OP Update - 3000 miles in 10 months... so Why am I still fat? - Page 11 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

05-21-2004, 10:19 AM

"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10as3hbbdbndpd7@corp.supernews.com...
> Badger_South wrote:
> :: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::
Snip

have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
>
> 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is a good
> chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his performance on
> the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than to give into societal
> norms. And that his choice to make..
>

Society be damned! I want to ride faster, farther, and more comfortably on
the bike! Power to weight ratio.... that's all I'm really concerned with!

05-21-2004, 10:51 AM

"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ase39l67l28a3@corp.supernews.com...
> GaryG wrote:
> :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> :: news:10as7m4tb8ogiff@corp.supernews.com...
> ::: GaryG wrote:
> ::::: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ::::: news:10as3hbbdbndpd7@corp.supernews.com...
> :::::: Badger_South wrote:
> :::::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> :::::::: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::::::::
> ::::::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
> ::::::::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep
> ::::::::: everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see
> ::::::::: why
> ::::::::: it is so hard for everyone to think that you're simply eating
> ::::::::: too much to lose weight.
> ::::::::
> :::::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and
> :::::::: don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to
> :::::::: the point where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
> ::::::
> :::::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is
> :::::: a good chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his
> :::::: performance on the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than
> :::::: to give into societal norms. And that his choice to make..
> :::::
> :::::
> ::::: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot of
> ::::: excess weight around his waist, he might want to lose that weight
> ::::: for a much more important reason than "societal norms".
> :::
> ::: We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His waist to hip
> ::: ratio might be fine, too.
> ::
> :: The overwhelming majority of folks with a BMI of 34.2 are fat. The
> :: OP himself states:
> ::
> :: "I carry almost all the weight around my waist. Personally, I think
> :: I'm rather oddly shaped.
> :: Chest and butt look normal... just a big fat gut in front."
> ::
> :: This is a description of too much fat, carried around the middle, a
> :: combination that has been linked to an increased risk of disease in
> :: many studies.
>
> Hey, I never said he wasn't fat, in fact, I've been talking to him about
> losing weight. However, his date would seem to indicate that at 275 lbs
he
> is unusually fit. All these numbers you quote don't say dick about
> fitness, assuming that fatness is the only issue. I don't believe that.
> Being sedentary is also a big issue and could be much more important than
> how much fat one carries.
>
> Blind faith in report research data is troublesome. In case you haven't
> noticed, these people change directions very often-- based on new research
> findings. IMO, it is better to pay attention to what a person does and
what
> they can do, then to simply look at numbers.
>
>
> ::
> :: BMI is not "useless". It's also not "perfect". It has the
> :: advantage of being easy to calculate,
>
> How were the charts developed? Based on what data and what group of
people?
>
> and for most people it
> :: correlates well with body fat (i.e., higher BMI = higher body fat
> :: percentage).
>
> Sure, but two people with the same BMI can be very, very different in
terms
> of fitness and health, even beyond fat %.
>
> For a small percentage of the population (e.g., body
> :: builders), the correlation may not hold. But, I see a lot more fat
> :: folks than body builders when I'm out and about.
> ::
>
> A correlation is not everything. I too see a lot of fat people and very
few
> bodybuilders. But that still doesn't mean you should lump the OP in with
> other people who have a BMI of 34 given, without consideration of his
info.
>
> :::
> :::
> ::: To be
> ::::: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he doesn't die any
> ::::: time soon. His weight, and his waist size, are both very strong
> ::::: risk factors for mortality from heart disease, diabetes, cancer,
> ::::: etc.
> :::::
> ::::: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers for
> ::::: Disease Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of disease due
> ::::: to his weight and waist size. If his waist size (measured at the
> ::::: navel) is 40" or less, his risk would be "High Risk".
> :::
> ::: One can argue with such simplistic factors for prediction. Do they
> ::: factor in activity level, muscle mass, frame size, and age?
> ::
> :: With a waist size > 40", I don't think muscle mass and frame size are
> :: significant moderators of disease risk. It's the fat that's the
> :: problem.
>
> Prove it. I say it is the sedentary lifestyle that's the problem, moreso
> than just being fat. I use myself as evidence for that position. There
are
> enough others who report similar findings to lead me to believe, in spite
of
> what research says and what charts indicate, that there is more to the
story
> than the mere numbers cited above.
>
> ::
> :: More research does need to be done on people with high BMI's who are
> :: physically active - it would be very interesting to see to what
> :: extent physical activity reduces disease risk (some preliminary
> :: research indicates that it can reduce, but not eliminate, disease
> :: risk). Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks with high BMI's
> :: are *not* physcially fit.
>
> Agreed, however nothing is going to eliminate disease risk, it can only be
> lessened. How do you define "physically fit?"
>
> The OP can do 70-mile rides at 16 mph while weighing 275 on hilly terrain.
> Are football players who run up and down the field not fit? ARe 300 lbs
> bodybuilders not physically fit?
>
> I do agree with you that there are many high BMI's people who are
definitely
> NOT physically fit by any standards. I'm just saying that there are very
> real exceptions and applying blanket notions and numbers is not useful in
> light of MORE information.
>
>

The BMI issue has been researched reasonably well. In general, higher BMI's
are associated with higher rates of mortality across broad populations.

