UK and Europe · Public discussion

Grauniad story: exercise v. thinness

Started by Just Zis Guy · · Last activity · 36 posts · 1,633 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
27 April 2004
Last activity
3 May 2004
Original author
Just Zis Guy
Posts
36
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,633
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 36
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. guardian.co.uk0,3605,1200549,00.html

    Lengthy article summarising a book "The Obesity Myth: Why
    America's Obsession With Weight Is Hazardous To Your
    Health". Some of it loks like special pleading by a fat man,
    but much of it is plausible, and has echoes of the debate
    over cycle "safety". As De Clarke says: "health" is a lot
    more complicated than fitting some standardised actuarial
    profile, just as "safety" is more complicated than wearing a
    styrofoam hat.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
    posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.uk

    Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

  2. Quoted message said:

    As De Clarke says: "health" is a lot more complicated than
    fitting some standardised actuarial profile

    Some of us have known this for a while ;-)

    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--

  3. dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:
    Quoted message said:

    As De Clarke says: "health" is a lot more complicated
    than fitting some standardised actuarial profile


    Some of us have known this for a while ;-)

    I had a mental vision of the PSF's elasticated-waist celeste
    tutu as I read
    it :-)

    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
    posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.uk

    Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

  4. Just zis Guy, you know? <[email hidden]> wrote:

    : of the debate over cycle "safety". As De Clarke says:
    : "health" is a lot more complicated than fitting some
    : standardised actuarial profile, just as "safety" is more
    : complicated than wearing a styrofoam hat.

    Hm. That article annoyed me. It was badly argued and full of
    logical leaps.

    BMI doesn't work well for very muscular, fit athletes. True
    enough. Therefore it's useless. Erm, no. Most people aren't
    muscular *or* fit.

    A moderate amount of "fat" doesn't harm health - I could go
    with that. Therefore the government's worrys about obesity
    are overdone. Erm, no.

    As some of my friends who live in the US have remarked, the
    problem is (outside some of the big cities like NY) the lack
    of what one might call "Brit middle aged spread". It's macrobaotic-super-skiiny-exercise-
    bunnies or way, way overweight with little in the middle.
    And more of the later than the former.

    Arthur

    --
    Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.org "Technolibertarians make a
    philosophy out of a personality defect"
    - Paulina Borsook

  5. Arthur Clune said:

    As some of my friends who live in the US have remarked,
    the problem is (outside some of the big cities like NY)
    the lack of what one might call "Brit middle aged spread".
    It's macrobaotic-super-skiiny-exercise-bunnies or way, way
    overweight with little in the middle. And more of the
    later than the former.

    Undoubtedly. And the mortality rate for thin people may be
    affected by other factors such as smoking (I think we have
    all seen the cadaverously thin chain-smoking type).

    According to BMI calculations I am marginally overweight. My
    body fat is about 15%.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
    posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.uk

    Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

  6. Just zis Guy, you know? <[email hidden]> wrote:

    : According to BMI calculations I am marginally overweight.
    : My body fat is about 15%.

    And you are both muscular and fit. That's my point. That is
    the catagory for which BMI doesn't work. It still seems to
    me to be a good rule of thumb for most people.

    Arthur

    --
    Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.org "Technolibertarians make a
    philosophy out of a personality defect"
    - Paulina Borsook

  7. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Arthur Clune said:

    A moderate amount of "fat" doesn't harm health - I could
    go with that. Therefore the government's worrys about
    obesity are overdone. Erm, no.

    A neighbour of ours is a part-time GP who also does some
    epidemiology and goes to various incomprehensible WHO
    workshops around the world. His wife is also a GP. Both them
    are, before anyone says they are engaged in self-
    justification, whippet thin keen cyclists.

    His view is that there's actually little evidence that
    losing weight, in itself, is a good thing, for anyone
    other than the morbidly obese. The things you do to lose
    weight may be good: increased exercise, `better' diet. But
    simply assuming that any someone who loses two stone is by
    definition better off in health terms is just not
    supported by evidence. Indeed, if someone goes from a
    sedentary lifestyle to an active one, they may well put
    weight on as they convert fat to muscle. To tell them that
    they are harming their health because they weigh more is
    just perverse.

    ian

  8. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Arthur Clune said:

    Just zis Guy, you know? <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    : According to BMI calculations I am marginally
    : overweight. My body fat is about 15%.

