomposition will be
permanent. The last time I did it was pure diet (LC), and
I did no exercising at all.

-B
 
The overall thrust of this story, that being fat is perhaps medically OK, is
grossly wrong. But there is one point at the end that merits comment for
cyclists in particular:

>Other interesting claims: (1) people who are overweight
>have less problem with
osteoporesis

The best preventatives for Osteoporosis are: (1) weight-
bearing exercise; and
(2) diet rich in calcium, vitamin D, and other bone-
building nutrients. It is the first of these that is
important for cyclists, because medical studies have
shown that bikers tend to get lighter, less-sturdy
bones because cycling is not a "weight-bearing"
exercise. Supplement cycling with running and you will
have the best of both worlds.

Why do the obese score OK on these two marks? (1) All of
their exercise (such as it it) is extremely "weight-
bearing;" and (2) They eat so much of everything that of
course they have sufficient calcium intake and other trace
nutrients.

But the cost to their health just for those 2 things?
Sheesh. Let's cycle and run instead.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Paul Southworth wrote:

> :: Back to the topic though, while active overweight
> :: people may have a reasonably healthy heart, in the long
> :: run many of them will develop joint problems due to
> :: excess weight (knees, ankles, hips).
>
> How overweight do people have to be to develop joint
> problems? I see many normal weight older people with joint
> problems, too. ARe you sure there are not other reasons
> why people develop joint problems?
>
> Do you have any data/cites on this or is this just more
> commonsensical information?

Anecdotal evidence is fun!

I have had occasional back problems since I was in my teens.
I'm pretty lazy about doing the recommended strengthening
exercises and so forth.

In the last four years I have slowly dropped from about 190
pounds to about 150 pounds. Much of this was accomplished by
adding a lot of riding to my life, and I do little else for
exercise (weekly intramural gym sports during the Winter).
Specifically, I should probably work on my core muscles and
upper body.

My back problems have all but disappeared. I can't remember
the last time I had a back spasm or any pain.

> These
> :: problems are very hard to fix later in life and often
> :: contribute to further increases in weight - joint
> :: problems tend to increase sedentary behavior since
> :: moving hurts. Debilitating back pain caused/worsened by
> :: excess weight is epidemic in this country, it virtually
> :: supports the painkiller industry.

On the other hand, my Achilles tendons are pretty sensitive,
and the knee issues can crop up if I don't do my knee
exercises.

-RjC.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected]
http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
> the lowest death rate was found among fit men with waist
> measurements of 40 inches or more.

I wish to take this opportunity to toast my fellow fat and
fit Falstaffian 40-inchers to a long, happy, hale and hearty
life: Salud!
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mike Kruger" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Guardian has an excerpt from a new book by Paul
> Campos, "The Obesity Myth". The excerpt is titled "The big
> fat con story." http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0-
> ,3605,1200549,00.html
>
> There are some interesting points made about the relative
> unimportance of body weight per se; I realize that the
> Guardian is not a medical journal (and I have no idea of
> Campos's credentials), but it makes interesting reading.

I think the thesis of this article (fitness levels are more
important than BMI) is about as uncontroversial a medical
statement as you could make; as far as I know there isn't a
doctor in the world who would be especially worried about an
active patient carrying 10 pounds above BMI. And there's
something the article doesn't point it out explicitly,
because it would spoil the fun: the common description of a
person with an active lifestyle and a BMI in the 25-30 range
is "buff". I bet Brad Pitt has a "bad" BMI because he's
carrying movie-star grade muscle mass around (also my
excuse, of course). Lots of athletes (not GC cyclists, mind;
power-to-weight ratios are too important to hill-climbing
performance to carry much extra mass) carry around "fat"
BMIs because the BMI charts don't say anything sensible
about well-muscled people.

What really worried me is that the article didn't
contemplate a relationship between BMI and fitness levels.
I'll bet there is one, based on the virtuous cycle that
fat people (me, 4 years ago) who start to take up some
exercise (me, 3 years ago) start to become fitter, which
makes them able to exercise more, which makes them
thinner. I predict it would be a bell curve: you get more
active (and fit) as you converge on a weight around the
high end of the BMI "normal" standard, or a bit above
that. become too fat or too thin, and both health and
activity levels probably decline.

On the reverse, I doubt that people who diet down to a
weight get to experience the same sort of virtuous cycle:
dieting doesn't usually make you want to get more exercise.

So the questions I'm asking are, are there really
significant numbers of obese-but-active people? Most of the
really heavy people I know find their activity levels
curtailed by their weight.