As for "Are football players who run up and down the field not fit?" Yes,
they are. But, does that mean they have a lower risk of disease/mortality?
I kind of doubt that it does - I've read that pro football players tend to
die quite a bit earlier than others.

Clearly, there are exceptions, and more research needs to be done, but
across large populations, in many studies, high BMI has been shown to be a
risk factor. Do you have any cites that disprove the link between
BMI/fatness and mortality in "physically fit" people with high BMI's? I
would be most interested in any published studies you could cite.

Here's an abstract from the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume
341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15) that did a study of 1 million
adults, comparing BMI to mortality and filtering for smoking status, age,
and race. They found that the lowest risk of mortality was associated with
BMI's of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women.

Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of U.S. Adults

Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D., Jennifer M. Petrelli,
M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W. Heath, M.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of
the height in meters) is known to be associated with overall mortality. We
investigated the effects of age, race, sex, smoking status, and history of
disease on the relation between body-mass index and mortality.

Methods In a prospective study of more than 1 million adults in the United
States (457,785 men and 588,369 women), 201,622 deaths occurred during 14
years of follow-up. We examined the relation between body-mass index and the
risk of death from all causes in four subgroups categorized according to
smoking status and history of disease. In healthy people who had never
smoked, we further examined whether the relation varied according to race,
cause of death, or age. The relative risk was used to assess the relation
between mortality and body-mass index.

Results The association between body-mass index and the risk of death was
substantially modified by smoking status and the presence of disease. In
healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass
index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men
and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among subjects with the highest body-mass
indexes, white men and women had a relative risk of death of 2.58 and 2.00,
respectively, as compared with those with a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9.
Black men and women with the highest body-mass indexes had much lower risks
of death (1.35 and 1.21), which did not differ significantly from 1.00. A
high body-mass index was most predictive of death from cardiovascular
disease, especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95 percent confidence
interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Heavier men and women in all age groups had an
increased risk of death.

Conclusions The risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease,
cancer, or other diseases increases throughout the range of moderate and
severe overweight for both men and women in all age groups. The risk
associated with a high body-mass index is greater for whites than for
blacks.

GG
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Your Weight and Health Diary

