Prev: Question regarding setpoints
Next: Obesity epidemic (not acceptable)
From: Kenny on 8 Apr 2008 19:22
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, The Master <tardis(a)nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
>
>And other studies suggest the BMI is irrelivent, that what does matter is
>a fitness measure defined in the study as the ability to walk briskly for
>30 minutes.

Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people (BMI 40+)
who have the "ability to walk briskly for
30 minutes" have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of any
fitness. Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states that
thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic]. I believe that you have
cited him too.

http://www2.vhi.ie/topic/fitandfat

"Even Blair concedes that it's better to be lean and fit than overweight
and fit. For one thing, extra weight puts stress on the joints, increasing
the risk of arthritis. Fat around the midsection can also promote Type 2
diabetes by hampering your body's response to insulin. "

Anyone that swallows your propaganda will live a short and unhealthy life.


From: Kenny on 10 Apr 2008 20:20
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, The Master <tardis(a)nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote a whole lot of gibberish:
>
>>Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people (BMI 40+)
>>who have the "ability to walk briskly for
>>30 minutes" have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of any
>>fitness. Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states that
>>thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic].
>
>Ofcourse he did. But also said "Normal-weight individuals in our study
>had greater longevity only if they were physically fit; furthermore, obese
>individuals who were fit did not have increased mortality,"
>
>Take a look at www.medscape.com/viewarticle/566963 for the information you
>asked for.

The article is not available without registration. I'm not going to
register to read it. Copy and paste the damn thing.









From: The Master on 11 Apr 2008 09:56
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote:

>>> Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people (BMI 40+)
>>> who have the "ability to walk briskly for
>>> 30 minutes" have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of any
>>> fitness. Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states that
>>> thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic].
>>
>> Ofcourse he did. But also said "Normal-weight individuals in our study
>> had greater longevity only if they were physically fit; furthermore, obese
>> individuals who were fit did not have increased mortality,"
>>
>> Take a look at www.medscape.com/viewarticle/566963 for the information you
>> asked for.
>
> The article is not available without registration. I'm not going to
> register to read it. Copy and paste the damn thing.

That's funny. I can access it from google without having to register...
Oh well, here it is.

***

December 5, 2007 - Another study exploring the relationship between being
fat, being fit, and living longer has found that lower fitness is an
independent predictor of all-cause mortality, even after adjustment for
adiposity [1]. In the study, obese subjects who were fit had a lower risk
of dying than normal-weight subjects who were physically inactive.


"It may be possible to reduce all-cause death rates among older adults,
including those who are obese, by promoting regular physical activity,
such as brisk walking for 30 minutes or more on most days of the week . .
.. which will keep most individuals out of the low-fitness category," the
authors, led by Dr Xuemei Sui (University of South Carolina, Columbia),
write in the December 5, 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association.


The study tracked a cohort of 2603 adults aged 60 or over for a mean of 12
years, during which time 450 people died. Adjusted death rates were lowest
for people with the lowest body-mass index (BMI), lowest waist
ircumference, or in the highest quintile for fitness level - this last
that held true even in severely obese subjects, who were much less likely
to die if their fitness levels were higher. When fitness was factored into
the waist circumference analysis and vice versa, fitness predicted
mortality risk regardless of smoking, baseline health, BMI, waist
circumference, or percent body fat, whereas waist circumference was no
longer significantly associated with increased mortality after fitness was
considered.

"Normal-weight individuals in our study had greater longevity only if they
were physically fit; furthermore, obese individuals who were fit did not
have increased mortality," the authors conclude.


Focusing on physical activity, not fat


In an interview with heartwire, senior author on the study, Dr Steven N
Blair (University of South Carolina), suggested that the findings speak to
the value of prescribing fitness, rather than focusing solely on weight
loss in older subjects.


"This does not say that we should ignore obesity in this older population
or any other, but it does underscore the extreme importance of being
active and fit, whether you're normal weight, overweight, or obese," he
said. Indeed, in his study, only half of subjects with class II obesity
were in the lowest category of physical fitness.


"We've put so much emphasis on weight loss, and obesity is awful - it's
the biggest health problem we've ever had, etc," Blair pointed out. "But
that strategy doesn't seem to be particularly effective we've been doing
it for a couple of decades." Instead, Blair says he now focuses on
reminding his patients to walk for at least 30 minutes five days a week,
eat a healthy diet, and try not to gain additional weight. "And I think
that's good advice. A lot of people say, well, I did what the doctor told
me and I started taking those three 10-minute walks a day and I only lost
a pound over six months, and I said, to heck with it. But I tell them,
exercise is good for you regardless of whether you lost a lot of weight or
not."


Blair also acknowledged that while the analysis showed no mortality costs
of obesity in fit subjects, there are other social and medical reasons for
losing weight.

***

Now I'm sure you and your friends will start yapping about that last line.
And that's fine, but also not what I was talking about. My statement was,
and still is, that mortality rates are only dependent on fitness level,
and independent of BMI, as the study says.

I may be fat, but I CAN walk briskly for 30 minutes... According to the
study, my risk of mortality is the same as a skinny person who can do the
same 30 minute brisk walk.

