Fit or Fat - first Seles, now Hingis???
Umesh Reghuram
Hi Mary!
I am certainly not advocating a slim-fast experience for all and sundry
along with the related risks you refer to; honestly, I re-read my post
and was unable to see how I might have given cause for that inference.
I think my post emphasised the premium in professional sports on fitness
at an extremely superior level - merely being fit is not enough for even
a talented player such as Seles to be able to compete at being #1 : a
few pounds over-weight, a shade slower around the court and that spells
disaster against a Hingis who is smart enough to take advantage of this
aspect.
Having said that [and now he steps from the frying pan into the fire
:-)]:
in general, for us mere non-professional-athletes, I believe the
CORRELATION between being over-weight and being not-'fit' is fairly well
accepted, wouldn't you say? Perhaps you could throw some light on this?
Are there generally accepted studies in the nutrition literature that
have tested this hypothesis? And what conclusions have they come to?
I would venture to guess that while one does not necessarily follow from
the other, the two characteristics (over-weight and being unfit) may
often share some causal factors; one that comes to mind immediately is
the lack of adequate exercise.
Meanwhile, I look forward to a duel between two very fit and not fat
sisters - the Williams match promises to be a doozy!
Cheers!
Umesh
Mary Quasney wrote:
>
> Hi!!
> This is in regard to fit or fat. This is a much too asked question, and
> it needs to stop right now. The question of being fit is one thing, the
> question of being fat is another. Being a graduate student in Nutrition
> and also quite an avid tennis player, I must emphasize the message this is
> sending out to young players, both male and female. Are the risks of
> developing possible eating disorders and negative self-esteem worth this
> debate? I definitely do not think so! Being model-thin is not worth it.
>
> On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Umesh Reghuram wrote:
>
> > On a different thread, RLJones3 wrote:
> > >
> > > wg writes:
> > >>My guess would be that Hingis will develop more musculature and lose some of her roundness.<<
> > > That's good because right now she appears headed for Porkerville. Time will tell...
> >
> > Or a devastating loss - I remember watching Monica Seles lose 6-1, 6-0
> > to Hingis in the Bank of the West Classic Final in Oakland last year,
> > actually late '96. Though she was swift, Monica's speed was never her
> > best card, yet it was painfully obvious that she was over-weight
> > relative to the championship level she would like to compete at. While
> > she has lost a few pounds since then, she probably needs to follow a far
> > more rigorous discipline - Ike Austin's recent success with the Miami
> > Heat is the most recent and spectacular example that it can be done with
> > stunning results. Jennifer Capriati is another player who is far slower
> > around the court than she could be...
> >
> > It is the natural arrogance of youth to take fitness for granted - most
> > of us have been there, I suspect. I do hope Hingis and her coach
> > realize that the premium on her fitness will be even more significant as
> > supremely fit players like the Williams sisters knock on the top
> > rankings of the tour. Steffi did the smart thing by staying out of the
> > AO until she felt she was fit and ready - I do hope she is able to
> > return at close to the top of her game.
> >
> > Umesh
> >
> >
Paul Banik
Umesh Reghuram wrote:
>
> Hi Mary!
>
> I am certainly not advocating a slim-fast experience for all and sundry > along with the related risks you refer to; honestly, I re-read my post > and was unable to see how I might have given cause for that inference.
Exactly. I think from experience, my level of play is at a higher level
when I'm fit than unfit. In other words, the fitter I am, the better my
game is. If you look at Seles, you might be able to make the same
statement. Remember when Seles returned. She was fitter than she had
been in a long time,but as soon as she got soft, her results started to
go decline, so I think there is a correlation. Pete Sampras wouldn't
have been as dominant at number one if it were not for his conditioning.
Andre's ranking has been going up and down like a yo-yo through out his
career, but when he was at his peak in 1995, he was probably in the best
shape of his life.
>
> I think my post emphasised the premium in professional sports on fitness > at an extremely superior level - merely being fit is not enough for even > a talented player such as Seles to be able to compete at being #1 : a > few pounds over-weight, a shade slower around the court and that spells > disaster against a Hingis who is smart enough to take advantage of this > aspect.
Right,but being extremely fit isn't a disadvantage at this level. I
think being in peak shape along with adequate practice and the proper
diet can make a huge difference.
>
> Having said that [and now he steps from the frying pan into the fire
> :-)]:
>
> in general, for us mere non-professional-athletes, I believe the
> CORRELATION between being over-weight and being not-'fit' is fairly well
> accepted, wouldn't you say? Perhaps you could throw some light on this?
> Are there generally accepted studies in the nutrition literature that
> have tested this hypothesis? And what conclusions have they come to?
>
> I would venture to guess that while one does not necessarily follow from > the other, the two characteristics (over-weight and being unfit) may > often share some causal factors; one that comes to mind immediately is > the lack of adequate exercise.
Exactly. All overweight people are unfit...but all people out of shape
are not necessarily overweight. Some may be actually underweight or
within their proper weight range.
Mary Quasney
I just think that the statement that ALL overweight people are not fit is
as ridiculous as it gets (and unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT,
uneducated). No more needs to be said!
mary
Steve Barnard
Huh? It's tautological. If you are overweight you are BY DEFINITION
not fit. A fit person is neither overweight nor underweight.
Of course, there are fat people who are relatively fit compared to most
other fat people. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be fitter if
they shucked some blubber.
Steve Barnard
Steve Barnard
Chez les Wight wrote:
>
> Overweight does not mean fat. THerefore if someone is over their suggested
> weight (overweight) and it is because they lift weights all the time then
> they are fit!
> Fit does not mean neither over nor underweight.
> Dan
I don't know what language you speak, but in plain English "overweight"
is a euphemism for fat. No one would call a bodybuilder with bulging
muscles, and so little body fat that every muscle striation shows,
"overweight." Bulked-up, maybe, but not overweight. A wrestler or a
boxer who can't make his weight class is called overweight, but that
clearly not what we're talking about here, since there are no weight
classes in tennis.
Steve Barnard
Chez les Wight
Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> wrote in article
<34C406...@megafauna.com>...
Overweight does not mean fat. THerefore if someone is over their suggested
Donal Fagan
In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980119...@catbert.ucdavis.edu>,
m...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu says...
>
>I just think that the statement that ALL overweight people are not fit is
>as ridiculous as it gets (and unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT,
>uneducated). No more needs to be said!
Doesn't *over*weight indicate that they could be fitter, since they are above
their proper recommended weight (granted that your expert's proper weight may
differ from mine). Overconfident is too much confidence, overindulgence is too
much indulgence and overweight is too much weight. Or do you think overweight,
like overboard and overtones, is not a pejorative?
Now if you want to say being skinny does not automatically equal fitness, I
would agree with you. But overweight, to my mind, definitely implies a certain
lack of fitness.
--
Donal Fagan
DonalFagan@WhatDoYouThink?-mindspring-YesGoOn.com
Remove the psychobabble to reply via e-mail, if that's what you really want.
Mike Hoye
In article <01bd2551$14f633a0$3886...@wight.eznet.net>,
Chez les Wight <wi...@eznet.net> wrote:
>Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> wrote in article
><34C406...@megafauna.com>...
>> Mary Quasney wrote:
>> >
>is
>> > as ridiculous as it gets (and unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT,
>> > uneducated). No more needs to be said!
>>
>> Huh? It's tautological. If you are overweight you are BY DEFINITION
>> not fit. A fit person is neither overweight nor underweight.
>>
>> Of course, there are fat people who are relatively fit compared to most
>> other fat people. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be fitter if
>> they shucked some blubber.
>
Of course it does. Overweight doesn't mean "heavier than average".
It means "Too heavy".
>Fit does not mean neither over nor underweight.
Fit means "in good shape". I agree that it has nothing to do with
how close you are to the average weight for your height, or
whatever that scientifically healthy weight might be. Fit
people come in all shapes and sizes.
The terms "overweight" and "underweight" are typically applied
to people who are noticeably fatter than they need to be or
visibly skinnier than is healthy.
--
Mike Hoye
KLT
In article <34C3D77D...@home.com>, Umesh Reghuram <um...@home.com> wrote:
> Hi Mary!
> I think my post emphasised the premium in professional sports on fitness
> at an extremely superior level - merely being fit is not enough for even
> a talented player such as Seles to be able to compete at being #1 : a
> few pounds over-weight, a shade slower around the court and that spells
> disaster against a Hingis who is smart enough to take advantage of this
> aspect.
I haven't seen the very first post about this.
A few pounds over one's supposed ideal weight does not necessarily spell
disaster. One can be very toned and fit and be "overweight" from the
simple reason that muscle weighs more than no muscle. Being fit is usually
defined as one's aerobic/cardiovascular capabilities. If more muscle mass
slows one on the court, the power that comes from the additional muscle
might be advantageous to the player so one thing cancels out the other.
If one has not built up one's cardiovascular capabilities however, then it
makes it much more difficult to keep running after balls.
> in general, for us mere non-professional-athletes, I believe the
> CORRELATION between being over-weight and being not-'fit' is fairly well
> accepted, wouldn't you say?
I know of people who look overweight and can run around a track
effortlessly for a good half hour, at a slow to medium pace. Speed doesn't
count when jogging only during sprints, but the endurance counts for
jogging.
> I would venture to guess that while one does not necessarily follow from
> the other, the two characteristics (over-weight and being unfit) may
> often share some causal factors; one that comes to mind immediately is
> the lack of adequate exercise.
But there are also very unfit people who are slim or even thin so you
cannot say that there is a direct correlation between being overweight and
being fit.
Karlene
KLT
> > On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Umesh Reghuram wrote:
> >
> > > Or a devastating loss - I remember watching Monica Seles lose 6-1, 6-0
> > > to Hingis in the Bank of the West Classic Final in Oakland last year,
> > > actually late '96. Though she was swift, Monica's speed was never her
> > > best card, yet it was painfully obvious that she was over-weight
> > > relative to the championship level she would like to compete at. While
> > > she has lost a few pounds since then, she probably needs to follow a far
> > > more rigorous discipline - Ike Austin's recent success with the Miami
> > > Heat is the most recent and spectacular example that it can be done with
> > > stunning results. Jennifer Capriati is another player who is far slower
> > > around the court than she could be...
I was also at the Bank of the West Classic back in '96 when Seles played Hingis.
Monica was definitely a lot slower than Hingis, but this was not a weight
issue. Puleeese remember that Monica had been gone from tennis for how
many years, had only been back that year (or the year previous), while
Hingis was reaping the joys of inexperience, few to no grand slam
tournaments to her name to defend, was 16...in other words it was her
grand debut. Weight is not Monica's only issue, and in fact I doubt it's
her main issue. I think she's lost whatever edge she had when she left the
game. She's having to play catch up in countless ways. She's having to
compete with an entirely different population of opponents.
Karlene
KLT
In article <34C406...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com wrote:
Steve Barnard wrote:
> Mary Quasney wrote:
> >
> > I just think that the statement that ALL overweight people are not fit is
> > as ridiculous as it gets (and unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT,
> > uneducated). No more needs to be said!
> > mary
>
> Huh? It's tautological. If you are overweight you are BY DEFINITION
> not fit. A fit person is neither overweight nor underweight.
By whose definition is an overweight person considered unfit...yours?
And what is the definition of "overweight"...what is the "ideal" weight
that is what we all speak of for someone to be called overweight? Is this
an average weight?
As I've stated before isin't the DEFINITION (since you seem to like that
word) of being "fit" a reference to one's cardiovascular capabilities
rather than weight requirement? Last time I looked at the definition of
what "weight" was, it was one's mass relative to the earth's gravitational
force.
(snipped stuff)
Karlene
Steve Barnard
KLT wrote:
>
> As I've stated before isin't the DEFINITION (since you seem to like that
> word) of being "fit" a reference to one's cardiovascular capabilities
> rather than weight requirement? Last time I looked at the definition of
> what "weight" was, it was one's mass relative to the earth's gravitational
> force.
OK, OK. If you're a Sumo wrestler or an NFL offensive lineman then you
may be carrying lots of extra pounds and still be considered fit. If
you're trying to compete at the highest level of professional tennis
then you're dogmeat.
Here's an idea. We have to combat this "lookism," right? We have to
make everyone compete on an even playing field, regardless of their
predisposition (genetically based, in all likelihood) to stuff their
faces with fatty snacks. Right? So here's what we'll do. Tennis
players will be handicapped, like horses. If some superfit athlete,
with about 0% body fat, is playing some lardbucket then he or she will
have to wear weighted saddlebags.
Steve Barnard
Marsha Strong
>Mary Quasney wrote:
>>
>> I just think that the statement that ALL overweight people are not fit is
>> as ridiculous as it gets (and unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT,
>> uneducated). No more needs to be said!
>> mary
>
>Huh? It's tautological. If you are overweight you are BY DEFINITION
>not fit. A fit person is neither overweight nor underweight.
Good point! And so what percentage of the universe is neither
overweight or underweight? (just curious, but I bet it is pitiful
small!)
I once heard someone ask this pointed question: over WHAT weight?
under WHAT weight?