05-21-2004, 10:51 AM

"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ase39l67l28a3@corp.supernews.com...
> GaryG wrote:
> :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> :: news:10as7m4tb8ogiff@corp.supernews.com...
> ::: GaryG wrote:
> ::::: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ::::: news:10as3hbbdbndpd7@corp.supernews.com...
> :::::: Badger_South wrote:
> :::::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> :::::::: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::::::::
> ::::::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
> ::::::::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep
> ::::::::: everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see
> ::::::::: why
> ::::::::: it is so hard for everyone to think that you're simply eating
> ::::::::: too much to lose weight.
> ::::::::
> :::::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and
> :::::::: don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to
> :::::::: the point where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
> ::::::
> :::::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is
> :::::: a good chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his
> :::::: performance on the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than
> :::::: to give into societal norms. And that his choice to make..
> :::::
> :::::
> ::::: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot of
> ::::: excess weight around his waist, he might want to lose that weight
> ::::: for a much more important reason than "societal norms".
> :::
> ::: We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His waist to hip
> ::: ratio might be fine, too.
> ::
> :: The overwhelming majority of folks with a BMI of 34.2 are fat. The
> :: OP himself states:
> ::
> :: "I carry almost all the weight around my waist. Personally, I think
> :: I'm rather oddly shaped.
> :: Chest and butt look normal... just a big fat gut in front."
> ::
> :: This is a description of too much fat, carried around the middle, a
> :: combination that has been linked to an increased risk of disease in
> :: many studies.
>
> Hey, I never said he wasn't fat, in fact, I've been talking to him about
> losing weight. However, his date would seem to indicate that at 275 lbs
he
> is unusually fit. All these numbers you quote don't say dick about
> fitness, assuming that fatness is the only issue. I don't believe that.
> Being sedentary is also a big issue and could be much more important than
> how much fat one carries.
>
> Blind faith in report research data is troublesome. In case you haven't
> noticed, these people change directions very often-- based on new research
> findings. IMO, it is better to pay attention to what a person does and
what
> they can do, then to simply look at numbers.
>
>
> ::
> :: BMI is not "useless". It's also not "perfect". It has the
> :: advantage of being easy to calculate,
>
> How were the charts developed? Based on what data and what group of
people?
>
> and for most people it
> :: correlates well with body fat (i.e., higher BMI = higher body fat
> :: percentage).
>
> Sure, but two people with the same BMI can be very, very different in
terms
> of fitness and health, even beyond fat %.
>
> For a small percentage of the population (e.g., body
> :: builders), the correlation may not hold. But, I see a lot more fat
> :: folks than body builders when I'm out and about.
> ::
>
> A correlation is not everything. I too see a lot of fat people and very
few
> bodybuilders. But that still doesn't mean you should lump the OP in with
> other people who have a BMI of 34 given, without consideration of his
info.
>
> :::
> :::
> ::: To be
> ::::: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he doesn't die any
> ::::: time soon. His weight, and his waist size, are both very strong
> ::::: risk factors for mortality from heart disease, diabetes, cancer,
> ::::: etc.
> :::::
> ::::: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers for
> ::::: Disease Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of disease due
> ::::: to his weight and waist size. If his waist size (measured at the
> ::::: navel) is 40" or less, his risk would be "High Risk".
> :::
> ::: One can argue with such simplistic factors for prediction. Do they
> ::: factor in activity level, muscle mass, frame size, and age?
> ::
> :: With a waist size > 40", I don't think muscle mass and frame size are
> :: significant moderators of disease risk. It's the fat that's the
> :: problem.
>
> Prove it. I say it is the sedentary lifestyle that's the problem, moreso
> than just being fat. I use myself as evidence for that position. There
are
> enough others who report similar findings to lead me to believe, in spite
of
> what research says and what charts indicate, that there is more to the
story
> than the mere numbers cited above.
>
> ::
> :: More research does need to be done on people with high BMI's who are
> :: physically active - it would be very interesting to see to what
> :: extent physical activity reduces disease risk (some preliminary
> :: research indicates that it can reduce, but not eliminate, disease
> :: risk). Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks with high BMI's
> :: are *not* physcially fit.
>
> Agreed, however nothing is going to eliminate disease risk, it can only be
> lessened. How do you define "physically fit?"
>
> The OP can do 70-mile rides at 16 mph while weighing 275 on hilly terrain.
> Are football players who run up and down the field not fit? ARe 300 lbs
> bodybuilders not physically fit?
>
> I do agree with you that there are many high BMI's people who are
definitely
> NOT physically fit by any standards. I'm just saying that there are very
> real exceptions and applying blanket notions and numbers is not useful in
> light of MORE information.
>
>

The BMI issue has been researched reasonably well. In general, higher BMI's
are associated with higher rates of mortality across broad populations.

As for "Are football players who run up and down the field not fit?" Yes,
they are. But, does that mean they have a lower risk of disease/mortality?
I kind of doubt that it does - I've read that pro football players tend to
die quite a bit earlier than others.

Clearly, there are exceptions, and more research needs to be done, but
across large populations, in many studies, high BMI has been shown to be a
risk factor. Do you have any cites that disprove the link between
BMI/fatness and mortality in "physically fit" people with high BMI's? I
would be most interested in any published studies you could cite.

Here's an abstract from the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume
341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15) that did a study of 1 million
adults, comparing BMI to mortality and filtering for smoking status, age,
and race. They found that the lowest risk of mortality was associated with
BMI's of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women.

Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of U.S. Adults

Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D., Jennifer M. Petrelli,
M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W. Heath, M.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of
the height in meters) is known to be associated with overall mortality. We
investigated the effects of age, race, sex, smoking status, and history of
disease on the relation between body-mass index and mortality.

Methods In a prospective study of more than 1 million adults in the United
States (457,785 men and 588,369 women), 201,622 deaths occurred during 14
years of follow-up. We examined the relation between body-mass index and the
risk of death from all causes in four subgroups categorized according to
smoking status and history of disease. In healthy people who had never
smoked, we further examined whether the relation varied according to race,
cause of death, or age. The relative risk was used to assess the relation
between mortality and body-mass index.

Results The association between body-mass index and the risk of death was
substantially modified by smoking status and the presence of disease. In
healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass
index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men
and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among subjects with the highest body-mass
indexes, white men and women had a relative risk of death of 2.58 and 2.00,
respectively, as compared with those with a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9.
Black men and women with the highest body-mass indexes had much lower risks
of death (1.35 and 1.21), which did not differ significantly from 1.00. A
high body-mass index was most predictive of death from cardiovascular
disease, especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95 percent confidence
interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Heavier men and women in all age groups had an
increased risk of death.

