Well, well

Nancy wrote (1/19/2005):

<snip>

Quoted message said:

My point was that there are agencies (whatever) that like to throw
around numbers they cannot support, and almost inevitably, it seems,
wind up modifying or retracting them. I'm tired of it.

Got it. If I can locate the book/article, I'll report back on what
it says and whether it comes across as credible.

"zuuum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>That's the trouble with "statistics" in general, don't you think? I
>mean,
>when it comes to studying the populace, how can anyone know for sure
>what
>people are "really" doing?

Well, as they say, you don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the
wind is blowing. Look around, and tell me if you think even 4 out of 10
Americans *in your neighborhood* look like they are ideal weight. As for
genetics, even for those long-lived who practiced poor health habits, do
you think they could not have lived even longer?

Actually, I conducted such a survey at one time because of this subject.
From
all the neighbors I can see ... only 3 could used to drop some weight, and I
don't mean tonnage.

I paid attention at the mall, at football games ... not so many very
overweight
people, relatively. At any rate, when I was younger, the charts said I
should
be between 108 and 115. Yeah, maybe if I starved myself (which I did, but
that's a story for another day), but if 10 percent over that is still the
yardstick
for obese, I bet most of us are. 115 + 11.5 = 126.5 pounds is obese?

These people who put out these figures never say what their definition of
obese is, or it's not reported on the 'news' ... either way. I'm just
skeptical
of such pronouncements.

nancy

"Nancy Young" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"zuuum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Look around, and tell me if you think even 4 out of 10 Americans *in your
neighborhood* look like they are ideal weight. As for genetics, even for
those long-lived who practiced poor health habits, do you think they
could not have lived even longer?

Actually, I conducted such a survey at one time because of this subject.
From
all the neighbors I can see ... only 3 could used to drop some weight, and
I
don't mean tonnage.

I paid attention at the mall, at football games ... not so many very
overweight
people, relatively. At any rate, when I was younger, the charts said I
should
be between 108 and 115. Yeah, maybe if I starved myself (which I did, but
that's a story for another day), but if 10 percent over that is still the
yardstick
for obese, I bet most of us are. 115 + 11.5 = 126.5 pounds is obese?

These people who put out these figures never say what their definition of
obese is, or it's not reported on the 'news' ... either way. I'm just
skeptical
of such pronouncements.

Yes, "ideal" and "obese" are sort of elusive, using age, height, sex, etc
charts. But I think fat/body mass index is gauged by how thick a pinch of
flab you can grab. It clearly shows how thick a layer of fat/flab a person
is carrying around regardless of whether they claim to be "big-boned",
"petite,"or "large builded". The exact threshold between "overweight" and
"unhealthily obese" is sort of unreal, especially as a "one-size-fits-all".
But once you get up in the 50+ pounds overweight, especially if the gain is
from what a person historically weighed, we can assume it is substantially
increasing health risks. In other words, John Doe weighed 185 for many of
his adult years, but lately is toting 250, and climbing. I can't say we are
seeing that kind of trend at epidemic levels, but I can't disprove it. 10%
overweight isn't my picture of "obese" either. But I can say every member
of my family and old classmates, except myself, and others who have lived
very non-sedentary life-styles, are obviously very overweight... as in
corpulent. That is why I thought the experimental pyramid was wise to put
*regular exercise* at the base, though it isn't food consumed. Just having
it there reminds us there is no healthy "diet" that doesn't include BURNING
caloric intake. Our kids don't even have a physical exercise class for 50
minutes every day, as I did in secondary school. I wonder what effect it
would have on our population if we reintroduced it. LOL, I mean other than
increase truancy.

"Nancy Young" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"zuuum" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Look around, and tell me if you think even 4 out of 10 Americans *in your
neighborhood* look like they are ideal weight. As for genetics, even for
those long-lived who practiced poor health habits, do you think they
could not have lived even longer?

Actually, I conducted such a survey at one time because of this subject.
From
all the neighbors I can see ... only 3 could used to drop some weight, and
I
don't mean tonnage.

I paid attention at the mall, at football games ... not so many very
overweight
people, relatively. At any rate, when I was younger, the charts said I
should
be between 108 and 115. Yeah, maybe if I starved myself (which I did, but
that's a story for another day), but if 10 percent over that is still the
yardstick
for obese, I bet most of us are. 115 + 11.5 = 126.5 pounds is obese?

These people who put out these figures never say what their definition of
obese is, or it's not reported on the 'news' ... either way. I'm just
skeptical
of such pronouncements.

Yes, "ideal" and "obese" are sort of elusive, using age, height, sex, etc
charts. But I think fat/body mass index is gauged by how thick a pinch of
flab you can grab. It clearly shows how thick a layer of fat/flab a person
is carrying around regardless of whether they claim to be "big-boned",
"petite,"or "large builded". The exact threshold between "overweight" and
"unhealthily obese" is sort of unreal, especially as a "one-size-fits-all".
But once you get up in the 50+ pounds overweight, especially if the gain is
from what a person historically weighed, we can assume it is substantially
increasing health risks. In other words, John Doe weighed 185 for many of
his adult years, but lately is toting 250, and climbing. I can't say we are
seeing that kind of trend at epidemic levels, but I can't disprove it. 10%
overweight isn't my picture of "obese" either. But I can say every member
of my family and old classmates, except myself, and others who have lived
very non-sedentary life-styles, are obviously very overweight... as in
corpulent. That is why I thought the experimental pyramid was wise to put
*regular exercise* at the base, though it isn't food consumed. Just having
it there reminds us there is no healthy "diet" that doesn't include BURNING
caloric intake. Our kids don't even have a physical exercise class for 50
minutes every day, as I did in secondary school. I wonder what effect it
would have on our population if we reintroduced it. LOL, I mean other than
increase truancy.