>
>Of course, there are fat people who are relatively fit compared to most
>other fat people. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be fitter if
>they shucked some blubber.
Actually not 100% true, according to some recent studies. If the
overwight person "shucks some bubber" (as you so tactfully put it)
in an unhealthy way (liquid protein diets, starvation, etc.), that
weight loss could actually "eat way" at muscle tissue, including
the heart muscle.
marsha
>
> Steve Barnard
Chez les Wight
I speak english and maybe if people mean fat they should say fat.
technically overweight does not mean fat.
dan
Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> wrote in article
> Chez les Wight wrote:
> >
> > Overweight does not mean fat. THerefore if someone is over their
suggested
> > weight (overweight) and it is because they lift weights all the time
then
> > they are fit!
> > Fit does not mean neither over nor underweight.
Chez les Wight
I agree with you but if Barnard wanted to say fat then he should say fat.
Because overweight DOES NOT only mean fat. thats all i was trying to point
out.
dan
Mike Hoye <mh...@prince.carleton.ca> wrote in article
<6a1ene$adg$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
> In article <01bd2551$14f633a0$3886...@wight.eznet.net>,
> Chez les Wight <wi...@eznet.net> wrote:
> >Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> wrote in article
> ><34C406...@megafauna.com>...
> >> Mary Quasney wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I just think that the statement that ALL overweight people are not
fit
> >is
> >> > as ridiculous as it gets (and unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT,
> >> > uneducated). No more needs to be said!
> >> > mary
> >>
> >> Huh? It's tautological. If you are overweight you are BY DEFINITION
> >> not fit. A fit person is neither overweight nor underweight.
> >>
> >> Of course, there are fat people who are relatively fit compared to
most
> >> other fat people. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be fitter
if
> >> they shucked some blubber.
> >
> >Overweight does not mean fat.
>
> Of course it does. Overweight doesn't mean "heavier than average".
> It means "Too heavy".
>
> >Fit does not mean neither over nor underweight.
>
Mike Hoye
In article <klt-200198...@news.value.net>, KLT <k...@value.net> wrote:
>In article <34C406...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com wrote:
>Steve Barnard wrote:
>> >
>> > I just think that the statement that ALL overweight people are not fit is
>> > as ridiculous as it gets (and unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT,
>> > uneducated). No more needs to be said!
>> > mary
>>
>> Huh? It's tautological. If you are overweight you are BY DEFINITION
>> not fit. A fit person is neither overweight nor underweight.
>
>And what is the definition of "overweight"...what is the "ideal" weight
>that is what we all speak of for someone to be called overweight? Is this
>an average weight?
There's no cold-and-hard weight-to-height ratio, obviously. But
Steve's right: Overweight means the you need to lose weight.
Underweight means you don't weigh enough to be healthy.
This isn't a fascist social policy, it's a dictionary definition.
>As I've stated before isin't the DEFINITION (since you seem to like that
>word) of being "fit" a reference to one's cardiovascular capabilities
>rather than weight requirement?
Yeah. So? You're aware that there's corellation excess body fat
and cardio problems.
Or maybe not; as an extreme example, this is why really obese
people die of heart attacks more often than leaner people. In
a more grounded sense, the extra weight they're carrying around
means that every movement takes more effort. From the other
direction, getting fit requires exercise, an act which uses
up the extra energy stored in your body fat.
Note that I said "excess body fat" and not "any body fat at all".
Not everyone has to be an Iggy-Pop-skinny stringbean, but there
is a point at which you can clearly look at someone and say
"they are overweight".
--
Mike Hoye
Mike Hoye
In article <6a2lph$6...@mtinsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
>>Mary Quasney wrote:
>>>
>>> I just think that the statement that ALL overweight people are not fit is
>>> as ridiculous as it gets (and unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT,
>>> uneducated). No more needs to be said!
>>> mary
>>
>>Huh? It's tautological. If you are overweight you are BY DEFINITION
>>not fit. A fit person is neither overweight nor underweight.
>
>overweight or underweight? (just curious, but I bet it is pitiful
>small!)
Distressingly so. Most of North America could stand to shuck
a few pounds; that was true about a decade ago. Now the disturbing
trend for women especially is towards the other end of the scale,
with anorexia and bulimia going up sharply. Guys still don't
eat as well as they should, but we have less social pressures on
us to fit into a size zero.
>I once heard someone ask this pointed question: over WHAT weight?
>under WHAT weight?
It's a percentage-body-fat thing, I think.
>>Of course, there are fat people who are relatively fit compared to most
>>other fat people. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be fitter if
>>they shucked some blubber.
>
>Actually not 100% true, according to some recent studies. If the
>overwight person "shucks some bubber" (as you so tactfully put it)
>in an unhealthy way (liquid protein diets, starvation, etc.), that
>weight loss could actually "eat way" at muscle tissue, including
>the heart muscle.
Within reason, obviously. A wrestler died here recently after passing
out in a sauna during an intense one-day weight loss program so that
he could make his weight class. He apparently lost fifteen pounds
in thirty-six hours.
All things in moderation.
--
Mike Hoye
Paul Banik
Mary Quasney wrote:
>
> I just think that the statement that ALL overweight people are not fit is > as ridiculous as it gets (and unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT,
> uneducated). No more needs to be said!
> mary
You're jumping all over me. If you want to get in a flame war with me,
Merry Queezy, be prepared for an all out assault. It will make the Steve
Barnard-TennisTV flame wars look like a walk in the park on a Sunday
afternoon. Sipping from that brown bag again..eh? Don't get into a
battle with me, little girl...you're severely underarmed.
dar
CMST...@worldnet.att.net (Marsha Strong) wrote:
> Actually not 100% true, according to some recent studies. If the
> overwight person "shucks some bubber" (as you so tactfully put it)
> in an unhealthy way (liquid protein diets, starvation, etc.), that
> weight loss could actually "eat way" at muscle tissue, including
> the heart muscle.
Yes. Witness the college wrestler who just died of a heart attack after
trying to drop 15 pounds ... Of course, he was trying to do it by sweating
away enough water weight to wrestle at 158 rather than 173, in something
like 10 days. Crazy!
dar
-------------------------
must...
play...
tennis...
-------------------------
Mike Hoye
Umesh Reghuram
James Kershaw wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> I vaguely remember a recent report from a medical association (British,
> I think) which went short of suggesting that being thin could be
> unhealthy. I think the wording went something like : "There are no
> adverse medical effects caused by being thin." implying that you can't
> be too thin.
There is a theory that eating 60-75% of the recommended caloric intake
is associated with longevity. Anecdotal evidence abounds but I do
believe there is some literature on this issue.
>
> Naturally, there are unhealthy side-effects of starving to death, but
> anecdotally, I have a couple of friends who maintain a body fat
> percentage of less than 4%. (Anorexia I believe starts at around 7%.)
>
I think that might be open to question, at least the way it is stated
here.
Michael Jordan is reputed to have a body fat %age of between 3 and 4%
and I doubt anybody would call him anorexic!
Mike Hoye
In article <34C524...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>,
James Kershaw <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>Mike Hoye wrote:
>
>I vaguely remember a recent report from a medical association (British,
>I think) which went short of suggesting that being thin could be
>unhealthy. I think the wording went something like : "There are no
>adverse medical effects caused by being thin." implying that you can't
>be too thin.
Well, implying that you can't _naturally_ be too thin. It's obvious
to even the most naive observer that you can be too thin. Except
if you happen to be the person, of course.
>Naturally, there are unhealthy side-effects of starving to death, but
>anecdotally, I have a couple of friends who maintain a body fat
>percentage of less than 4%. (Anorexia I believe starts at around 7%.)
Let's be clear about that: Anorexia isn't a body-fat measurement.
Anorexia is a self-destructive process. It's unhealthy whether
you're trying to get from 390lbs down to 260 or from 120 lbs down
to whatever. I've seen six-foot-tall women nearly kill themselves
trying to lose that kind of weight, and it isn't pretty, mostly
because they do it to themselves and there's not a lot you can do.
Imagine a woman who looks like she'll roll down the hall like a
tumbleweed if you open the door too quickly, like a shrink-wrapped
skeleton.
--
Mike Hoye
Roxanna
On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Steve Barnard wrote:
> KLT wrote:
> >
> > As I've stated before isin't the DEFINITION (since you seem to like that
> > word) of being "fit" a reference to one's cardiovascular capabilities
> > rather than weight requirement? Last time I looked at the definition of
> > what "weight" was, it was one's mass relative to the earth's gravitational
> > force.
>
> OK, OK. If you're a Sumo wrestler or an NFL offensive lineman then you
> may be carrying lots of extra pounds and still be considered fit. If
> you're trying to compete at the highest level of professional tennis
> then you're dogmeat.
>
> Here's an idea. We have to combat this "lookism," right? We have to
> make everyone compete on an even playing field, regardless of their
> predisposition (genetically based, in all likelihood) to stuff their
> faces with fatty snacks. Right? So here's what we'll do. Tennis
> players will be handicapped, like horses. If some superfit athlete,
> with about 0% body fat, is playing some lardbucket then he or she will
> have to wear weighted saddlebags.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that "superfit" athletes have
some kind of unfair advantage. The concern is with calling professional
tennis players fat, especially on the women's tour. I've watched a lot of
tennis and seen a lot of different players, yet I have not seen one
professional tennis player who I thought of as fat, and certainly no
"lardbuckets." I have heard players like Seles, Sanchez Vicario, and
Davenport called fat, which they certainly are not. While on the men's
tour, the first player I have heard labeled as fat in a long time is
Andre Agassi, and he looked much bigger (proportionally) then they did.
It's not a great message to be sending out to young players, many of whom
are already struggling with eating disorders.
Chris
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Chris Cooney * "Though we live in trying times, *
* * we're the ones who have to try. *
* (cm...@acpub.duke.edu) * Though we know that time has wings, *
* * We're the ones who have to fly..." - Rush *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Gregg Horras
> There is a theory that eating 60-75% of the recommended caloric intake
> is associated with longevity. Anecdotal evidence abounds but I do
> believe there is some literature on this issue.
I think that there is a lot of evidence (from animal studies) that
restriction of calories is associated with longevity. It's a fascinating
question as to why this seems to be the case. I bet there are a lot of
factors involved.
--
Gregg Horras
UIUC College of Medicine and Dept. of Chemistry
hor...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~g-horras/index.html
KLT
In article <6a3r0m$126$1...@walter.cs.umd.edu>, cl...@cs.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
wrote:
> dar (dgo...@emory.edu) wrote:
>
> || Yes. Witness the college wrestler who just died of a heart attack after
> || trying to drop 15 pounds ... Of course, he was trying to do it by sweating
> || away enough water weight to wrestle at 158 rather than 173, in something
> || like 10 days. Crazy!
>
> I read about this. College wrestling is the only (I think) sport
> that has a weight requirement for (US) college sports. The old
> requirement said that you had to be within 1 pound of the maximum
> weight range that you wrestled at. This rule, I believe, has been
> changed to 7 pounds. In addition, weigh-ins are supposed to be
> done 2 hours prior to the match, with the hope that no one would
> try to lose weight quickly prior to a weigh in the close to
> the start of competition, and still expect to do well.
Yes, I heard about this also, and about the rule changes because of 3
deaths that occurred in recent months.
I was quite surprised since I thought that of all sports wrestling would
be freed from the weight requirement, as bulk tends to be advantageous.
Karlene
KLT
In article <6a3ahh$odu$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Mike Hoye) wrote:
> Let's be clear about that: Anorexia isn't a body-fat measurement.
> Anorexia is a self-destructive process. It's unhealthy whether
> you're trying to get from 390lbs down to 260 or from 120 lbs down
> to whatever. I've seen six-foot-tall women nearly kill themselves
> trying to lose that kind of weight, and it isn't pretty, mostly
> because they do it to themselves and there's not a lot you can do.
> Imagine a woman who looks like she'll roll down the hall like a
> tumbleweed if you open the door too quickly, like a shrink-wrapped
> skeleton.
While anorexia isin't simply a body-fat measurement, it's the obsession
with becoming thin that leads one to thinking and behaving in such an
unhealthy manner. Can you not see this? These 6' tall women you speak up
only believe that their bodies should be 120 lbs because they see how
approving society is to very thin women. Instead of accepting themselves
and looking for ways to eat healthily and live a healthy lifestyle (which
would hopefully include regular exercise), they are obsessed that there's
flesh hanging on their bones!
When you say "there's not a lot you can do", you sound as if you (and the
rest of us) are simply observers and that these women are acting the way
they are because of their imagination. Unfortunately, as someone's
mentioned women have it worse than men because they bear the brunt of the
social pressures...and who are the ones asserting the social pressures but
men? Now, don't go thinking that I think it's a man vs. woman issue now,
because I don't. I happen to think that these women also have poor
self-esteem overall, not just when it comes to physical attributes. It's
my belief that far too many women give too much credence to what their
male counterparts think.
This topic is very far from tennis, but nonetheless an intriguing one to
discuss.