Conclusions The risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease,
cancer, or other diseases increases throughout the range of moderate and
severe overweight for both men and women in all age groups. The risk
associated with a high body-mass index is greater for whites than for
blacks.

GG
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Your Weight and Health Diary

05-21-2004, 10:51 AM

"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ase39l67l28a3@corp.supernews.com...
> GaryG wrote:
> :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> :: news:10as7m4tb8ogiff@corp.supernews.com...
> ::: GaryG wrote:
> ::::: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ::::: news:10as3hbbdbndpd7@corp.supernews.com...
> :::::: Badger_South wrote:
> :::::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> :::::::: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::::::::
> ::::::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
> ::::::::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep
> ::::::::: everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see
> ::::::::: why
> ::::::::: it is so hard for everyone to think that you're simply eating
> ::::::::: too much to lose weight.
> ::::::::
> :::::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and
> :::::::: don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to
> :::::::: the point where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
> ::::::
> :::::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is
> :::::: a good chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his
> :::::: performance on the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than
> :::::: to give into societal norms. And that his choice to make..
> :::::
> :::::
> ::::: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot of
> ::::: excess weight around his waist, he might want to lose that weight
> ::::: for a much more important reason than "societal norms".
> :::
> ::: We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His waist to hip
> ::: ratio might be fine, too.
> ::
> :: The overwhelming majority of folks with a BMI of 34.2 are fat. The
> :: OP himself states:
> ::
> :: "I carry almost all the weight around my waist. Personally, I think
> :: I'm rather oddly shaped.
> :: Chest and butt look normal... just a big fat gut in front."
> ::
> :: This is a description of too much fat, carried around the middle, a
> :: combination that has been linked to an increased risk of disease in
> :: many studies.
>
> Hey, I never said he wasn't fat, in fact, I've been talking to him about
> losing weight. However, his date would seem to indicate that at 275 lbs
he
> is unusually fit. All these numbers you quote don't say dick about
> fitness, assuming that fatness is the only issue. I don't believe that.
> Being sedentary is also a big issue and could be much more important than
> how much fat one carries.
>
> Blind faith in report research data is troublesome. In case you haven't
> noticed, these people change directions very often-- based on new research
> findings. IMO, it is better to pay attention to what a person does and
what
> they can do, then to simply look at numbers.
>
>
> ::
> :: BMI is not "useless". It's also not "perfect". It has the
> :: advantage of being easy to calculate,
>
> How were the charts developed? Based on what data and what group of
people?
>
> and for most people it
> :: correlates well with body fat (i.e., higher BMI = higher body fat
> :: percentage).
>
> Sure, but two people with the same BMI can be very, very different in
terms
> of fitness and health, even beyond fat %.
>
> For a small percentage of the population (e.g., body
> :: builders), the correlation may not hold. But, I see a lot more fat
> :: folks than body builders when I'm out and about.
> ::
>
> A correlation is not everything. I too see a lot of fat people and very
few
> bodybuilders. But that still doesn't mean you should lump the OP in with
> other people who have a BMI of 34 given, without consideration of his
info.
>
> :::
> :::
> ::: To be
> ::::: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he doesn't die any
> ::::: time soon. His weight, and his waist size, are both very strong
> ::::: risk factors for mortality from heart disease, diabetes, cancer,
> ::::: etc.
> :::::
> ::::: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers for
> ::::: Disease Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of disease due
> ::::: to his weight and waist size. If his waist size (measured at the
> ::::: navel) is 40" or less, his risk would be "High Risk".
> :::
> ::: One can argue with such simplistic factors for prediction. Do they
> ::: factor in activity level, muscle mass, frame size, and age?
> ::
> :: With a waist size > 40", I don't think muscle mass and frame size are
> :: significant moderators of disease risk. It's the fat that's the
> :: problem.
>
> Prove it. I say it is the sedentary lifestyle that's the problem, moreso
> than just being fat. I use myself as evidence for that position. There
are
> enough others who report similar findings to lead me to believe, in spite
of
> what research says and what charts indicate, that there is more to the
story
> than the mere numbers cited above.
>
> ::
> :: More research does need to be done on people with high BMI's who are
> :: physically active - it would be very interesting to see to what
> :: extent physical activity reduces disease risk (some preliminary
> :: research indicates that it can reduce, but not eliminate, disease
> :: risk). Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks with high BMI's
> :: are *not* physcially fit.
>
> Agreed, however nothing is going to eliminate disease risk, it can only be
> lessened. How do you define "physically fit?"
>
> The OP can do 70-mile rides at 16 mph while weighing 275 on hilly terrain.
> Are football players who run up and down the field not fit? ARe 300 lbs
> bodybuilders not physically fit?
>
> I do agree with you that there are many high BMI's people who are
definitely
> NOT physically fit by any standards. I'm just saying that there are very
> real exceptions and applying blanket notions and numbers is not useful in
> light of MORE information.
>
>

The BMI issue has been researched reasonably well. In general, higher BMI's
are associated with higher rates of mortality across broad populations.