> Of most relevance here are the following paragraphs on the
> relative importance of overweight versus exercise:

> "Similarly, a 1999 Cooper Institute study involving 22,000
> men found the highest death rate among sedentary men with
> waist measurements under 34 inches, while the lowest death
> rate was found among fit men with waist measurements of 40
> inches or more. A 1995 Blair study found that improved
> fitness (ie, going from "unfit" to "fit"), with the latter
> requiring a level of exercise equivalent to going for a
> brisk half-hour walk four or five times per week, reduced
> subsequent mortality rates by 50%. As Blair himself puts
> it, Americans have "a misdirected obsession with weight
> and weight loss. The focus is all wrong. It's fitness that
> is the key." "

The conclusion is correct, but I don't know what to make of
the waist measurement stat, which is either garbled
reportage (from the Grauniad? Shocked, shocked!) or a
nonsense finding. Does this mean that tall men live longer?
Well, sucks to be me. Without controlling for body
proportions (as opposed to raw waist measurements) this
study would seem to be discovering a correlation between
longevity and bigness, not fatness. (But it also has the
conventional finding that activity is an excellent way to
delay death).

> Other interesting claims: (1) people who are overweight
> have less problem with osteoporesis, (2) The diet Hillary
> put Bill Clinton on might have been partly responsible for
> his obsession with Monica Lewinsky.

Blaming Bill's belly for his tryst with Monica seems to me
to put the blame just a few inches too high.

As for the osteoperosis claim, that's well-understood: fat
people's bones carry lots of load all the time, so it's like
getting a constant impact workout at a low-level.

Cyclists, by the way, are notoriously osteoperotic; any avid
cyclist should consider adding a small component of impact
exercise (weights, jump rope, punching people) to their
routine for bone-building.

These articles get into a lot of "what are we doing to our
girls?" body image madness and so forth, but conveniently
forget that while getting really sick or dying from anorexia
or bulimia is a really rare thing even among the privileged-white-
girl demographic in which it wreaks its greatest havoc,
getting really sick or dying from causes related to being
fat (or perhaps, as this article would prefer us to specify,
from being sedentary) is really common.

I'm also pretty appalled that it pulls fun stunts like
lumping in the "overweight" (BMI 25-30) and "obese" (BMI
30+) numbers to get the big scary 64.5% figure. This allows
fun fudges like pointing out that "fat" people (meaning
those 27 BMI types) have very good health if they keep
active, while ignoring the specific ailments that affect the
(growing) population of obese (30+ BMI) adults.

The article does some useful statistical skewering: it seems
to be on solid ground when it pokes a hole in the "300,000
annual deaths due to overweight" stat, though even there I
suspect that something is hidden behind the curtain when
they breezily disregard the death of anyone over 65 (and I
don't want to make this post longer still, so I'll refrain
from my guesses about bad assumptions that might be causing
problems with the stats here).

On the whole, I think this article oversells the
healthiness of being fat, and undersells both the
importance of exercise and activity, and the extent to
which they are already emphasized by most of the sensible
people in the health racket.

Would be a lot less concerned about BMIs if everyone was
getting enough exercise,

Ryan Cousineau, [email protected]
http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/ President, Fabrizio
Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 12 May 2004 03:51:36 GMT, Brunswick_kate
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I agree Mike, I found the article very interesting
> >indeed. After years of struggling with my weight, I've
> >finally tossed out the scales. My goal is to improve my
> >fitness; if the wieght comes off or the dress size goes
> >down, that's nice but I'd rather be strong than slim and
> >maybe I'm one of those people who has to make a choice.
> >
> >After 40+ years, I've finally accepted that I'm not going
> >to be tall and leggy. I'm short with a "mature" build.
> >Now the goal is to make that short mature build into a
> >mean keen hill climbing machine....and God, I'm having a
> >blast doing it.:D
>
> That's great. I'd set the limits (for me) at: o No obvious
> sub-cutaneous fat bulging off of me o Having a shape
> (waistline) o Not carrying excess (fat) weight that it
> slows me down on the bike.
>
> The goal would be: o Being able to see my abs o Getting
> back into the clothes I wore in college o Working out
> enough that I'm in a slight caloric deficit.
>
> I did this goal in 2001, but due to some setbacks,
> regained some weight. I'm now hopefull with the extra
> mileage I'm putting in the recomposition will be
> permanent. The last time I did it was pure diet (LC), and
> I did no exercising at all.

Of course, we don't want to do so much cardio and diet that
we become catabolic and start devouring muscle. You can burn
fat faster with strength training and cardio/diet than with
cardio/diet alone. The way racers lose weight is crazy.
Lance Armstrong doesn't eat all day, then rides 6 hours, and
only eats 1500 calories? His body's consuming itself...
 
"TopCounsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The overall thrust of this story, that being fat is
> perhaps medically OK,
is
> grossly wrong. But there is one point at the end that
> merits comment for cyclists in particular:
>
> >Other interesting claims: (1) people who are overweight
> >have less problem
with
> osteoporesis
>
> The best preventatives for Osteoporosis are: (1) weight-
> bearing exercise;
and
> (2) diet rich in calcium, vitamin D, and other bone-
> building nutrients.
It is
> the first of these that is important for cyclists, because
> medical studies
have
> shown that bikers tend to get lighter, less-sturdy bones
> because cycling
is not
> a "weight-bearing" exercise. Supplement cycling with
> running and you will
have
> the best of both worlds.
>

Better yet, how about weightlifting? Far less traumatic than
running, plus you get the benefit of actually building
muscle, which burns more fat.
 
>I agree Mike, I found the article very interesting indeed.
>After years of struggling with my weight, I've finally
>tossed out the scales. My goal is to improve my fitness; if
>the wieght comes off or the dress size goes down, that's
>nice but I'd rather be strong than slim and maybe I'm one
>of those people who has to make a choice.
>
>After 40+ years, I've finally accepted that I'm not going
>to be tall and leggy. I'm short with a "mature" build. Now
>the goal is to make that short mature build into a mean
>keen hill climbing machine....and God, I'm having a blast
>doing it.:D

I'm overweight - female, 40+. One of my docs thinks any
woman who is overweight is *obviously* depressed. He's a
twit, especially as he's not exactly Mr Slim & Trim himself.
I'd like to lose some weight, and am careful about what I
eat, yet I still remain overweight. I can lose a bit and
then I plateau at a weight which is still considered to be
overweight in terms of BMI. That plateauing is a pain-in-the-
****. Yet thanks to cycling regularly, I'm fitter than I've
been in many a long year and a good deal fitter than many a
slim & trim young thing around. Yesterday, at the
supermarket (where the shopping trolley was full of fruit,
veg, etc. and distinctly short on the bad stuff, the lady on
the checkout was passing the time of day about the weather
(a British staple topic of conversation). She was saying how
it's forecast to be very good weather by the end of the
week, and my response was that I'd look forward to that, as
it means I can get out on my bike and really enjoy it.
Anyhow - conversation developed into cycling - and I said
that on the last nice Saturday we had, I'd done a 50 miler
and that it was a joy due to the gloriously sunny but not
too hot weather with little wind. Said checkout person's
bottom jaw dropped to the ground. Similarly the person next
in the queue who had been listening in, also had the same
phemonenon - bottom jaw dropping to the ground... They could
not envisage anyone doing that length of ride. Indeed the
checkout lady, who occasionally cycles, said anything over 5
miles and she was knackered. She was about my age and a fair
bit slimmer.

I usually cycle about 12 - 15 miles a day, so my cycling is
regular exercise, and often with a rear rack carrying a load
of shopping - so it's useful exercise. I'm getting to the
point where the scales are going out of the window and I'm
concentrating on general fitness and finally realising that
yes, there is life for a woman even if she is bigger than a
dress size 10 ;-) I may not be a speed demon on my bike, but
I'm fitter than many my age :)

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get
correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel
is switched off--
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

...

> So the questions I'm asking are, are there really
> significant numbers of obese-but-active people? Most of
> the really heavy people I know find their activity levels
> curtailed by their weight.

Many professional football players (lineman, anyway) would
fall into this category, as would the guy I read about
yesterday who is the top US weightlifter: he's 5'9", weighs
370 lbs, and lifted 507 lbs over his head.

As you say earlier, the BMI only has meaning for
unfit/inactive people. It's charts simply do not apply for
active, fit people.

....

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in
the newsgroups if possible).
 
On Wed, 12 May 2004 00:15:05 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote:

>So the questions I'm asking are, are there really
>significant numbers of obese-but-active people?

Well, the lower level of obesity calculated on the BMI scale
probably isn't what most people see as obese, so IMO, yes,
there are a lot of active obese people. Most people think of
morbidly obese people when they use the term obese.

I've read two papers, although they may be talking from the
same study, that one reason that heavier people have a lower
death rate is not from the 'normal' deaths, but because they
have more resources to survive diseases that task the body
over one long sustained period - often coming out much
lighter. Those going in light end up dead more often.

Unfortunately, read that long ago, so my memory is real
generalized.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...
 

Similar threads

M
Replies
112
Views
5K
M
S
Replies
10
Views
723
R