    And you are both muscular and fit. That's my point. That
    is the catagory for which BMI doesn't work. It still seems
    to me to be a good rule of thumb for most people.

    But we want people to do more exercise. Which will, oh look,
    make them muscular and fit. ``You need to do more exercise,
    because your BMI is
    27.'' Six months pass. ``I'm doing loads of exercise, and
    now my BMI is 28. I'd better stop doing it, as it's
    harming me.''

    ian

  9. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Just zis Guy said:

    guardian.co.uk0,3605,1200549
    ,00.html

    Hear, hear!

    Hands up who has never known someone doing hard physical
    work for a living, yet having a rounded profile.

    With all due respect to Arthur's valid points, there is an
    underlying point that we all have different physiologies,
    and the relationship between height and body weight for good
    health is not just a simple one-ratio-fits all.

    --
    Wear your paunch with pride

  10. Arthur Clune said:
    Quoted message said:

    According to BMI calculations I am marginally overweight.
    My body fat is about 15%.

    Quoted message said:

    And you are both muscular and fit. That's my point. That
    is the catagory for which BMI doesn't work. It still seems
    to me to be a good rule of thumb for most people.

    Not disputed. I am absolutely confident that the average 20-
    stone Septic reading this book will think that their
    rigorous exercise regime (walking to the fridge to get beer,
    and to the car to drive out for more beer) is sufficient to
    protect them from being overweight.

    As an aside, although my BMI puts me in the marginally
    overweight category, if I were a 'merkin I would be at the
    34th centile of weight for my height and age, but my ideal
    weight is apparently about half a stone less.

    Funny old world...

    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
    posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.uk

    Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

  11. Ian G Batten <[email hidden]> wrote:

    : But we want people to do more exercise. Which will, oh
    : look, make them muscular and fit.

    Never worked for me 🙂

    Arthur (fit, but not at muscular by any stretch 🙂

    --
    Arthur Clune clune.orgclune.org "Technolibertarians make a
    philosophy out of a personality defect"
    - Paulina Borsook

  12. Quoted message said:

    Hear, hear!

    Hands up who has never known someone doing hard physical
    work for a living, yet having a rounded profile.

    With all due respect to Arthur's valid points, there is an
    underlying point that we all have different physiologies,
    and the relationship between height and body weight for
    good health is not just a simple one-ratio-fits all.

    Many years ago now I watched a documentary on this very
    subject. It was *fascinating* and what stuck out was a
    cyclist. American guy.. in perhaps his forties... keen
    cyclist - did hundreds of miles regularly - very, very fit,
    yet according to the "normal" definition of these things,
    was morbidly obese. There was, if I remember correctly, much
    talking by his doctor who knew the guy and knew he wasn't
    "just fat".

    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--

  13. On 27/4/04 10:46 am, in article [email hidden],

    Just zis Guy said:

    As an aside, although my BMI puts me in the marginally
    overweight category, if I were a 'merkin I would be at the
    34th centile of weight for my height and age, but my ideal
    weight is apparently about half a stone less.

    Wheras I am probably one of the fattest but fittest in the
    lab. And my BMI still puts me at seriously obese (91kg,
    1.65m, BMI of 33.4)

    And an ideal weight that is lower than I have weighed since
    I was 15 (and extremely fit then).

    ..d

  14. dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:


    Many years ago now I watched a documentary on this very
    subject. It was *fascinating* and what stuck out was a
    cyclist. American guy.. in perhaps his forties... keen
    cyclist - did hundreds of miles regularly - very, very
    fit, yet according to the "normal" definition of these
    things, was morbidly obese. There was, if I remember
    correctly, much talking by his doctor who knew the guy and
    knew he wasn't "just fat".


    Sumo wrestlers are excellent examples of extremely fit
    extremely obese individuals

    Tony

  15. I've never believed in the BMI baloney. It was obvious that the majority of athletes would come out as needing to lose weight, despite having body fat levels of less than 10% and being able to run the ragged-[censored] of the GP who was telling them to change their lifestyle.

    One-size-fits-all assessments are worthless. I would have thought that assessments looking at indicators like blood pressure, choloesterol levels etc. would be better 'lifestyle' indicators than some piffly graph that is supposed to dictate changes in your entire diet regime 😕

  16. Samo Hung !

  17. On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
    <[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Arthur Clune

    Quoted message said:

    Just zis Guy, you know?
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    : According to BMI calculations I am marginally
    : overweight. My body fat is about 15%.