As for "Are football players who run up and down the field not fit?" Yes,
they are. But, does that mean they have a lower risk of disease/mortality?
I kind of doubt that it does - I've read that pro football players tend to
die quite a bit earlier than others.

Clearly, there are exceptions, and more research needs to be done, but
across large populations, in many studies, high BMI has been shown to be a
risk factor. Do you have any cites that disprove the link between
BMI/fatness and mortality in "physically fit" people with high BMI's? I
would be most interested in any published studies you could cite.

Here's an abstract from the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume
341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15) that did a study of 1 million
adults, comparing BMI to mortality and filtering for smoking status, age,
and race. They found that the lowest risk of mortality was associated with
BMI's of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women.

Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of U.S. Adults

Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D., Jennifer M. Petrelli,
M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W. Heath, M.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of
the height in meters) is known to be associated with overall mortality. We
investigated the effects of age, race, sex, smoking status, and history of
disease on the relation between body-mass index and mortality.

Methods In a prospective study of more than 1 million adults in the United
States (457,785 men and 588,369 women), 201,622 deaths occurred during 14
years of follow-up. We examined the relation between body-mass index and the
risk of death from all causes in four subgroups categorized according to
smoking status and history of disease. In healthy people who had never
smoked, we further examined whether the relation varied according to race,
cause of death, or age. The relative risk was used to assess the relation
between mortality and body-mass index.

Results The association between body-mass index and the risk of death was
substantially modified by smoking status and the presence of disease. In
healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass
index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men
and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among subjects with the highest body-mass
indexes, white men and women had a relative risk of death of 2.58 and 2.00,
respectively, as compared with those with a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9.
Black men and women with the highest body-mass indexes had much lower risks
of death (1.35 and 1.21), which did not differ significantly from 1.00. A
high body-mass index was most predictive of death from cardiovascular
disease, especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95 percent confidence
interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Heavier men and women in all age groups had an
increased risk of death.

Conclusions The risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease,
cancer, or other diseases increases throughout the range of moderate and
severe overweight for both men and women in all age groups. The risk
associated with a high body-mass index is greater for whites than for
blacks.

GG
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Your Weight and Health Diary