Karlene
Steve Barnard
Mike Hoye wrote:
>
> Well, implying that you can't _naturally_ be too thin. It's obvious
> to even the most naive observer that you can be too thin.
Isn't it said that you can't be too thin or too rich? I'll agree with
the rich part, but not the thin part.
A really fit person has enough muscular development and low enough body
fat that you can clearly see muscular definition, and even the
striations of some muscles.
Steve Barnard
Steve Barnard
Marsha Strong wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:03:58 -0700, Steve Barnard
> <st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
>
> >Of course, there are fat people who are relatively fit compared to most
> >other fat people. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be fitter if
> >they shucked some blubber.
>
> overwight person "shucks some bubber" (as you so tactfully put it)
> in an unhealthy way (liquid protein diets, starvation, etc.), that
> weight loss could actually "eat way" at muscle tissue, including
> the heart muscle.
So who was talking about fad diets? Just work out and keep your mouth
closed. The pounds will disappear.
Steve Barnard
Steve Barnard
Charles Lin wrote:
>
> dar (dgo...@emory.edu) wrote:
>
> || Yes. Witness the college wrestler who just died of a heart attack after
> || trying to drop 15 pounds ... Of course, he was trying to do it by sweating
> || away enough water weight to wrestle at 158 rather than 173, in something
> || like 10 days. Crazy!
>
> I read about this. College wrestling is the only (I think) sport
> that has a weight requirement for (US) college sports. The old
> requirement said that you had to be within 1 pound of the maximum
> weight range that you wrestled at. This rule, I believe, has been
> changed to 7 pounds.
One pound, seven pounds -- what's the difference? You still have to
make the weight.
Steve Barnard
James Kershaw
Mike Hoye wrote:
>
> In article <klt-200198...@news.value.net>, KLT <k...@value.net> wrote:
> >In article <34C406...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com wrote:
> >Steve Barnard wrote:
> >> Mary Quasney wrote:
> There's no cold-and-hard weight-to-height ratio, obviously. But
> Steve's right: Overweight means the you need to lose weight.
> Underweight means you don't weigh enough to be healthy.
I vaguely remember a recent report from a medical association (British,
I think) which went short of suggesting that being thin could be
unhealthy. I think the wording went something like : "There are no
adverse medical effects caused by being thin." implying that you can't
be too thin.
Naturally, there are unhealthy side-effects of starving to death, but
anecdotally, I have a couple of friends who maintain a body fat
percentage of less than 4%. (Anorexia I believe starts at around 7%.)
James.
James Kershaw
Umesh Reghuram wrote:
>
> James Kershaw wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > I vaguely remember a recent report from a medical association (British,
> > I think) which went short of suggesting that being thin could be
> > unhealthy. I think the wording went something like : "There are no
> > adverse medical effects caused by being thin." implying that you can't
> > be too thin.
>
> is associated with longevity. Anecdotal evidence abounds but I do
> believe there is some literature on this issue.
> >
> > anecdotally, I have a couple of friends who maintain a body fat
> > percentage of less than 4%. (Anorexia I believe starts at around 7%.)
> >
>
> here.
>
> Michael Jordan is reputed to have a body fat %age of between 3 and 4%
> and I doubt anybody would call him anorexic!
That was my point... being thin (low body fat) is probably healthy,
although you do have to take precautions with your activity. Anorexia
is (imo) definitely unhealthy, but is not distinguished by body fat
alone.
In other words... there is no level of thinness which is unhealthy,
but there are associated disorders which can be dangerous.
James.
Charles Lin
dar (dgo...@emory.edu) wrote:
|| Yes. Witness the college wrestler who just died of a heart attack after
|| trying to drop 15 pounds ... Of course, he was trying to do it by sweating
|| away enough water weight to wrestle at 158 rather than 173, in something
|| like 10 days. Crazy!
I read about this. College wrestling is the only (I think) sport
that has a weight requirement for (US) college sports. The old
requirement said that you had to be within 1 pound of the maximum
weight range that you wrestled at. This rule, I believe, has been
changed to 7 pounds. In addition, weigh-ins are supposed to be
done 2 hours prior to the match, with the hope that no one would
try to lose weight quickly prior to a weigh in the close to
the start of competition, and still expect to do well.
--
Charles Lin
cl...@cs.umd.edu
James Kershaw
Mike Hoye wrote:
>
> In article <34C524...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>,
> James Kershaw <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> >Mike Hoye wrote:
> >
> >I think) which went short of suggesting that being thin could be
> >unhealthy. I think the wording went something like : "There are no
> >adverse medical effects caused by being thin." implying that you can't
> >be too thin.
>
> if you happen to be the person, of course.
Well, I wouldn't be classifying myself as the most naive observer,
and I can't see how you can be _too_ thin. Sure, you can be too
thin to survive in extreme conditions, but providing you are not
forcing your body to consume itself, and you take care to avoid
these extreme circumstances then you can feasibly and healthily
get down to very low body fat proportions. This, coupled with
a minimum lean tissue mass would be as _thin_ as you can get,
and according to the report carries no negative side effects,
and considerable health benefits.
Maybe it is a semantic difference, but I equate thinness with
fatness, and therefore thin and fat are measured on the same
scale of body fat proportion.
> >Naturally, there are unhealthy side-effects of starving to death, but
> >anecdotally, I have a couple of friends who maintain a body fat
> >percentage of less than 4%. (Anorexia I believe starts at around 7%.)
>
> Let's be clear about that: Anorexia isn't a body-fat measurement.
> Anorexia is a self-destructive process. It's unhealthy whether
> you're trying to get from 390lbs down to 260 or from 120 lbs down
> to whatever.
I agree totally... weight loss (fat loss) is not unhealthy. What
is unhealthy is the destruction of body and psych. I was trying
to point out that Anorexia (often related with being too thin) is
_not_ directly correlated with body fat proportion.
> I've seen six-foot-tall women nearly kill themselves ...
I think most people have at least had contact with anorexia ...
James.
Mike Hoye
In article <34C583...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>,
James Kershaw <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>Mike Hoye wrote:
>>
>> Well, implying that you can't _naturally_ be too thin. It's obvious
>> to even the most naive observer that you can be too thin. Except
>> if you happen to be the person, of course.
>
>Well, I wouldn't be classifying myself as the most naive observer,
>and I can't see how you can be _too_ thin. Sure, you can be too
>thin to survive in extreme conditions, but providing you are not
>forcing your body to consume itself, and you take care to avoid
>these extreme circumstances then you can feasibly and healthily
>get down to very low body fat proportions.
You hit the nail right on the head. Perhaps I was being a bit
oblique when said 'everyone but that person'; I was trying to
get at the denial elements of anorexia and bulimia. I agree,
cutting down on body fat with a sound diet and exercise can
certainly not be harmful.
>> Let's be clear about that: Anorexia isn't a body-fat measurement.
>> Anorexia is a self-destructive process. It's unhealthy whether
>> you're trying to get from 390lbs down to 260 or from 120 lbs down
>> to whatever.
>
>I agree totally... weight loss (fat loss) is not unhealthy. What
>is unhealthy is the destruction of body and psych. I was trying
>to point out that Anorexia (often related with being too thin) is
>_not_ directly correlated with body fat proportion.
I think that we're arguing the same point here, then.
--
Mike Hoye
KLT
> KLT wrote:
> >
> > As I've stated before isin't the DEFINITION (since you seem to like that
> > word) of being "fit" a reference to one's cardiovascular capabilities
> > rather than weight requirement? Last time I looked at the definition of
> > what "weight" was, it was one's mass relative to the earth's gravitational
> > force.
>
> OK, OK. If you're a Sumo wrestler or an NFL offensive lineman then you
> may be carrying lots of extra pounds and still be considered fit. If
> you're trying to compete at the highest level of professional tennis
> then you're dogmeat.
>
> Here's an idea. We have to combat this "lookism," right? We have to
> make everyone compete on an even playing field, regardless of their
> predisposition (genetically based, in all likelihood) to stuff their
> faces with fatty snacks. Right? So here's what we'll do. Tennis
> players will be handicapped, like horses. If some superfit athlete,
> with about 0% body fat, is playing some lardbucket then he or she will
> have to wear weighted saddlebags.
Uh, I think if this superfit athlete had 0% body fat, the match would have
to be a forfeit, as that "athlete" will either be in bed or dead. Thus,
the "lardbucket" would win.
Karlene
KLT
In article <6a2nfv$e2t$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Mike Hoye) wrote:
> In article <klt-200198...@news.value.net>, KLT <k...@value.net> wrote:
> >In article <34C406...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com wrote:
> >Steve Barnard wrote:
(in response to Mary Quasney):
> >> Huh? It's tautological. If you are overweight you are BY DEFINITION
> >> not fit. A fit person is neither overweight nor underweight.
> >
> >By whose definition is an overweight person considered unfit...yours?
> >And what is the definition of "overweight"...what is the "ideal" weight
> >that is what we all speak of for someone to be called overweight? Is this
> >an average weight?
>
> There's no cold-and-hard weight-to-height ratio, obviously. But
> Steve's right: Overweight means the you need to lose weight.
> Underweight means you don't weigh enough to be healthy.
(Sigh) Mike my point was that being overweight is rather a relative thing.
I make a distinction between being overweight and being obese. Judging
from the various comments made by people who equate being overweight with
being unfit...I would say that I would agree in so far as to say that
being obese is extremely unhealthy, but I still don't see a direct
correlation between being unfit and being overweight, since (once again) a
thin person can also be unfit...so what?
My sister's much slimer than I (she's also of a slighter build) but I'm
definitely more fit than she.
> This isn't a fascist social policy, it's a dictionary definition.
It isin't a fascist...what???? like which discussion were you reading when
you wrote this? where was there a mention of this? did I simply miss it or
is your intellect so superior that it rushed by me on it's way to
"intellect-dom"? The dictionary I have gives a definition as "bodily
weight that is higher than is compatible with good health" which is what I
was talking about above, only I consider it being obese.
> >As I've stated before isin't the DEFINITION (since you seem to like that
> >word) of being "fit" a reference to one's cardiovascular capabilities
> >rather than weight requirement?
>
> Yeah. So? You're aware that there's corellation excess body fat
> and cardio problems.
I dare you to find medical literature that exempts "thin" people from
cardiovascular problems. You seem to imply that thin people don't suffer
from these problems as well. Hardly.
> Or maybe not; as an extreme example, this is why really obese
> people die of heart attacks more often than leaner people. In
> a more grounded sense, the extra weight they're carrying around
> means that every movement takes more effort. From the other
> direction, getting fit requires exercise, an act which uses
> up the extra energy stored in your body fat.
True that really obese people die more of physiological complications,
than non-obese people. But look, you're saying "really obese people" in
the paragraph above.
So does this mean that when you're saying "overweight" you really mean
"really obese people"? or are you saying that being overweight
automatically means that one will become obese which will then make them
ore prone to have heart attacks?
And then of course back to tennis players...surely you're can't be saying
that players such as Seles and Sanchez are obese??? (I know you don't, but
it's to prove my point).
> Note that I said "excess body fat" and not "any body fat at all".
> Not everyone has to be an Iggy-Pop-skinny stringbean, but there
> is a point at which you can clearly look at someone and say
> "they are overweight".
Noted.
Karlene
KLT
Surely, heated debates can occur without name calling and condescending tones.
KLT
KLT
In article <34C524...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> Mike Hoye wrote:
> >
> > In article <klt-200198...@news.value.net>, KLT <k...@value.net> wrote:
> > >In article <34C406...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com wrote:
> > >Steve Barnard wrote:
> > >> Mary Quasney wrote:
>
> > There's no cold-and-hard weight-to-height ratio, obviously. But
> > Steve's right: Overweight means the you need to lose weight.
> > Underweight means you don't weigh enough to be healthy.
>
> I vaguely remember a recent report from a medical association (British,
> I think) which went short of suggesting that being thin could be
> unhealthy. I think the wording went something like : "There are no
> adverse medical effects caused by being thin." implying that you can't
> be too thin.
...ok, so go ahead and get as thin as you can then, and see if you remain
free from "adverse medical effects". I'd be interested in knowing which
medical association this is that would make a statement such as that.
Karlene
Grant Lund
James Kershaw wrote:
> Naturally, there are unhealthy side-effects of starving to death, but
> anecdotally, I have a couple of friends who maintain a body fat
> percentage of less than 4%. (Anorexia I believe starts at around 7%.)
>
Why would body fat be an indication of anorexia - body mass certainly
but not fat. One can be lean but not anorexic. My body:mass ratio is
like 19.5 (apparantly 20-30 is good) - I guess I should put on mass (not
fat).
Grant
Marsha Strong
>> There is a theory that eating 60-75% of the recommended caloric intake
>> is associated with longevity. Anecdotal evidence abounds but I do
>> believe there is some literature on this issue.
>
>I think that there is a lot of evidence (from animal studies) that
>restriction of calories is associated with longevity. It's a fascinating
>question as to why this seems to be the case. I bet there are a lot of
>factors involved.
Well let me site another study (done in the 1980's, I do believe)
which said almost the opposite.