    And you are both muscular and fit. That's my point. That
    is the catagory for which BMI doesn't work. It still
    seems to me to be a good rule of thumb for most people.

    But we want people to do more exercise. Which will, oh
    look, make them muscular and fit. ``You need to do more
    exercise, because your BMI is
    27.'' Six months pass. ``I'm doing loads of exercise, and
    now my BMI is 28. I'd better stop doing it, as it's
    harming me.''

    True - one of the several reasons why waist:hips ratio is
    a much better indicator of the sort of thing we want to
    avoid (paunchy flabbiness), and a better indicator of
    gradual progress.

    Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.net Smalltalk
    links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
    html.dnsalias.netsmalltalk

  18. (Nick Kew) said:

    In article <[email hidden]-
    berlin.de>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"

    Quoted message said:

    guardian.co.uk0,3605,1200549,
    00.html

    Quoted message said:

    Hear, hear!

    Quoted message said:

    Hands up who has never known someone doing hard physical
    work for a living, yet having a rounded profile.

    Quoted message said:

    With all due respect to Arthur's valid points, there is an
    underlying point that we all have different physiologies,
    and the relationship between height and body weight for
    good health is not just a simple one-ratio-fits all.

    Whatever happened to Sheldon's somatotypes of ectomorph,
    mesomorph, and endomorph? They are an obvious criticism, and
    would be an easy and obvious improvement, to the one-size-fits-
    all BMI approach which my doc has on his wall as a coloured
    chart. We argue about it when he points to it to tell me I'm
    certainly not overweight, and I try to explain to him that I
    am in fact an overweight skinny man (or ectomorph).

    --
    Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    ["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  19. Ian G Batten said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Arthur Clune
    <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    A moderate amount of "fat" doesn't harm health - I could
    go with that. Therefore the government's worrys about
    obesity are overdone. Erm, no.

    Quoted message said:

    A neighbour of ours is a part-time GP who also does some
    epidemiology and goes to various incomprehensible WHO
    workshops around the world. His wife is also a GP. Both
    them are, before anyone says they are engaged in self-
    justification, whippet thin keen cyclists.

    Quoted message said:

    His view is that there's actually little evidence that
    losing weight, in itself, is a good thing, for anyone other
    than the morbidly obese. The things you do to lose weight
    may be good: increased exercise, `better' diet. But simply
    assuming that any someone who loses two stone is by
    definition better off in health terms is just not supported
    by evidence.

    Note the careful phrasing: "not supported by evidence".
    Perfectly true. It is also perfectly true that it is not
    contradicted by evidence. In short, this is a classic case
    of switching absence of evidence for evidence of absence
    while you're not paying close attention. Either your doctor
    is deliberately fooling you, or someone has fooled him,
    which is not good, since he's supposed to have professional
    training in the assessment of evidence. Of course he
    wouldn't be maliciously fooling you, he'd just be doing the
    same thing the police do when they know the chap is guilty
    but haven't got the evidence -- they just fit him up enough
    to convince a jury.

    Quoted message said:

    Indeed, if someone goes from a sedentary lifestyle to an
    active one, they may well put weight on as they convert fat
    to muscle. To tell them that they are harming their health
    because they weigh more is just perverse.

    Quite so, and in my youth, whenever I trained, I routinely
    got thinner and stayed the same weight, because I gained
    muscle as fast as I lost flab.

    These older and fatter days, whenever the bathroom scales
    annoy me enough, I start eating less, only eating when
    hungry and stopping when not hungry, rather than eating for
    fun. For me it's a fairly simple and reliable way of losing
    weight slowly but surely. And if I lose a stone I notice
    that I have more energy and bounce, can walk a lot further
    before my joints start complaining, can walk up hills much
    faster, and snore a lot less when asleep (my wife notices
    that one).
    --
    Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    ["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  20. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    guardian.co.uk0,3605,1200549
    ,00.html

    Lengthy article summarising a book "The Obesity Myth: Why
    America's Obsession With Weight Is Hazardous To Your
    Health". Some of it loks like special pleading by a fat
    man, but much of it is plausible, and has echoes of the
    debate over cycle "safety". As De Clarke says: "health" is
    a lot more complicated than fitting some standardised
    actuarial profile, just as "safety" is more complicated
    than wearing a styrofoam hat.

    Hmm - how many obese 80 year olds do you come across?

    Simon M.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.