05-21-2004, 10:51 AM

"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ase39l67l28a3@corp.supernews.com...
> GaryG wrote:
> :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> :: news:10as7m4tb8ogiff@corp.supernews.com...
> ::: GaryG wrote:
> ::::: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ::::: news:10as3hbbdbndpd7@corp.supernews.com...
> :::::: Badger_South wrote:
> :::::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> :::::::: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::::::::
> ::::::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
> ::::::::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep
> ::::::::: everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see
> ::::::::: why
> ::::::::: it is so hard for everyone to think that you're simply eating
> ::::::::: too much to lose weight.
> ::::::::
> :::::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and
> :::::::: don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to
> :::::::: the point where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
> ::::::
> :::::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is
> :::::: a good chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his
> :::::: performance on the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than
> :::::: to give into societal norms. And that his choice to make..
> :::::
> :::::
> ::::: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot of
> ::::: excess weight around his waist, he might want to lose that weight
> ::::: for a much more important reason than "societal norms".
> :::
> ::: We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His waist to hip
> ::: ratio might be fine, too.
> ::
> :: The overwhelming majority of folks with a BMI of 34.2 are fat. The
> :: OP himself states:
> ::
> :: "I carry almost all the weight around my waist. Personally, I think
> :: I'm rather oddly shaped.
> :: Chest and butt look normal... just a big fat gut in front."
> ::
> :: This is a description of too much fat, carried around the middle, a
> :: combination that has been linked to an increased risk of disease in
> :: many studies.
>
> Hey, I never said he wasn't fat, in fact, I've been talking to him about
> losing weight. However, his date would seem to indicate that at 275 lbs
he
> is unusually fit. All these numbers you quote don't say dick about
> fitness, assuming that fatness is the only issue. I don't believe that.
> Being sedentary is also a big issue and could be much more important than
> how much fat one carries.
>
> Blind faith in report research data is troublesome. In case you haven't
> noticed, these people change directions very often-- based on new research
> findings. IMO, it is better to pay attention to what a person does and
what
> they can do, then to simply look at numbers.
>
>
> ::
> :: BMI is not "useless". It's also not "perfect". It has the
> :: advantage of being easy to calculate,
>
> How were the charts developed? Based on what data and what group of
people?
>
> and for most people it
> :: correlates well with body fat (i.e., higher BMI = higher body fat
> :: percentage).
>
> Sure, but two people with the same BMI can be very, very different in
terms
> of fitness and health, even beyond fat %.
>
> For a small percentage of the population (e.g., body
> :: builders), the correlation may not hold. But, I see a lot more fat
> :: folks than body builders when I'm out and about.
> ::
>
> A correlation is not everything. I too see a lot of fat people and very
few
> bodybuilders. But that still doesn't mean you should lump the OP in with
> other people who have a BMI of 34 given, without consideration of his
info.
>
> :::
> :::
> ::: To be
> ::::: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he doesn't die any
> ::::: time soon. His weight, and his waist size, are both very strong
> ::::: risk factors for mortality from heart disease, diabetes, cancer,
> ::::: etc.
> :::::
> ::::: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers for
> ::::: Disease Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of disease due
> ::::: to his weight and waist size. If his waist size (measured at the
> ::::: navel) is 40" or less, his risk would be "High Risk".
> :::
> ::: One can argue with such simplistic factors for prediction. Do they
> ::: factor in activity level, muscle mass, frame size, and age?
> ::
> :: With a waist size > 40", I don't think muscle mass and frame size are
> :: significant moderators of disease risk. It's the fat that's the
> :: problem.
>
> Prove it. I say it is the sedentary lifestyle that's the problem, moreso
> than just being fat. I use myself as evidence for that position. There
are
> enough others who report similar findings to lead me to believe, in spite
of
> what research says and what charts indicate, that there is more to the
story
> than the mere numbers cited above.
>
> ::
> :: More research does need to be done on people with high BMI's who are
> :: physically active - it would be very interesting to see to what
> :: extent physical activity reduces disease risk (some preliminary
> :: research indicates that it can reduce, but not eliminate, disease
> :: risk). Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks with high BMI's
> :: are *not* physcially fit.
>
> Agreed, however nothing is going to eliminate disease risk, it can only be
> lessened. How do you define "physically fit?"
>
> The OP can do 70-mile rides at 16 mph while weighing 275 on hilly terrain.
> Are football players who run up and down the field not fit? ARe 300 lbs
> bodybuilders not physically fit?
>
> I do agree with you that there are many high BMI's people who are
definitely
> NOT physically fit by any standards. I'm just saying that there are very
> real exceptions and applying blanket notions and numbers is not useful in
> light of MORE information.
>
>

The BMI issue has been researched reasonably well. In general, higher BMI's
are associated with higher rates of mortality across broad populations.

As for "Are football players who run up and down the field not fit?" Yes,
they are. But, does that mean they have a lower risk of disease/mortality?
I kind of doubt that it does - I've read that pro football players tend to
die quite a bit earlier than others.

Clearly, there are exceptions, and more research needs to be done, but
across large populations, in many studies, high BMI has been shown to be a
risk factor. Do you have any cites that disprove the link between
BMI/fatness and mortality in "physically fit" people with high BMI's? I
would be most interested in any published studies you could cite.

Here's an abstract from the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume
341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15) that did a study of 1 million
adults, comparing BMI to mortality and filtering for smoking status, age,
and race. They found that the lowest risk of mortality was associated with
BMI's of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women.

Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of U.S. Adults

Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D., Jennifer M. Petrelli,
M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W. Heath, M.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of
the height in meters) is known to be associated with overall mortality. We
investigated the effects of age, race, sex, smoking status, and history of
disease on the relation between body-mass index and mortality.

Methods In a prospective study of more than 1 million adults in the United
States (457,785 men and 588,369 women), 201,622 deaths occurred during 14
years of follow-up. We examined the relation between body-mass index and the
risk of death from all causes in four subgroups categorized according to
smoking status and history of disease. In healthy people who had never
smoked, we further examined whether the relation varied according to race,
cause of death, or age. The relative risk was used to assess the relation
between mortality and body-mass index.

Results The association between body-mass index and the risk of death was
substantially modified by smoking status and the presence of disease. In
healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass
index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men
and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among subjects with the highest body-mass
indexes, white men and women had a relative risk of death of 2.58 and 2.00,
respectively, as compared with those with a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9.
Black men and women with the highest body-mass indexes had much lower risks
of death (1.35 and 1.21), which did not differ significantly from 1.00. A
high body-mass index was most predictive of death from cardiovascular
disease, especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95 percent confidence
interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Heavier men and women in all age groups had an
increased risk of death.

Conclusions The risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease,
cancer, or other diseases increases throughout the range of moderate and
severe overweight for both men and women in all age groups. The risk
associated with a high body-mass index is greater for whites than for
blacks.

