Prev: week 288
Next: Weight Loss guide
From: The Master on 21 Apr 2008 08:46
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Stupid Kenny wrote the following gibberish:

> What is the risk of stroke for a person who has a BMI of over 40 (the
> clinical defintion of morbid obesity) who walks briskly for 30 minutes 5
> days a week relative to a person of normal BMI who does the same? Cite
> your source.

Obviously, the idea of mortality that is independent of BMI is unthinkable
to Kenny. Studies exist that say flat out that mortality is corelated to
fitness, and is INDEPENDENT of BMI. But Kenny can't wrap his brain around
that.

If there was no corelation to BMI under 40, but there was a corelation
with the BMI was above 40, wouldn't the studies say that? Since they
don't, Kenny's brain short circuts, and smoke pours out of his ears. The
assumption is that the study is flawed, Kenny cannot consider that his
uneducated opinion is wrong. In his world, it's the 15 years of medical
research that is flawed.

Stupid Kenny...


From: rdubose on 21 Apr 2008 17:21
On Apr 21, 5:46 am, The Master <tar...(a)nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Stupid Kenny wrote the following gibberish:
>
> > What is the risk of stroke for a person who has a BMI of over 40 (the
> > clinical defintion of morbid obesity) who walks briskly for 30 minutes 5
> > days a week relative to a person of normal BMI who does the same?  Cite
> > your source.
>
> Obviously, the idea of mortality that is independent of BMI is unthinkable
> to Kenny.  Studies exist that say flat out that mortality is corelated to
> fitness, and is INDEPENDENT of BMI.  But Kenny can't wrap his brain around
> that.
>
> If there was no corelation to BMI under 40, but there was a corelation
> with the BMI was above 40, wouldn't the studies say that?  Since they
> don't, Kenny's brain short circuts, and smoke pours out of his ears.  The
> assumption is that the study is flawed, Kenny cannot consider that his
> uneducated opinion is wrong.  In his world, it's the 15 years of medical
> research that is flawed.
>
> Stupid Kenny...

The level of fitness chosen for this study was brisk walking for two
reasons that were not stated. First, it is easily measured because
most people can at least walk. Measuring running ability would be
impossible with 80 % of possible subjects being unable to run at all..
Second, brisk walking is an enty level of exercise and fitness-
ability. If benefit could be demonstrated with the easiest rung on the
exercise ladder then that would be good news worth promugating.
But this says nothing about the additional huge benefits obtainable
with actually being able to jog 2 or 3 miles and doing so regularly.
Like reversing diabetes and hypertension, for starters.
Also in the background is the fact that being fat makes it much harder
to stay fit and being fit makes it much harder to stay fat. So, living
as "fat but fit" is something of a lost cause over the long term in
the vast majority of cases.
From: The Master on 22 Apr 2008 10:23
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, rdubose(a)pdq.net wrote:

> Also in the background is the fact that being fat makes it much harder
> to stay fit and being fit makes it much harder to stay fat.

That may very well be true. But such instances do exist, where fat people
remained fit. Furthermore, being skinny doesn't help all by itself, the
person must also be fit. In other words, the fitness level of the
subjects mattered, not the BMI.

> So, living
> as "fat but fit" is something of a lost cause over the long term in
> the vast majority of cases.

And I never said that for the vast majority of obese people, such a
situation is common.
From: Kenny on 22 Apr 2008 21:27
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, The Master <tardis(a)nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Stupid Kenny wrote the following gibberish:
>
>>What is the risk of stroke for a person who has a BMI of over 40 (the
>>clinical defintion of morbid obesity) who walks briskly for 30 minutes 5
>>days a week relative to a person of normal BMI who does the same? Cite
>>your source.
>
>Obviously, the idea of mortality that is independent of BMI is unthinkable
>to Kenny. Studies exist that say flat out that mortality is corelated to
>fitness, and is INDEPENDENT of BMI. But Kenny can't wrap his brain around
>that.
>
>If there was no corelation to BMI under 40, but there was a corelation
>with the BMI was above 40, wouldn't the studies say that? Since they
>don't, Kenny's brain short circuts, and smoke pours out of his ears. The
>assumption is that the study is flawed, Kenny cannot consider that his
>uneducated opinion is wrong. In his world, it's the 15 years of medical
>research that is flawed.
>
>Stupid Kenny...

Are you being evasive or did you not understand my simple question?
















From: The Master on 24 Apr 2008 09:19

STUDY: There is no corelation to BMI
ME: There is no corleation to BMI
KENNY: Show me proof for people with BMI over 40
ME: Study already said no corleation to BMI
KENNY: But I want for BMI over 40 only
ME: No corelation to BMI means no corelation to BMI
KENNY: But I want for BMI over 40 only

Stupid Kenny...
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: week 288
Next: Weight Loss guide