The researchers took two groups of chickens: to one group they
gave hormones that *slowed* their metabolic rate, to the other
ones that sped up the metobolic rate, The slowed-chickens grew
plump, the sped-up chickens were skinny as rails.
Which group lived longer? The slowed down, fat chickens --
in fact almost twice as long!
I can only relate this anecdotally to my own family. Almost
all of us tend to "carry large" as my family doc once said.
My grandfather, 300+ pounds all his life, never went to a hospital
a single day of his life and died at 90+. His mother was over
100 when she died. My "skinniest" cousin is th only one of
us who has spent much time in hospital. Not that this
*proves* much of anything, but I always find it interesting.
Hope y'all will too.
marsha
Umesh Reghuram
I second that...
Actually, I disagree with Mary Quasnay when she writes 'No more needs to
be said!" - I was hoping she would have thrown some interesting light on
this debate given she wrote earlier of her background in the field of
nutrition. I hope she will still do so. Her 'ad hominem' attack
("unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT, uneducated") was really a pointless
way to argue and unfortunately invited an attack, as they often do on a
newsgroup (which KLT rightly condones).
Here's hoping for a return to good cheer!
Umesh Reghuram
KLT wrote:
>
> In article <6a3ahh$odu$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
> mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Mike Hoye) wrote:
>
> > Let's be clear about that: Anorexia isn't a body-fat measurement.
> > Anorexia is a self-destructive process. It's unhealthy whether
> > you're trying to get from 390lbs down to 260 or from 120 lbs down
I agree this is very intriguing and I'll add my two cents here.
First, I fail to see how any of Mike's comments are inconsistent with
what you have added. I think in general what Mike wrote :'there's not a
lot you can do": is not inaccurate - for a total stranger who is
anorexic, what might you expect Mike to do, unless you held him to a
different standard than in use in society at large? Society does have
self correcting mechanisms (family and friends, treatement clinics,
counselling and the like).
However, society's premium on good looks while emphasising 'thin' as
opposed to 'fat' does not exclude the middle ground. Society values
healthy fit women who are neither thin nor fat. However, there has to
be more than the societal pressure for this ailment - I agree with you
that low self-esteem is probably a major causal factor.
Umesh [not sure how this helps, but it's two less pennies for me to keep
track of :-)]
Umesh Reghuram
Greg: I happen to know, second hand, of one individual in the New
England area who is a researcher in the field and has taken this theory
to heart. He has been on a 70% diet for a while (I believe about 3
years) - I hear he has a tough time dating though :-)
Gregg Horras wrote:
>
> > There is a theory that eating 60-75% of the recommended caloric intake
> > is associated with longevity. Anecdotal evidence abounds but I do
> > believe there is some literature on this issue.
>
> I think that there is a lot of evidence (from animal studies) that
> restriction of calories is associated with longevity. It's a fascinating
> question as to why this seems to be the case. I bet there are a lot of
> factors involved.
>
Mike Hoye
In article <klt-200198...@news.value.net>, KLT <k...@value.net> wrote:
>In article <6a3ahh$odu$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
>mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Mike Hoye) wrote:
>
>> Let's be clear about that: Anorexia isn't a body-fat measurement.
>> Anorexia is a self-destructive process. It's unhealthy whether
>> you're trying to get from 390lbs down to 260 or from 120 lbs down
>> to whatever. I've seen six-foot-tall women nearly kill themselves
>> trying to lose that kind of weight, and it isn't pretty, mostly
>> because they do it to themselves and there's not a lot you can do.
>> Imagine a woman who looks like she'll roll down the hall like a
>> tumbleweed if you open the door too quickly, like a shrink-wrapped
>> skeleton.
>
>While anorexia isin't simply a body-fat measurement, it's the obsession
>with becoming thin that leads one to thinking and behaving in such an
>unhealthy manner.
I certainly agree with this.
>When you say "there's not a lot you can do", you sound as if you (and the
>rest of us) are simply observers and that these women are acting the way
>they are because of their imagination. Unfortunately, as someone's
>mentioned women have it worse than men because they bear the brunt of the
>social pressures...and who are the ones asserting the social pressures but
>men?
When I say there's "not a lot you can do", I mean that taking an active
role in it is difficult. When someone's getting mugged or breaks their
ankle, there are things that you can do immediately to help. That's
just not the case here. You can prod, suggest and recommend, but if
someone's not willing to change themselves there's little else you
can do.
>This topic is very far from tennis, but nonetheless an intriguing one to
>discuss.
It might be very relevant for people trying to get into an ideal
shape, as opposed to just getting in shape.
--
Mike Hoye
Umesh Reghuram
KLT wrote:
>
> In article <34C3D77D...@home.com>, Umesh Reghuram <um...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Mary!
>
> > I think my post emphasised the premium in professional sports on fitness
> > at an extremely superior level - merely being fit is not enough for even
> > a talented player such as Seles to be able to compete at being #1 : a
> > few pounds over-weight, a shade slower around the court and that spells
> > disaster against a Hingis who is smart enough to take advantage of this
> > aspect.
>
> I haven't seen the very first post about this.
> A few pounds over one's supposed ideal weight does not necessarily spell
> disaster. One can be very toned and fit and be "overweight" from the
> simple reason that muscle weighs more than no muscle. Being fit is usually
> defined as one's aerobic/cardiovascular capabilities. If more muscle mass
> slows one on the court, the power that comes from the additional muscle
> might be advantageous to the player so one thing cancels out the other.
> If one has not built up one's cardiovascular capabilities however, then it
> makes it much more difficult to keep running after balls.
>
I agree - when cardio gets affected as it usually does with excess
weight, it gets to be a problem.
> > in general, for us mere non-professional-athletes, I believe the
> > CORRELATION between being over-weight and being not-'fit' is fairly well
> > accepted, wouldn't you say?
>
> I know of people who look overweight and can run around a track
> effortlessly for a good half hour, at a slow to medium pace. Speed doesn't
> count when jogging only during sprints, but the endurance counts for
> jogging.
>
Jogging for a half hour at a slow pace may meet the standard of fitness
for some but not for others, cetainly not for a championship caliber
tennis player.
> > I would venture to guess that while one does not necessarily follow from
> > the other, the two characteristics (over-weight and being unfit) may
> > often share some causal factors; one that comes to mind immediately is
> > the lack of adequate exercise.
>
> But there are also very unfit people who are slim or even thin so you
> cannot say that there is a direct correlation between being overweight and
> being fit.
Exactly, and I never said that - I just said they may share common
causal factors.
Cheers.
Umesh
Mike Hoye
In article <klt-210198...@news.value.net>, KLT <k...@value.net> wrote:
>In article <6a2nfv$e2t$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
>mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Mike Hoye) wrote:
>
>> In article <klt-200198...@news.value.net>, KLT <k...@value.net> wrote:
>> >> Huh? It's tautological. If you are overweight you are BY DEFINITION
>> >> not fit. A fit person is neither overweight nor underweight.
>> >
>> >By whose definition is an overweight person considered unfit...yours?
>> >And what is the definition of "overweight"...what is the "ideal" weight
>> >that is what we all speak of for someone to be called overweight? Is this
>> >an average weight?
>>
>> Steve's right: Overweight means the you need to lose weight.
>> Underweight means you don't weigh enough to be healthy.
>
Gosh. I hate to trouble you so.
>Mike my point was that being overweight is rather a relative thing.
>I make a distinction between being overweight and being obese.
Careful re-reading of the above paragraph will reveal that I'm
saying exactly that, but without the blurry distinction between
overweight and obese.
If an athlete is overweight, they are by definition carrying around
more weight than they should, and that is a Bad Thing for a
professional athlete.
>Judging
>from the various comments made by people who equate being overweight with
>being unfit...I would say that I would agree in so far as to say that
>being obese is extremely unhealthy, but I still don't see a direct
>correlation between being unfit and being overweight, since (once again) a
>thin person can also be unfit...so what?
You've just hit on the difference between correlation and
causation.
>> This isn't a fascist social policy, it's a dictionary definition.
>
>It isin't a fascist...what???? like which discussion were you reading when
>you wrote this?
This one: your questions in the very first paragraph make it sound
like Steve's trying to force his opinions on the rest of the world,
when that's just not the case.
>The dictionary I have gives a definition as "bodily
>weight that is higher than is compatible with good health" which is what I
>was talking about above, only I consider it being obese.
For a pro athlete, "good health" means peak physical abilities.
That is certainly not compatible with 20 extra pounds of spare
tire, even if it isn't dangerously obese.
>> >As I've stated before isin't the DEFINITION (since you seem to like that
>> >word) of being "fit" a reference to one's cardiovascular capabilities
>> >rather than weight requirement?
>>
>> Yeah. So? You're aware that there's corellation excess body fat
>> and cardio problems.
>
>I dare you to find medical literature that exempts "thin" people from
>cardiovascular problems. You seem to imply that thin people don't suffer
>from these problems as well. Hardly.
Once again, the difference between correlation and causation is
an important one.
>> Or maybe not; as an extreme example, this is why really obese
>> people die of heart attacks more often than leaner people. In
>> a more grounded sense, the extra weight they're carrying around
>> means that every movement takes more effort. From the other
>> direction, getting fit requires exercise, an act which uses
>> up the extra energy stored in your body fat.
>
>True that really obese people die more of physiological complications,
>than non-obese people. But look, you're saying "really obese people" in
>the paragraph above.
>So does this mean that when you're saying "overweight" you really mean
>"really obese people"? or are you saying that being overweight
>automatically means that one will become obese which will then make them
>ore prone to have heart attacks?
No. That's why I included the "extreme example" caveat.
--
Mike Hoye
Steve Barnard
Roxanna wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone is suggesting that "superfit" athletes have
> some kind of unfair advantage. The concern is with calling professional
> tennis players fat, especially on the women's tour.
So I can't say "fat", eh? How about "a tiny bit on the chubby side"?
> I've watched a lot of
> tennis and seen a lot of different players, yet I have not seen one
> professional tennis player who I thought of as fat, and certainly no
> "lardbuckets." I have heard players like Seles, Sanchez Vicario, and
> Davenport called fat, which they certainly are not.
Right. Davenport and Seles were just too short for their weight.
> While on the men's
> tour, the first player I have heard labeled as fat in a long time is
> Andre Agassi, and he looked much bigger (proportionally) then they did.
It's much more unusual to see a fat (oops, I meant somewhat chubby) male
player, for the simple reason that they just won't be holding a high
ranking very long.
> It's not a great message to be sending out to young players, many of whom
> are already struggling with eating disorders.
Right. We don't coddle these millionaires enough already.
Steve Barnard
Umesh Reghuram
This addresses two posts, one from Karlene (KLT) and another from Chris
(Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu>). Both these posts are reproduced later.
Let me put it this way: On her return to competitive tennis after her
very long layoff, Monica was far less fit than she was when she left the
game. The Bank of the West final was her first or second final in
approximately five tournaments that she had played until then. At that
time, her father was fine and present on court side - it seems to me she
only had tennis to reckon with.
The reason I say she was not as fit was primarily because her movements
around the court were slower - this became obvious only when a player of
Hingis's caliber was able to test her. In her earlier games, Monica was
able to blow her opponents off and her movement was not really an
issue.
Slow movement - Huffing and puffing - obvious poor cardio - much heavier
- Obvious roll around the waist that was never there when she played
before -------------> Less fit -----------------> any other OBVIOUS
conclusions?
The above reasoning is identical for Andre Agasi recently (I just
checked his comments, he said he had to lose 22 pounds to get back in
shape; he was another with a very discernable roll in his gut). Mayber
my header should have read: Fit or Fat - first Seles, then Agassi, now
Hingis ???
Both players were "not FIT but also FAT" relative to where *THEY as
championship caliber players* needed to be to get to the top. There I
said it, they were FAT. I would not say that if I saw somebody on the
street with a few pounds more than the 'ideal', but if I saw him or her
on the finals of a Grand Slam, you bet I would say she or he was fat.
Now does this mean that you and I and the rest of the world should go
and get anorexic? No! Does this mean that young kids ought to get the
message that it is horrific to be twenty pounds over the weight and
fitness level they need to be at to compete at the finals of a WTA
championship match? No! What about other messages - well, it all
depends upon the maturity, self-esteem etc of the receiver too and a
whole different news group (perhaps that can be moved to soc.culture ?)
... but that is not the issue! The standards we judge top athletes by
are very different than those we use for the rest of us. Michael Jordan
on his return from baseball was 'unfit' relative to his usual level; the
steal by Nick Anderson off of a slow and cardio-challenged MJ on the
last play of game 6 cost the Bulls a trip to the championship. MJ's
response? Here was a guy already with body fat at 5% - he spent all
summer conditioning himself for the next season, knowing he could not
afford to let his opponents have the fitness edge on him. Result, NBA
championship and I believe a body fat % of under 4!!!
What was the message here? The message was strictly in the context of
championship tennis players competing at that level. The message is to
the Hingises and Grafs of the world - the point was that Hingis had
better watch out - if she let herself slip down to a sub-par level of
fitness, as she might have begun to do toward the end of the year (when
she seemed to lack endurance for sure) she has some outstanding examples
ahead of her that prove that the climb back is very difficult.