So... Why should I lose weight again? About the only thing you have left
is the social impact. Again, that's losing it for YOU, not for ME.

From: Jason Earl on 11 Apr 2008 18:19
The Master <tardis(a)nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> writes:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote:
>
>>>> Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people
>>>> (BMI 40+) who have the "ability to walk briskly for 30 minutes"
>>>> have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of any
>>>> fitness. Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states
>>>> that thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic].
>>>
>>> Ofcourse he did. But also said "Normal-weight individuals in our
>>> study had greater longevity only if they were physically fit;
>>> furthermore, obese individuals who were fit did not have increased
>>> mortality,"
>>>
>>> Take a look at www.medscape.com/viewarticle/566963 for the
>>> information you asked for.
>>
>> The article is not available without registration. I'm not going to
>> register to read it. Copy and paste the damn thing.
>
> That's funny. I can access it from google without having to
> register... Oh well, here it is.

You must have been registered before. I had the same problem.

Secondly, this isn't a study. It's a summary of a study. What's more
it appears to be a meta-study combining the numbers from several other
related studies. These sorts of things matter.

> December 5, 2007 - Another study exploring the relationship between
> being fat, being fit, and living longer has found that lower fitness
> is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality, even after
> adjustment for adiposity [1]. In the study, obese subjects who were
> fit had a lower risk of dying than normal-weight subjects who were
> physically inactive.

OK, this sounds interesting, but it is nothing more than the summary.
There's certainly no evidence in this paragraph.

> "It may be possible to reduce all-cause death rates among older
> adults, including those who are obese, by promoting regular physical
> activity, such as brisk walking for 30 minutes or more on most days of
> the week . . . which will keep most individuals out of the low-fitness
> category," the authors, led by Dr Xuemei Sui (University of South
> Carolina, Columbia), write in the December 5, 2007 issue of the
> Journal of the American Medical Association.

Likewise this is just supposition. The Dr. himself states that it *may*
be possible to reduce all-cause death rates with regular exercise.

Here comes the evidence.

> The study tracked a cohort of 2603 adults aged 60 or over for a mean
> of 12 years, during which time 450 people died. Adjusted death rates
> were lowest for people with the lowest body-mass index (BMI), lowest
> waist ircumference, or in the highest quintile for fitness level -
> this last that held true even in severely obese subjects, who were
> much less likely to die if their fitness levels were higher. When
> fitness was factored into the waist circumference analysis and vice
> versa, fitness predicted mortality risk regardless of smoking,
> baseline health, BMI, waist circumference, or percent body fat,
> whereas waist circumference was no longer significantly associated
> with increased mortality after fitness was considered.

The first thing that jumps out at the careful reader is that all of the
participants were 60 years old or older. This means that the
information really only applies to you if you happen to fit that age
category. It's possible, for example, that if they started with younger
individuals they would find that weight played a more important role in
survival, but that by the time the population reaches 60 enough people
susceptible to death from causes linked to obesity are already dead that
it isn't such a factor.

The second thing that one should notice is that adjusted death rates
were still lowest for those with the lowest body-mass index, the lowest
waist circumference. The folks in the top quintile for fitness
qualified too, but I would bet that there is a *lot* over overlap in
those three groups.

The article doesn't state 1) how they measured fitness, and 2) what sort
of fitness level had to be achieved to be considered in the top
quintile. The interview seems to suggest that 30 minutes of brisk
walking a day would put a person in the magical top quintile, but
without more information on how fitness was measured I don't see how
that conclusion could be drawn.

The study also only followed the participants for a mean of 12 years,
and most of the participants were still alive at the end, so it doesn't
really say anything about which populations lived the longest. If your
goal is to make it to 72 and you happen to be 60 right now then being
fit but fat might be an acceptable strategy. It is hard to conclude
more than that from the data given.

> "Normal-weight individuals in our study had greater longevity only if
> they were physically fit; furthermore, obese individuals who were fit
> did not have increased mortality," the authors conclude.

<snip interview with Dr Blair>

> Now I'm sure you and your friends will start yapping about that last
> line. And that's fine, but also not what I was talking about. My
> statement was, and still is, that mortality rates are only dependent
> on fitness level, and independent of BMI, as the study says.

In 60+ year old people who were followed for a mean of 12 years.

> I may be fat, but I CAN walk briskly for 30 minutes... According to
> the study, my risk of mortality is the same as a skinny person who can
> do the same 30 minute brisk walk.

Once again, that's what you would *like* this to say, but it is not what
the study actually says. The study said that you need to be in the top
quintile of physical fitness not that you need to be able to walk
briskly for 30 minutes.

Walking briskly for 30 minutes a day is a good thing. Just make sure
that you actually DO it, and not be content with the fact that you CAN
do it.

> So... Why should I lose weight again? About the only thing you have
> left is the social impact. Again, that's losing it for YOU, not for
> ME.

It is my experience that maintaining a high level of physical fitness,
especially later in life, is much more difficult if you are morbidly
obese. You are certainly correct, however, in stating that in the end
the choice is yours. If you don't care about the social impact, and if
you aren't worried about the health impact then I don't see the downside
in being fat.

Jason
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Question regarding setpoints
Next: Obesity epidemic (not acceptable)