GG
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Your Weight and Health Diary

05-21-2004, 10:51 AM

"Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ase39l67l28a3@corp.supernews.com...
> GaryG wrote:
> :: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> :: news:10as7m4tb8ogiff@corp.supernews.com...
> ::: GaryG wrote:
> ::::: "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> ::::: news:10as3hbbdbndpd7@corp.supernews.com...
> :::::: Badger_South wrote:
> :::::::: On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:47:23 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> :::::::: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ::::::::
> ::::::::: You can do that if you want...however, why don't you just bump
> ::::::::: calories down to about 2200 for a couple of weeks. Keep
> ::::::::: everything else the same. You'll lose weight. I don't see
> ::::::::: why
> ::::::::: it is so hard for everyone to think that you're simply eating
> ::::::::: too much to lose weight.
> ::::::::
> :::::::: Roger is kidding you here, b/c he knows that if you do this and
> :::::::: don't sugar/carb restrict, that the Ghrelin will increase to
> :::::::: the point where you have almost -uncontrollable- appetite!
> ::::::
> :::::: 2200 is only about 500 less than what he's eating now. There is
> :::::: a good chance he can do it -- it he wants too. Frankly, with his
> :::::: performance on the bike, I'm not sure why he wants to, other than
> :::::: to give into societal norms. And that his choice to make..
> :::::
> :::::
> ::::: Given that his current BMI is 34.2, and he is carrying a lot of
> ::::: excess weight around his waist, he might want to lose that weight
> ::::: for a much more important reason than "societal norms".
> :::
> ::: We need bodyfat % not BMI - it is fairly useless. His waist to hip
> ::: ratio might be fine, too.
> ::
> :: The overwhelming majority of folks with a BMI of 34.2 are fat. The
> :: OP himself states:
> ::
> :: "I carry almost all the weight around my waist. Personally, I think
> :: I'm rather oddly shaped.
> :: Chest and butt look normal... just a big fat gut in front."
> ::
> :: This is a description of too much fat, carried around the middle, a
> :: combination that has been linked to an increased risk of disease in
> :: many studies.
>
> Hey, I never said he wasn't fat, in fact, I've been talking to him about
> losing weight. However, his date would seem to indicate that at 275 lbs
he
> is unusually fit. All these numbers you quote don't say dick about
> fitness, assuming that fatness is the only issue. I don't believe that.
> Being sedentary is also a big issue and could be much more important than
> how much fat one carries.
>
> Blind faith in report research data is troublesome. In case you haven't
> noticed, these people change directions very often-- based on new research
> findings. IMO, it is better to pay attention to what a person does and
what
> they can do, then to simply look at numbers.
>
>
> ::
> :: BMI is not "useless". It's also not "perfect". It has the
> :: advantage of being easy to calculate,
>
> How were the charts developed? Based on what data and what group of
people?
>
> and for most people it
> :: correlates well with body fat (i.e., higher BMI = higher body fat
> :: percentage).
>
> Sure, but two people with the same BMI can be very, very different in
terms
> of fitness and health, even beyond fat %.
>
> For a small percentage of the population (e.g., body
> :: builders), the correlation may not hold. But, I see a lot more fat
> :: folks than body builders when I'm out and about.
> ::
>
> A correlation is not everything. I too see a lot of fat people and very
few
> bodybuilders. But that still doesn't mean you should lump the OP in with
> other people who have a BMI of 34 given, without consideration of his
info.
>
> :::
> :::
> ::: To be
> ::::: blunt, he might want to lose weight to ensure he doesn't die any
> ::::: time soon. His weight, and his waist size, are both very strong
> ::::: risk factors for mortality from heart disease, diabetes, cancer,
> ::::: etc.
> :::::
> ::::: Assuming he has a waist size greater than 40", the Centers for
> ::::: Disease Control would put him at "Very High Risk" of disease due
> ::::: to his weight and waist size. If his waist size (measured at the
> ::::: navel) is 40" or less, his risk would be "High Risk".
> :::
> ::: One can argue with such simplistic factors for prediction. Do they
> ::: factor in activity level, muscle mass, frame size, and age?
> ::
> :: With a waist size > 40", I don't think muscle mass and frame size are
> :: significant moderators of disease risk. It's the fat that's the
> :: problem.
>
> Prove it. I say it is the sedentary lifestyle that's the problem, moreso
> than just being fat. I use myself as evidence for that position. There
are
> enough others who report similar findings to lead me to believe, in spite
of
> what research says and what charts indicate, that there is more to the
story
> than the mere numbers cited above.
>
> ::
> :: More research does need to be done on people with high BMI's who are
> :: physically active - it would be very interesting to see to what
> :: extent physical activity reduces disease risk (some preliminary
> :: research indicates that it can reduce, but not eliminate, disease
> :: risk). Unfortunately, the vast majority of folks with high BMI's
> :: are *not* physcially fit.
>
> Agreed, however nothing is going to eliminate disease risk, it can only be
> lessened. How do you define "physically fit?"
>
> The OP can do 70-mile rides at 16 mph while weighing 275 on hilly terrain.
> Are football players who run up and down the field not fit? ARe 300 lbs
> bodybuilders not physically fit?
>
> I do agree with you that there are many high BMI's people who are
definitely
> NOT physically fit by any standards. I'm just saying that there are very
> real exceptions and applying blanket notions and numbers is not useful in
> light of MORE information.
>
>