I am very intrigued at the prospect of watching Steffi play in Tokyo
next month. Would she have let the break from tennis allow herself to
get overweight and lose fitness? My instincts tell me that Fraulein
Forehand will be in tip top shape - her lack of match practice will
weigh in against her but should she get a decent draw with at least one
or two easy early round matches, I think she'll get to the championship
- now I am letting my heart instead of my head do the talking :-)
As to Chris's issue with the title of this post: some of you might
recognise that 'Fit or Fat' is the title of an excellent little book on
fitness by Covert Bailey - I thought it was to the point, since a few
pounds was all that seperated top players from slipping from 'fitness'
to 'fatness'.
Here's hoping I have clarified my thoughts adequately on the issues that
Karlene and Chris have raised.
Roxanna wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jan 1998, Umesh Reghuram wrote:
(Original post - snipped)
I share their concern, not so much with the body of your post,
but with the title (and I'm not 100% sure it was your title). Calling
it
fit or fat, and then proceeding to talk about Monica Seles' lack of
fitness, implies, whether you meant it or not, that Monica Seles is
fat.
Wait a minute, Monica Seles? Fat? No way. Not as fit as she should
be? Very possible. She might not even be overweight for her height -
if
she isn't working on her fitness properly, she may have just lost a
little muscle in favor of body fat. I'm not disagreeing with you at all
that this might put her at a competitive disadvantage. I do believe
that
a person reading your post may believe you are saying that she is *fat*
and that Martina Hingis is in danger of becoming so. Combine that with
the people come out and say they are fat (or fat pigs), and it's easy to
see what scares Marsha. If people like Monica Seles are seen as *fat*,
it's no wonder that eating disorders are such a problem.
Chris
(in no way implying that you set out to advocate the model thin body!)
KLT wrote:
>
> In article <34C3D77D...@home.com>, Umesh Reghuram <um...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 15 Jan 1998, Umesh Reghuram wrote:
> > >
> > > > Or a devastating loss - I remember watching Monica Seles lose 6-1, 6-0
> > > > to Hingis in the Bank of the West Classic Final in Oakland last year,
> > > > actually late '96. Though she was swift, Monica's speed was never her
> > > > best card, yet it was painfully obvious that she was over-weight
> > > > relative to the championship level she would like to compete at. While
> > > > she has lost a few pounds since then, she probably needs to follow a far
> > > > more rigorous discipline - Ike Austin's recent success with the Miami
> > > > Heat is the most recent and spectacular example that it can be done with
> > > > stunning results. Jennifer Capriati is another player who is far slower
> > > > around the court than she could be...
>
> I was also at the Bank of the West Classic back in '96 when Seles played Hingis.
> Monica was definitely a lot slower than Hingis, but this was not a weight
> issue. Puleeese remember that Monica had been gone from tennis for how
> many years, had only been back that year (or the year previous), while
> Hingis was reaping the joys of inexperience, few to no grand slam
> tournaments to her name to defend, was 16...in other words it was her
> grand debut. Weight is not Monica's only issue, and in fact I doubt it's
> her main issue. I think she's lost whatever edge she had when she left the
> game. She's having to play catch up in countless ways. She's having to
> compete with an entirely different population of opponents.
>
> Karlene
Paul Banik
KLT wrote:
>
> Uh, I think if this superfit athlete had 0% body fat, the match would have > to be a forfeit, as that "athlete" will either be in bed or dead.
No kidding...if this athlete was below 2% bodyfat, that could lead to
damage of internal organs. I would recommend no athlete drop below 2%
bodyfat, otherwise you're asking for problems.
Thus, > the "lardbucket" would win.
> Karlene
Yup.
Paul Banik
KLT wrote:
>
> Surely, heated debates can occur without name calling and condescending tones.
>
> KLT
Sure they can occur...but I'm lowering myself down to the level of
Bloody Mary Queasy, since she initiated the debate.
Steve Barnard
Paul Banik wrote:
>
> KLT wrote:
>
> >
> > Uh, I think if this superfit athlete had 0% body fat, the match would have > to be a forfeit, as that "athlete" will either be in bed or dead.
>
> No kidding...if this athlete was below 2% bodyfat, that could lead to
> damage of internal organs. I would recommend no athlete drop below 2%
> bodyfat, otherwise you're asking for problems.
It's called hyperbole.
Steve Barnard
Paul Banik
Umesh Reghuram wrote:
>
> KLT wrote:
> >
> >
> > Surely, heated debates can occur without name calling and condescending tones.
> >
> > KLT
>
>
> Actually, I disagree with Mary Quasnay when she writes 'No more needs to > be said!" - I was hoping she would have thrown some interesting light on > this debate given she wrote earlier of her background in the field of > nutrition. I hope she will still do so. Her 'ad hominem' attack > ("unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT, uneducated") was really a pointless > way to argue and unfortunately invited an attack, as they often do on a > newsgroup (which KLT rightly condones).
That's why I was slamming her arguments. I was merely stating something,
but she chose to attack me, so I responded in kind. If Bloody Mary
Queasy wants to talk about it, fine.
Paul Banik
Mike Hoye wrote:
>
>
> Children, children....
> --
> Mike Hoye
Mike, I'm lowering myself to her level, because it appears she would
rather flame me for my comments than engage in a discussion, so Bloody
Mary Queasy should either back off or prepare for more humiliation.
Charles Lin
Marsha Strong (CMST...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
|| Which group lived longer? The slowed down, fat chickens --
|| in fact almost twice as long!
There are some studies that I heard about where rats or
some rodent were fed a low-calorie diet. The control
group was given the normal number of calories. The rats
lived much longer on the low calorie diet than the regular
calorie diet. This might be difficult to apply to humans
because most people will grab something to eat when they
get hungry, whereas the rats didn't have a choice about
when they could or could not eat. This makes it difficult
to see how well this idea generalizes to humans.
--
Charles Lin
cl...@cs.umd.edu
Roxanna
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Steve Barnard wrote:
> Roxanna wrote:
> >
> > I don't think anyone is suggesting that "superfit" athletes have
> > some kind of unfair advantage. The concern is with calling professional
> > tennis players fat, especially on the women's tour.
>
> So I can't say "fat", eh? How about "a tiny bit on the chubby side"?
If it applies. Where I come from, it is generally understood
that fat does not mean a few pounds over the recommended body weight. It
means many pounds over. That's why we use a variety of terms, a little
overweight, chubby, obese, fat.
> > I've watched a lot of
> > tennis and seen a lot of different players, yet I have not seen one
> > professional tennis player who I thought of as fat, and certainly no
> > "lardbuckets." I have heard players like Seles, Sanchez Vicario, and
> > Davenport called fat, which they certainly are not.
>
> Right. Davenport and Seles were just too short for their weight.
I don't believe it is polite to call anyone fat in a public
forum, however there are public figures I could name that most people
would agree are fat. Seles and Davenport don't even come close. Not as
fit as they should be? Sure, maybe, i'm not an expert. But not fat.
> > While on the men's
> > tour, the first player I have heard labeled as fat in a long time is
> > Andre Agassi, and he looked much bigger (proportionally) then they did.
>
> It's much more unusual to see a fat (oops, I meant somewhat chubby) male
> player, for the simple reason that they just won't be holding a high
> ranking very long.
A fat player won't succeed on either side of the tour. A player
who could stand to improve their fitness, whether it's because they're a
few pounds overweight, not strong enough, etc, can get by if they are
otherwise talented, although it'll be a disadvantage.
> > It's not a great message to be sending out to young players, many of whom
> > are already struggling with eating disorders.
>
>
> Right. We don't coddle these millionaires enough already.
Who's coddling anyone? The players on the tour work hard for
what they earn. Whether their salaries are too high is a different
issue. Anyway, I wasn't refering only to players on the tour, but young
aspiring players as well, who may or may not be rich. And money has
little to do with the issue. If people want to discuss a player's
fitness - their court speed, their endurance, their strength, that's
fine. It's certainly possible to suggest someone needs to improve their
fitness without resorting to calling them a fat pig or a lard bucket. A
person who is unfit certainly does not have to be fat.
Chris
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Chris Cooney * "Though we live in trying times, *
* * we're the ones who have to try. *
* (cm...@acpub.duke.edu) * Though we know that time has wings, *
* * We're the ones who have to fly..." - Rush *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Roxanna
On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Umesh Reghuram wrote:
> This addresses two posts, one from Karlene (KLT) and another from Chris
> (Roxanna <cm...@acpub.duke.edu>). Both these posts are reproduced later.
>
> Let me put it this way: On her return to competitive tennis after her
> very long layoff, Monica was far less fit than she was when she left the
> game. The Bank of the West final was her first or second final in
> approximately five tournaments that she had played until then. At that
> time, her father was fine and present on court side - it seems to me she
> only had tennis to reckon with.
>
> The reason I say she was not as fit was primarily because her movements
> around the court were slower - this became obvious only when a player of
> Hingis's caliber was able to test her. In her earlier games, Monica was
> able to blow her opponents off and her movement was not really an
> issue.
>
> Slow movement - Huffing and puffing - obvious poor cardio - much heavier
> - Obvious roll around the waist that was never there when she played
> before -------------> Less fit -----------------> any other OBVIOUS
> conclusions?
That's fine. I'm not going to dispute you on anyone's fitness.
> The above reasoning is identical for Andre Agasi recently (I just
> checked his comments, he said he had to lose 22 pounds to get back in
> shape; he was another with a very discernable roll in his gut). Mayber
> my header should have read: Fit or Fat - first Seles, then Agassi, now
> Hingis ???
>
> Both players were "not FIT but also FAT" relative to where *THEY as
> championship caliber players* needed to be to get to the top. There I
> said it, they were FAT. I would not say that if I saw somebody on the
> street with a few pounds more than the 'ideal', but if I saw him or her
> on the finals of a Grand Slam, you bet I would say she or he was fat.
And I think this has the potential to cause problems. Saying
Seles is/was fat, is not going to make someone think, "well he only
thinks she's fat because she a tennis player who is a few pounds
overweight. If he saw her on the street, it would be ok." What's wrong
with just saying that she needs to work on her fitness, because she is
slower, more tired, and needs to lose a few pounds?
> Now does this mean that you and I and the rest of the world should go
> and get anorexic? No! Does this mean that young kids ought to get the
> message that it is horrific to be twenty pounds over the weight and
> fitness level they need to be at to compete at the finals of a WTA
> championship match? No! What about other messages - well, it all
> depends upon the maturity, self-esteem etc of the receiver too and a
> whole different news group (perhaps that can be moved to soc.culture ?)
> ... but that is not the issue! The standards we judge top athletes by
> are very different than those we use for the rest of us. Michael Jordan
> on his return from baseball was 'unfit' relative to his usual level; the
> steal by Nick Anderson off of a slow and cardio-challenged MJ on the
> last play of game 6 cost the Bulls a trip to the championship. MJ's
> response? Here was a guy already with body fat at 5% - he spent all
> summer conditioning himself for the next season, knowing he could not
> afford to let his opponents have the fitness edge on him. Result, NBA
> championship and I believe a body fat % of under 4!!!
That's fine, he was "unfit." I never heard anyone call him fat,
in the media, in basketball and baseball newsgroups, etc. Of course the
standards are not the same for athletes vs. the rest of us. But the word
fat does not suddenly mean something other than grossly overweight when
you start talking about an athlete. At least not in the minds of most
people, i'd venture to say.
> What was the message here? The message was strictly in the context of
> championship tennis players competing at that level. The message is to
> the Hingises and Grafs of the world - the point was that Hingis had
> better watch out - if she let herself slip down to a sub-par level of
> fitness, as she might have begun to do toward the end of the year (when
> she seemed to lack endurance for sure) she has some outstanding examples
> ahead of her that prove that the climb back is very difficult.
Again, I think you communicate these thoughts very well without
ever having to say she is in danger of becoming fat.
> I am very intrigued at the prospect of watching Steffi play in Tokyo
> next month. Would she have let the break from tennis allow herself to
> get overweight and lose fitness? My instincts tell me that Fraulein
> Forehand will be in tip top shape - her lack of match practice will
> weigh in against her but should she get a decent draw with at least one
> or two easy early round matches, I think she'll get to the championship
> - now I am letting my heart instead of my head do the talking :-)
>
> As to Chris's issue with the title of this post: some of you might
> recognise that 'Fit or Fat' is the title of an excellent little book on
> fitness by Covert Bailey - I thought it was to the point, since a few
> pounds was all that seperated top players from slipping from 'fitness'
> to 'fatness'.
Which i did recognize, but haven't read. Maybe Covert Bailey
redefines the word fat at the begining of his book, but even so I
disagree that players who are unfit should be called fat. In your post,
again it seems as though you are implying Seles, for ex, is fat. And
most of us don't have to definitions of the word.
> Here's hoping I have clarified my thoughts adequately on the issues that
> Karlene and Chris have raised.
My posts aren't intended as an attack on you. I don't believe
you think the rest of the world needs to become anorexic, and I don't
think you are encouraging people to flip out if they are 20 pounds
overweight.
Chris
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KLT
In article <6a56lj$o...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
CMST...@worldnet.att.net (Marsha Strong) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 23:06:15 -0600, Gregg Horras
> <hor...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> There is a theory that eating 60-75% of the recommended caloric intake
> >> is associated with longevity. Anecdotal evidence abounds but I do
> >> believe there is some literature on this issue.
> >
> >I think that there is a lot of evidence (from animal studies) that
> >restriction of calories is associated with longevity. It's a fascinating
> >question as to why this seems to be the case. I bet there are a lot of
> >factors involved.
>
> Well let me site another study (done in the 1980's, I do believe)
> which said almost the opposite.
>
> The researchers took two groups of chickens: to one group they
> gave hormones that *slowed* their metabolic rate, to the other
> ones that sped up the metobolic rate, The slowed-chickens grew
> plump, the sped-up chickens were skinny as rails.
>
> Which group lived longer? The slowed down, fat chickens --
> in fact almost twice as long!
Do you think you should make that type of interpretation to humans and
their natural metabolic differences? Anything artifically induced can't
really represent or be compared to a naturally occurring phenomenon. The
reason for the chickens who had reved-up (sp?) metabolic rates dying
faster is because their organs were not adapted to handle the extra load,
as this was an induced state, whereas a slowed down metabolic rate that
results in extra fat would not stress the chickens unless they were very
heavy and were trying to dodge a predator and in their flight, their tiny
hearts could not pump oxygen fast enough to their brains and organs and
they ....you know what I mean.
Karlene
KLT
In article <34C6271A...@home.com>, Umesh Reghuram <um...@home.com> wrote:
> KLT wrote:
(snipped stuff from Mike Hoye and myself)
>
> > This topic is very far from tennis, but nonetheless an intriguing one to
> > discuss.
> >
> > Karlene
>
> I agree this is very intriguing and I'll add my two cents here.
>
> First, I fail to see how any of Mike's comments are inconsistent with
> what you have added. I think in general what Mike wrote :'there's not a
> lot you can do": is not inaccurate - for a total stranger who is
> anorexic, what might you expect Mike to do, unless you held him to a
> different standard than in use in society at large? Society does have
> self correcting mechanisms (family and friends, treatement clinics,
> counselling and the like).
I specifically did not want for someone to think this, and this is why I
stated parenthetically "and the rest of us". Of course it would be strange
for Mike to go to a total stranger and even attempt to address this topic.
I did not mention that he should do this. I just think that too often
people tend to disregard the "social conscience" that exists by saying "oh
well, there's nothing I can do". I'm merely thinking in a broader sense
that there would be less cases of people (mainly females) freaking out at
the mention of the word "overweight" or "big boned" or "she's a big
one"...if there weren't people who thought that "thin is in" or that being
over one's supposed ideal weight is synonymous with being unfit...you get
this train of thought I hope.
The fact that there are "self-correcting mechanisms" as you call them,
actually emphasizes just how bad a state things are...the fact that
they're needed means that far too many people suffer from these
disorders/obsessions with their bodies and weight.
> However, society's premium on good looks while emphasising 'thin' as
> opposed to 'fat' does not exclude the middle ground. Society values
> healthy fit women who are neither thin nor fat. However, there has to
> be more than the societal pressure for this ailment - I agree with you
> that low self-esteem is probably a major causal factor.
Umesh, until I see that magazines have models who are "neither thin nor
fat", until men begin to value women for who they are and begin to
appreciate women in their various shapes and sizes, until the youngsters
in the U.S. are raised to include exercise as a regular part of their
lives like breathing...I would have to say that I don't believe that
society values healthy fit women (people).
Karlene
KLT
> > Surely, heated debates can occur without name calling and
condescending tones.
> >
> > KLT
> I second that...
> Actually, I disagree with Mary Quasnay when she writes 'No more needs to
> be said!" - I was hoping she would have thrown some interesting light on
> this debate given she wrote earlier of her background in the field of
> nutrition. I hope she will still do so. Her 'ad hominem' attack
> ("unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT, uneducated") was really a pointless
> way to argue and unfortunately invited an attack, as they often do on a
> newsgroup (which KLT rightly condones).
Huh? Umesh maybe you should proofread your replies before submitting
them...what evidence do you have that I "condone" verbal attacks? Did I
not just say above that heated debates should occur without name calling
etc. Did you mean to say the opposite of "condone"?
Besides, I was actually more surprised at Paul's response than by Mary's
words. Her words were in earnest, although quite heated. She obviously
feels strongly about this, and the fact that she has a background in
nutrition brings to mind that quite possibly there's a reason for her
words.
Ok, back to some tennis talk.
Karlene
KLT
> KLT wrote:
> >
> > In article <34C3D77D...@home.com>, Umesh Reghuram
<um...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > in general, for us mere non-professional-athletes, I believe the
> > > CORRELATION between being over-weight and being not-'fit' is fairly well
> > > accepted, wouldn't you say?
> >
> > I know of people who look overweight and can run around a track
> > effortlessly for a good half hour, at a slow to medium pace. Speed doesn't
> > count when jogging only during sprints, but the endurance counts for
> > jogging.
> >
>
> Jogging for a half hour at a slow pace may meet the standard of fitness
> for some but not for others, cetainly not for a championship caliber
> tennis player.
>
> > > I would venture to guess that while one does not necessarily follow from
> > > the other, the two characteristics (over-weight and being unfit) may
> > > often share some causal factors; one that comes to mind immediately is
> > > the lack of adequate exercise.
> >
> > But there are also very unfit people who are slim or even thin so you
> > cannot say that there is a direct correlation between being overweight and
> > being fit.
>
> Exactly, and I never said that - I just said they may share common
> causal factors.
Well someone said it...just look up above with "CORRELATION" just jumping
out of the page.
Karlene
Peter Lau
But damn, those are the saddest looking rats I've ever seen! Some were
carrying signs that said, "Make me a control group, pleazzz. (Rhymes
with cheezzz)"
Peter Lau
They may deplete their blood sugar, but to deplete their body fat they
would be indeed dead.
James Kershaw wrote:
>
>
> I'm not convinced of that. Long distance runners, cross country
> skiers, and so forth, generally have very low body fat proportions
> (below 4%), and yet manage to perform these long distance events
> quite adequately. It is not unusual for them to deplete their fat
> reserves during the race, and yet they continue on to finish.
>
> James.
James Kershaw
KLT wrote:
>
> In article <34C454...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com wrote:
>
> > KLT wrote:
> > >
> > > As I've stated before isin't the DEFINITION (since you seem to like that
> > > word) of being "fit" a reference to one's cardiovascular capabilities
> > > what "weight" was, it was one's mass relative to the earth's gravitational
> > > force.
> >
> > OK, OK. If you're a Sumo wrestler or an NFL offensive lineman then you
> > may be carrying lots of extra pounds and still be considered fit. If
> > you're trying to compete at the highest level of professional tennis
> > then you're dogmeat.
> >
> > Here's an idea. We have to combat this "lookism," right? We have to
> > make everyone compete on an even playing field, regardless of their
> > predisposition (genetically based, in all likelihood) to stuff their
> > faces with fatty snacks. Right? So here's what we'll do. Tennis
> > players will be handicapped, like horses. If some superfit athlete,
> > with about 0% body fat, is playing some lardbucket then he or she will
> > have to wear weighted saddlebags.
>
> Uh, I think if this superfit athlete had 0% body fat, the match would have
> the "lardbucket" would win.
I'm not convinced of that. Long distance runners, cross country
James Kershaw
One of the indicators I believe is body fat percentage. Of course,
this is not the only indicator... I just put it in for comparison.
James.
James Kershaw
KLT wrote:
>
> In article <34C524...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Mike Hoye wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <klt-200198...@news.value.net>, KLT <k...@value.net> wrote:
> > > >In article <34C406...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com wrote:
> > > >Steve Barnard wrote:
> >
> > > There's no cold-and-hard weight-to-height ratio, obviously. But
> > > Steve's right: Overweight means the you need to lose weight.
> > > Underweight means you don't weigh enough to be healthy.
> >
> > I think) which went short of suggesting that being thin could be
> > unhealthy. I think the wording went something like : "There are no
> > adverse medical effects caused by being thin." implying that you can't
> > be too thin.
>
> ...ok, so go ahead and get as thin as you can then, and see if you remain
> free from "adverse medical effects". I'd be interested in knowing which
> medical association this is that would make a statement such as that.
As I said, I _think_ it was the British medical association. Also,
annecdotally, I have friends who keep about a 3-4% body fat proportion.
They also race cross-country, and run 60km up and down mountains for
the fun of it (in hot weather). These people are very fit, and are
also extremely thin.
James.
Mike Hoye
In article <34C63C11...@mail.usask.ca>,
>rather flame me for my comments than engage in a discussion, so Bloody
>Mary Queasy should either back off or prepare for more humiliation.
She's enthusiastic, but let's keep things in perspective here. I
haven't seen anyone on this group flamed in months. I haven't
seen a lot of humiliation either, other than from people willing
to do it to themselves.
There's absolutely no need to stoop to this kind of posturing.
--
Mike Hoye
Donal Fagan
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.98012...@carr4.acpub.duke.edu>,
cm...@acpub.duke.edu says...
> If it applies. Where I come from, it is generally understood
>that fat does not mean a few pounds over the recommended body weight. It
>means many pounds over. That's why we use a variety of terms, a little
>overweight, chubby, obese, fat.
Are these in ascending order? I'd put obese above fat.
How about big-boned, heavy-set, a-few-extra-pounds, overweight, rubenesque,
thick-in-the-middle, chubby, dumpy, plump, pear-shaped, fat, porcine, grossly
fat, obese, removed-from-house-by-crew-with-forklift and buried-in-piano-case.
Then you have trim, thin, rangy, skinny, beanpole, bony, stick,
brown-rice-diet, frail, heroin-chic, skin-and-bones, anorexic, body-bag,
being-fed-intravenously and weighed-sixty-five-pounds-at-time-of-death.
--
Donal Fagan
DonalFagan@WhatDoYouThink?-mindspring-YesGoOn.com
Remove the psychobabble to reply via e-mail, if that's what you really want.
Umesh Reghuram
Printer's devil, Karlene!
The word should have been condemns not condones! So little, yet so
much....
Sorry about that!
Umesh
KLT wrote:
>
> In article <34C6231B...@home.com>, Umesh Reghuram <um...@home.com> wrote:
> > KLT wrote:
> > > In article <34C4E710...@mail.usask.ca>, Paul Banik
Steve Barnard
Donal Fagan wrote:
>
> How about big-boned, heavy-set, a-few-extra-pounds, overweight, rubenesque,
> thick-in-the-middle, chubby, dumpy, plump, pear-shaped, fat, porcine, grossly
> fat, obese, removed-from-house-by-crew-with-forklift and buried-in-piano-case.
>
How about, "When you get on the bus you pay double."
Steve Barnard
KLT
In article <6a5a6r$sce$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Mike Hoye) wrote:
> In article <klt-210198...@news.value.net>, KLT <k...@value.net> wrote:
> >In article <6a2nfv$e2t$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
> >mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Mike Hoye) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <klt-200198...@news.value.net>, KLT <k...@value.net>
> >> >Steve Barnard wrote:
> >(in response to Mary Quasney):
> >> >> Huh? It's tautological. If you are overweight you are BY DEFINITION
> >> >> not fit. A fit person is neither overweight nor underweight.
KLT said:
> >> >By whose definition is an overweight person considered unfit...yours?
> >> >And what is the definition of "overweight"...what is the "ideal" weight
> >> >that is what we all speak of for someone to be called overweight? Is this
> >> >an average weight?Judging from the various comments made by people
who equate being overweight with >being unfit...I would say that I would
agree in so far as to say that
> >being obese is extremely unhealthy, but I still don't see a direct
> >correlation between being unfit and being overweight, since (once again) a
> >thin person can also be unfit...so what?
Mike Hoye replied:
> You've just hit on the difference between correlation and
> causation.
So now you've deemed that I've hit on the difference, what are you trying
to say? At this point it's tough to say what the original post was and
who said what. I've lost track.
> This one: your questions in the very first paragraph make it sound
> like Steve's trying to force his opinions on the rest of the world,
> when that's just not the case.
No, I did not think that Steve was trying to force his opinions on the
rest of the world, but his saying that overweight people are "BY
DEFINITION" unfit is incorrect. Very few things are definitive. least of
all this type of generalization.
> >The dictionary I have gives a definition as "bodily
> >weight that is higher than is compatible with good health" which is what I
> >was talking about above, only I consider it being obese.
>
> For a pro athlete, "good health" means peak physical abilities.
However, if we're speaking literally of definitions here, the dictionaries
do not state "but in the case of a pro athlete, good health means peak
physical abilities". You're putting in your own interpretation here of a
specific situation.
> >> Yeah. So? You're aware that there's corellation excess body fat
> >> and cardio problems.