The BMI issue has been researched reasonably well. In general, higher BMI's
are associated with higher rates of mortality across broad populations.

As for "Are football players who run up and down the field not fit?" Yes,
they are. But, does that mean they have a lower risk of disease/mortality?
I kind of doubt that it does - I've read that pro football players tend to
die quite a bit earlier than others.

Clearly, there are exceptions, and more research needs to be done, but
across large populations, in many studies, high BMI has been shown to be a
risk factor. Do you have any cites that disprove the link between
BMI/fatness and mortality in "physically fit" people with high BMI's? I
would be most interested in any published studies you could cite.

Here's an abstract from the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume
341:1097-1105 October 7, 1999 Number 15) that did a study of 1 million
adults, comparing BMI to mortality and filtering for smoking status, age,
and race. They found that the lowest risk of mortality was associated with
BMI's of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women.

Body-Mass Index and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of U.S. Adults

Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Michael J. Thun, M.D., Jennifer M. Petrelli,
M.P.H., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., and Clark W. Heath, M.D.

ABSTRACT

Background Body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of
the height in meters) is known to be associated with overall mortality. We
investigated the effects of age, race, sex, smoking status, and history of
disease on the relation between body-mass index and mortality.

Methods In a prospective study of more than 1 million adults in the United
States (457,785 men and 588,369 women), 201,622 deaths occurred during 14
years of follow-up. We examined the relation between body-mass index and the
risk of death from all causes in four subgroups categorized according to
smoking status and history of disease. In healthy people who had never
smoked, we further examined whether the relation varied according to race,
cause of death, or age. The relative risk was used to assess the relation
between mortality and body-mass index.

Results The association between body-mass index and the risk of death was
substantially modified by smoking status and the presence of disease. In
healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass
index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men
and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. Among subjects with the highest body-mass
indexes, white men and women had a relative risk of death of 2.58 and 2.00,
respectively, as compared with those with a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9.
Black men and women with the highest body-mass indexes had much lower risks
of death (1.35 and 1.21), which did not differ significantly from 1.00. A
high body-mass index was most predictive of death from cardiovascular
disease, especially in men (relative risk, 2.90; 95 percent confidence
interval, 2.37 to 3.56). Heavier men and women in all age groups had an
increased risk of death.

Conclusions The risk of death from all causes, cardiovascular disease,
cancer, or other diseases increases throughout the range of moderate and
severe overweight for both men and women in all age groups. The risk
associated with a high body-mass index is greater for whites than for
blacks.

GG
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Your Weight and Health Diary

05-21-2004, 12:37 PM

On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:53:29 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>It's just taking him a while to get
>his head wrapped around the notion that he's eating too much. LC would be
>the best for him, but calorie reduction will work too.

Is LC not a form of calorie reduction? I thought the whole point of
LC was to make it easy to reduce calories without having to count
them.
--
Rick Onanian

05-21-2004, 12:37 PM

On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:53:29 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>It's just taking him a while to get
>his head wrapped around the notion that he's eating too much. LC would be
>the best for him, but calorie reduction will work too.

Is LC not a form of calorie reduction? I thought the whole point of
LC was to make it easy to reduce calories without having to count
them.
--
Rick Onanian

05-21-2004, 12:37 PM

On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:53:29 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>It's just taking him a while to get
>his head wrapped around the notion that he's eating too much. LC would be
>the best for him, but calorie reduction will work too.

Is LC not a form of calorie reduction? I thought the whole point of
LC was to make it easy to reduce calories without having to count
them.
--
Rick Onanian

05-21-2004, 12:37 PM

On Fri, 21 May 2004 07:53:29 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>It's just taking him a while to get
>his head wrapped around the notion that he's eating too much. LC would be
>the best for him, but calorie reduction will work too.

Is LC not a form of calorie reduction? I thought the whole point of
LC was to make it easy to reduce calories without having to count
them.
--
Rick Onanian