> >
> >I dare you to find medical literature that exempts "thin" people from
> >cardiovascular problems. You seem to imply that thin people don't suffer
> >from these problems as well. Hardly.
>
> Once again, the difference between correlation and causation is
> an important one.
Ok, can you explain this to me as you've now mentioned it twice and I
still don't understand your point of saying this. What I've said seems
quite clear to me.
> >> Or maybe not; as an extreme example, this is why really obese
> >> people die of heart attacks more often than leaner people. In
> >> a more grounded sense, the extra weight they're carrying around
> >> means that every movement takes more effort.
> >
> >True that really obese people die more of physiological complications,
> >than non-obese people. But look, you're saying "really obese people" in
> >the paragraph above.So does this mean that when you're saying
"overweight" you really mean "really obese people"? or are you saying that
being overweight
> >automatically means that one will become obese which will then make them
> >ore prone to have heart attacks?
>
> No. That's why I included the "extreme example" caveat.
Seems to me that you may have mixed up being overweight with being obese
when discussing the correlation/causation thing and heart attacks etc.
Do you really feel that overweight people (not excessively so) die more
than underweight or thin people of things like heart attacks?
Karlene
KLT
In article <34C67B...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
As I've indicated...go ahead and get "as thin as you can"...if you ask
your friends, I'm sure that they intentionally monitor their body mass,
fluids, electrolyte levels etc...to make certain that they do not go below
a certain level...at least if they were healthy and fitness conscious as
pro athletes would.
Karlene
KLT
In article <34C67A...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> > Uh, I think if this superfit athlete had 0% body fat, the match would have
> > to be a forfeit, as that "athlete" will either be in bed or dead. Thus,
> > the "lardbucket" would win.
>
> I'm not convinced of that. Long distance runners, cross country
> skiers, and so forth, generally have very low body fat proportions
> (below 4%), and yet manage to perform these long distance events
> quite adequately. It is not unusual for them to deplete their fat
> reserves during the race, and yet they continue on to finish.
Vast difference btwn. "below 4%" and "0%" isin't there?
Also I wonder if they really fully deplete all of their fat reserves
because the body also uses fat as a defense mechanism against cold weather
(i.e. the shivering reflex), so if they used all of their fat, they would
not be able to protect against this and so their body would be
stressed...thus I don't think they do this.
KLT
KLT
In article <6a1560$3...@camel20.mindspring.com>,
Donal...@like-mindspring-man.com (Donal Fagan) wrote:
> In article <Pine.GSO.3.96.980119...@catbert.ucdavis.edu>,
> m...@mailbox.ucdavis.edu says...
> >
> >I just think that the statement that ALL overweight people are not fit is
> >as ridiculous as it gets (and unintelligent, mindless, IGNORANT,
> >uneducated). No more needs to be said!
>
> Doesn't *over*weight indicate that they could be fitter, since they are above
> their proper recommended weight (granted that your expert's proper weight may
> differ from mine). Overconfident is too much confidence, overindulgence
is too
> much indulgence and overweight is too much weight. Or do you think
overweight,
> like overboard and overtones, is not a pejorative?
>
> Now if you want to say being skinny does not automatically equal fitness, I
> would agree with you. But overweight, to my mind, definitely implies a
certain
> lack of fitness.
Well...here we go again. Seems that we are all rather strong-minded folk
and no one's budged one iota in consideration of another's viewpoint.
I believe that Mary's exception to the statement is because it is a huge
generalization when one says: ALL (overweight people etc., etc.). For the
record, I agree with her about generalizing in this way, but not with the
rest of it (that the poster's necessarily mindless and unintelligent and
all that).
Karlene
Steve Barnard
KLT wrote:
>
> In article <6a1560$3...@camel20.mindspring.com>,
> Donal...@like-mindspring-man.com (Donal Fagan) wrote:
>
> >
> > Now if you want to say being skinny does not automatically equal fitness, I
> > would agree with you. But overweight, to my mind, definitely implies a
> certain
> > lack of fitness.
>
> Well...here we go again. Seems that we are all rather strong-minded folk
> and no one's budged one iota in consideration of another's viewpoint.
Does anyone else catch the irony in this statement?
Steve Barnard
Mike Hoye
In article <klt-220198...@news.value.net>, KLT <k...@value.net> wrote:
>In article <6a5a6r$sce$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
>mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Mike Hoye) wrote:
>
>> You've just hit on the difference between correlation and
>> causation.
>
>So now you've deemed that I've hit on the difference, what are you trying
>to say? At this point it's tough to say what the original post was and
>who said what. I've lost track.
I'm tempted to let this drop, myself, for exactly that reason.
But I'm not going to let this one point slide:
>Do you really feel that overweight people (not excessively so) die more
>than underweight or thin people of things like heart attacks?
It's not what I think; it's a statistical reality. I can go and
dig the figures out, if you like. I don't think, as James said,
that there's a problem for naturally thin people being significantly
less healthy than anyone else, but unnaturally thin people do
die off at a higher-than-normal rate, though of entirely different
things than unhealthily overweight people do.
Note the important differences between "naturally thin" and
"unnaturally thin".
--
Mike Hoye
Mike Hoye
In article <34C765...@megafauna.com>,
Steve Barnard <st...@megafauna.com> wrote:
>KLT wrote:
>>
>> Well...here we go again. Seems that we are all rather strong-minded folk
>> and no one's budged one iota in consideration of another's viewpoint.
>
>Does anyone else catch the irony in this statement?
I dunno. It sounded more like an r.s.t. truism to me.
But hell, they say that admitting you have a problem is the first
step to solving it.
--
Mike "Hi... My name's Mike... and I'm obstinate as hell." Hoye
KLT
In article <6a1ene$adg$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>,
mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Mike Hoye) wrote:
>
> >> Huh? It's tautological. If you are overweight you are BY DEFINITION
> >> not fit. A fit person is neither overweight nor underweight.
> >>
> >> Of course, there are fat people who are relatively fit compared to most
> >> other fat people. But that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be fitter if
> >> they shucked some blubber.
> >
> >Overweight does not mean fat.
>
> Of course it does. Overweight doesn't mean "heavier than average".
> It means "Too heavy".
>
> >Fit does not mean neither over nor underweight.
>
> Fit means "in good shape". I agree that it has nothing to do with
> how close you are to the average weight for your height, or
> whatever that scientifically healthy weight might be. Fit
> people come in all shapes and sizes.
>
> The terms "overweight" and "underweight" are typically applied
> to people who are noticeably fatter than they need to be or
> visibly skinnier than is healthy.
Just as I suspected, it's our definitions of overweight/underweight and
obese/fat. See, I think of overweight as being "heavier than average" and
I consider obese as being very heavy, whereas you're equating overweight
and obese as being the same. THerein lies our source of conflict.
Karlene
KLT
In article <34C7CC...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
<James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
> KLT wrote:
> >
> > As I've indicated...go ahead and get "as thin as you can"...if you ask
> > your friends, I'm sure that they intentionally monitor their body mass,
> > fluids, electrolyte levels etc...to make certain that they do not go below
> > a certain level...at least if they were healthy and fitness conscious as
> > pro athletes would.
>
> They certainly monitor their food and fluid intake during events. Apart
> from
> that I think they just stick to a diet like eveyone else.... starting
> with
> 24 wheatbix in the morning.
>
> Anyway, I'm just reporting what I remember. If you really contest the
> point,
> you should perhaps take it up with authorities.
I'll do this. I know some pretty high level "authorities".
KLT
Gregg Horras
James Kershaw wrote:
>
> Peter Lau wrote:
> >
> > They may deplete their blood sugar, but to deplete their body fat they
> > would be indeed dead.
>
>
> James.
>
I think the obvious answer to this question is that if you are so low on
energy that you have no fat reserves at all, you have taken it too far,
and you will starve to death.
Fat has some other functions as well, though, as it can serve as padding
in some areas of the body. The most notable place is the knee, where
there is a lot of fat (at least there was on the cadaver that I
dissected in medical school). I wouldn't want to lose all of the fat
there, I don't think.
(By the way, dissecting cadavers made me realize how ubiquitous fat is
in the body. I dissected an overweight female, and most of the work was
trimming away the enormous amounts of fat. And I dissected the lower
extremity and butt...man there was a lot of fat there.)
--
Gregg Horras
UIUC College of Medicine and Dept. of Chemistry
hor...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~g-horras/index.html
James Kershaw
KLT wrote:
>
> In article <34C67A...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > Uh, I think if this superfit athlete had 0% body fat, the match would have
> > > to be a forfeit, as that "athlete" will either be in bed or dead. Thus,
> > > the "lardbucket" would win.
> >
> > I'm not convinced of that. Long distance runners, cross country
> > skiers, and so forth, generally have very low body fat proportions
> > (below 4%), and yet manage to perform these long distance events
> > quite adequately. It is not unusual for them to deplete their fat
> > reserves during the race, and yet they continue on to finish.
>
> Vast difference btwn. "below 4%" and "0%" isin't there?
> Also I wonder if they really fully deplete all of their fat reserves
> because the body also uses fat as a defense mechanism against cold weather
> (i.e. the shivering reflex), so if they used all of their fat, they would
> not be able to protect against this and so their body would be
> stressed...thus I don't think they do this.
Is there such a great difference?
I suggest that they deplete their fat reserves because:
1: They often can't stop shivering.
2: They often start reabsorbing their muscles.
This is during long distance events.
James.
James Kershaw
KLT wrote:
>
> In article <34C67B...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > > ...ok, so go ahead and get as thin as you can then, and see if you remain
> > > free from "adverse medical effects". I'd be interested in knowing which
> > > medical association this is that would make a statement such as that.
> >
> > As I said, I _think_ it was the British medical association. Also,
> > annecdotally, I have friends who keep about a 3-4% body fat proportion.
> > They also race cross-country, and run 60km up and down mountains for
> > the fun of it (in hot weather). These people are very fit, and are
> > also extremely thin.
>
> your friends, I'm sure that they intentionally monitor their body mass,
> fluids, electrolyte levels etc...to make certain that they do not go below
> a certain level...at least if they were healthy and fitness conscious as
> pro athletes would.
They certainly monitor their food and fluid intake during events. Apart
from
that I think they just stick to a diet like eveyone else.... starting
with
24 wheatbix in the morning.
Anyway, I'm just reporting what I remember. If you really contest the
point,
you should perhaps take it up with authorities.
James.
James Kershaw
Peter Lau wrote:
>
> They may deplete their blood sugar, but to deplete their body fat they
> would be indeed dead.
Why?
James.
> > I'm not convinced of that. Long distance runners, cross country
> > skiers, and so forth, generally have very low body fat proportions
> > (below 4%), and yet manage to perform these long distance events
> > quite adequately. It is not unusual for them to deplete their fat
> > reserves during the race, and yet they continue on to finish.
> >
> > James.
Mike Hoye
In article <34C7AE58...@mail.usask.ca>,
Paul Banik <ppb...@mail.usask.ca> wrote:
>Mike Hoye wrote:
>> >
>
> I > haven't seen anyone on this group flamed in months.
>
>lately?
Actually, I spoke too soon. I've been enjoying the last few days
a lot. You can probably guess why.
>> There's absolutely no need to stoop
>>to this kind of posturing.
Again, I spoke too soon. This kind of posturing is suddenly giving
me a great deal of amusement.
--
Mike Hoye
James Kershaw
Gregg Horras wrote:
>
> James Kershaw wrote:
> >
> > Peter Lau wrote:
> > >
> > > They may deplete their blood sugar, but to deplete their body fat they
> > > would be indeed dead.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > James.
> >
>
> energy that you have no fat reserves at all, you have taken it too far,
> and you will starve to death.
My (limited) understanding is that the body starts to reabsorb muscle
tissue once the fat reserves are sufficiently depleted.
> Fat has some other functions as well, though, as it can serve as padding
> in some areas of the body. The most notable place is the knee, where
> there is a lot of fat (at least there was on the cadaver that I
> dissected in medical school). I wouldn't want to lose all of the fat
> there, I don't think.
Good point... is this fat counted in body fat percentage?
James.
James Kershaw
KLT wrote:
>
> In article <34C7CC...@monash.notthisbit.edu.au>, James Kershaw
> <James....@monash.notthisbit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > KLT wrote:
> > >
> > > As I've indicated...go ahead and get "as thin as you can"...if you ask
> > > your friends, I'm sure that they intentionally monitor their body mass,
> > > fluids, electrolyte levels etc...to make certain that they do not go below
> > > a certain level...at least if they were healthy and fitness conscious as
> > > pro athletes would.
> >
> > They certainly monitor their food and fluid intake during events. Apart
> > from
> > that I think they just stick to a diet like eveyone else.... starting
> > with
> > 24 wheatbix in the morning.
> >
> > Anyway, I'm just reporting what I remember. If you really contest the
> > point,
> > you should perhaps take it up with authorities.
>
Excellent. I'd be really interested in the answer.
James.
Donal Fagan
In article <34C829...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu>, hor...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
says...
>(By the way, dissecting cadavers made me realize how ubiquitous fat is
>in the body. I dissected an overweight female, and most of the work was
>trimming away the enormous amounts of fat. And I dissected the lower
>extremity and butt...man there was a lot of fat there.)
Hey, I'm eating lunch here!
But, I have always been intrigued as to why the dieting/starving body will
maintain fat reserves at the expense of even brain tissue. My half-baked
theory is that the body knows that, in this cold universe, it's better to be
fat, stupid, warm and alive than to be thin, smart, frozen and dead. Thus it
values fat far more than those of us with ubiquitous heating plants.
Marsha Strong
On 22 Jan 1998 17:23:47 GMT, mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Mike Hoye)
wrote:
>
>>Do you really feel that overweight people (not excessively so) die more
>>than underweight or thin people of things like heart attacks?
>
>It's not what I think; it's a statistical reality. I can go and
>dig the figures out, if you like. I don't think, as James said,
>that there's a problem for naturally thin people being significantly
>less healthy than anyone else, but unnaturally thin people do
>die off at a higher-than-normal rate, though of entirely different
>things than unhealthily overweight people do.
>
>Note the important differences between "naturally thin" and
>"unnaturally thin".
And then is there such as thing as "naturally heavy" and "unnaturally
heavy" and what are the studies concerning those folk?
marsha
Gregg Horras
> > I think the obvious answer to this question is that if you are so low on
> > energy that you have no fat reserves at all, you have taken it too far,
> > and you will starve to death.
>
> My (limited) understanding is that the body starts to reabsorb muscle
> tissue once the fat reserves are sufficiently depleted.
The body will consume carbohydrates (stored as glycogen), fats (stored
as, well...fat), and protein (stored as muscle mostly I guess) to get
energy. I'm not sure exactly how the body knows in what proportion and
with what timing to burn these three components. My guess is that if
your body "interprets" that you need a particular component, your body
will spare that component. For example, that is likely why it is so
necessary to do strength training if you really want to improve your
fat:muscle ratio. Your body will "think" that you need that muscle (for
hunting buffalo or something primitive like that), so it will burn the
fat instead. Of course, if all there is left is muscle, then your body
will have no choice but to consume it.
Gregg Horras
Marsha Strong wrote:
> And then is there such as thing as "naturally heavy" and "unnaturally
> heavy" and what are the studies concerning those folk?
>
> marsha
I don't know of any specific studies that address this, but here are
some opinions.
I'm always skeptical of people who claim that they are heavy because of
their genes. There is probably little doubt that obesity runs in
families, but it is difficult to impossible to determine whether that is
because of genes or environment.
I guess there are some feasible possibilities that some people have
decreased satiety set points, or possibly endocrinological abnormalities
that predispose to obesity, but my guess is that these are NOT usually
congenital. Anything that is known to be generally unhealthy (like
obesity) and to reduce reproductive fitness is not likely to survive in
the gene pool, at least not for long and certainly not in large
frequencies (like obesity).
And there is also the basic physics (as I think Steve Barnard pointed
out indirectly) that mass=energy (Einstein said this), and that if you
take in less than you burn up, then you will lose body mass INEVITABLY.
(But it's hard to apply basic physics to behavioral issues!)
If anyone cares to edify me on these issues, please do so! I'm not
saying I'm correct!
Umesh Reghuram
Gregg Horras wrote:
>
> Marsha Strong wrote:
>
> > And then is there such as thing as "naturally heavy" and "unnaturally
> > heavy" and what are the studies concerning those folk?
> >
> > marsha
>
> I don't know of any specific studies that address this, but here are
> some opinions.
>
> I'm always skeptical of people who claim that they are heavy because of
> their genes. There is probably little doubt that obesity runs in
> families, but it is difficult to impossible to determine whether that is
> because of genes or environment.
In other words, it *might* be because of genes, but we have not ruled it
in or out yet.
>
> I guess there are some feasible possibilities that some people have
> decreased satiety set points, or possibly endocrinological abnormalities
> that predispose to obesity, but my guess is that these are NOT usually
> congenital. Anything that is known to be generally unhealthy (like
> obesity) and to reduce reproductive fitness is not likely to survive in
> the gene pool, at least not for long and certainly not in large
> frequencies (like obesity).
It seems that another way of looking at this issue would be to look at
'congenitally - induced' obesity (or a "fat" gene) as an evolutionary
tool to clear the gene-pool because of the association of obesity with
other characteristics that might be less conducive to reproductive
fitness, such as endocrinological abnormalities.
Gregg Horras
Steve Barnard wrote:
> The problem with this argument is that Homo sapiens evolved in a very
> different niche than we occupy today. We evolved for a hunter-gatherer
> lifestyle. High-energy fat and sugar (especially fat) are extremely
> valuable foods for very active hunter-gatherers. That's why we crave
> them so much. The problem is that they're now available in unlimited
> quantities to anyone with enough money, and furthermore most of us don't
> exercise enough to use them up.
Yeah, you're right. In fact, this argument suggests that we are all
predisposed towards being fat! (and I find this not difficult to
believe)
I guess I'm just most worried that people who need to lose weight will,
while they're chomping away on a box of cookies, think, "I'm fat because
of my genes." That is not a good way to think about it. EVERYONE can
lose weight if they exercise more and eat less.
--
Gregg Horras
Steve Barnard
Gregg Horras wrote:
>
> Marsha Strong wrote:
>
> > And then is there such as thing as "naturally heavy" and "unnaturally
> > heavy" and what are the studies concerning those folk?
> >
> > marsha
>
> I don't know of any specific studies that address this, but here are
> some opinions.
>
> I'm always skeptical of people who claim that they are heavy because of
> their genes. There is probably little doubt that obesity runs in
> families, but it is difficult to impossible to determine whether that is
> because of genes or environment.
It depends on what you mean by "in their genes." Obesity is caused by
eating too much and exercising too little, but people may be genetically
predisposed to do that. For example, there's a rare genetic defect that
interferes with the "satiation" response, and those people who have this
condition are always hungry, no matter how much they've eaten. A more
commonplace situation might be a heritable tendency for depression,
which could lead to inactivity and overeating.
>
> I guess there are some feasible possibilities that some people have
> decreased satiety set points, or possibly endocrinological abnormalities
> that predispose to obesity, but my guess is that these are NOT usually
> congenital. Anything that is known to be generally unhealthy (like
> obesity) and to reduce reproductive fitness is not likely to survive in
> the gene pool, at least not for long and certainly not in large
> frequencies (like obesity).
The problem with this argument is that Homo sapiens evolved in a very
different niche than we occupy today. We evolved for a hunter-gatherer
lifestyle. High-energy fat and sugar (especially fat) are extremely
valuable foods for very active hunter-gatherers. That's why we crave
them so much. The problem is that they're now available in unlimited
quantities to anyone with enough money, and furthermore most of us don't
exercise enough to use them up.
Steve Barnard
P.S. Over the past few months I've dropped from 220lbs to 205lbs, taken
my belt in five notches, and I've probably gained at least 15 pounds of
muscle from weightlifting. It was very easy. I didn't use any fad diet
method. I've been eating everything I've always eaten (and I love fatty
foods). I've just eaten half as much. Instead of two porkchops and two
helpings of rice and gravy I'll just have one. I just don't eat unless
I'm actually hungry. What a concept!
KLT
In article <6a7g5j$m...@camel15.mindspring.com>,
Donal...@like-mindspring-man.com (Donal Fagan) wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.98012...@carr4.acpub.duke.edu>,
> cm...@acpub.duke.edu says...
>
> > If it applies. Where I come from, it is generally understood
> >that fat does not mean a few pounds over the recommended body weight. It
> >means many pounds over. That's why we use a variety of terms, a little
> >overweight, chubby, obese, fat.
>
> Are these in ascending order? I'd put obese above fat.
>
> How about big-boned, heavy-set, a-few-extra-pounds, overweight, rubenesque,
> thick-in-the-middle, chubby, dumpy, plump, pear-shaped, fat, porcine, grossly
> fat, obese, removed-from-house-by-crew-with-forklift and buried-in-piano-case.
>
> Then you have trim, thin, rangy, skinny, beanpole, bony, stick,
> brown-rice-diet, frail, heroin-chic, skin-and-bones, anorexic, body-bag,
> being-fed-intravenously and weighed-sixty-five-pounds-at-time-of-death.
So how long did it take for you to think of all these terms?
Karlene
Mike Hoye
In article <6aaqos$d...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
Marsha Strong <CMST...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 22 Jan 1998 17:23:47 GMT, mh...@prince.carleton.ca (Mike Hoye)
>wrote:
>>
>>dig the figures out, if you like. I don't think, as James said,
>>that there's a problem for naturally thin people being significantly
>>less healthy than anyone else, but unnaturally thin people do
>>die off at a higher-than-normal rate, though of entirely different
>>things than unhealthily overweight people do.
>>
>>Note the important differences between "naturally thin" and
>>"unnaturally thin".
>
>heavy" and what are the studies concerning those folk?
I'm pretty sure that naturally heavy folk who get good exercise
and live healthy lives are about as likely to live to whatever
as really skinny people who do the same.
I'll look this up, though.
--
Mike Hoye
KLT
In article <6aam0f$h...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
Donal...@like-mindspring-man.com (Donal Fagan) wrote:
> In article <34C829...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu>, hor...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
> says...
>
> >(By the way, dissecting cadavers made me realize how ubiquitous fat is
> >in the body. I dissected an overweight female, and most of the work was
> >trimming away the enormous amounts of fat. And I dissected the lower
> >extremity and butt...man there was a lot of fat there.)
>
> Hey, I'm eating lunch here!
>
> But, I have always been intrigued as to why the dieting/starving body will
> maintain fat reserves at the expense of even brain tissue. My half-baked
> theory is that the body knows that, in this cold universe, it's better to be
> fat, stupid, warm and alive than to be thin, smart, frozen and dead. Thus it
> values fat far more than those of us with ubiquitous heating plants.
Gosh, you make it sound simply awful to have some extra padding. I mean,
although the gluteus maximus is a muscle, can you imagine not having ANY
padding there? and although breasts are modified sweat glands, they are
made of fatty tissue...and while I was ruminating on this subject matter
the other day, it occurred to me that in the tricarboxylic acid cycle (the
body's way of getting energy from sugars and fats), fat molecules are the
highest reserve of energy so there is an advantage to having "fat" around
(although certainly not excess). I did ask one of the people I know who's
an M.D., for whom I have the utmost respect, and although this is not his
area of expertise, in his response to me something came to my attention
that had not before, and that is that no matter what we eat there will
always be extra calories/fat (or what have you) that the body will store
in the form of fat, because otherwise metabolically it's not possible to
immediately convert all of what you eat to energy. THus, at any given time
there must be some extra "stuff" that gets stored as fat molecules, so
it's not possible (I don't believe) to get a 0% body fat status.
Karlene
KLT
> Mike Hoye wrote:
> > >
> > She's enthusiastic, but let's keep things in perspective here.
>
> If she wants to go flaming, let her go elsewhere. Perhaps I can put on
> some tasty troll bait, and we'll see if she bites.
>
> I > haven't seen anyone on this group flamed in months.
>
> What? TennisTV and Steve Barnard haven't been engaged in a heated debate
> lately?
>
> I haven't > seen a lot of humiliation either, other than from people
> willing > to do it to themselves. > There's absolutely no need to stoop
> to this kind of posturing.
>
> No...perhaps I'll set up tasty troll bait for Mary.
Why are still going on about Mary, Paul. Did she disturb you that much?
KLT
KLT
In article <34C531...@megafauna.com>, st...@megafauna.com wrote:
> Mike Hoye wrote:
> >
> > Well, implying that you can't _naturally_ be too thin. It's obvious
> > to even the most naive observer that you can be too thin.
>
> Isn't it said that you can't be too thin or too rich? I'll agree with
> the rich part, but not the thin part.
>
> A really fit person has enough muscular development and low enough body
> fat that you can clearly see muscular definition, and even the
> striations of some muscles.
Excellent comment Steve. For once I agree with you (altho maybe not the
"can't be too rich part"...I don't really wish to be extremely wealthy in
my lifetime, I'll be content to be comfortable and move on from there).
Karlene
KLT
In article <34C8F7...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu>, Gregg Horras
<hor...@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Marsha Strong wrote:
> > And then is there such as thing as "naturally heavy" and "unnaturally
> > heavy" and what are the studies concerning those folk?
>
> I don't know of any specific studies that address this, but here are
> some opinions.
> I'm always skeptical of people who claim that they are heavy because of
> their genes. There is probably little doubt that obesity runs in
> families, but it is difficult to impossible to determine whether that is
> because of genes or environment.
>
> I guess there are some feasible possibilities that some people have
> decreased satiety set points, or possibly endocrinological abnormalities
> that predispose to obesity, but my guess is that these are NOT usually
> congenital. Anything that is known to be generally unhealthy (like
> obesity) and to reduce reproductive fitness is not likely to survive in
> the gene pool, at least not for long and certainly not in large
> frequencies (like obesity).
I would disagree with this last statement. If you're speaking about gene
pool and suvival for best selection...then how would one explain people
who are native to regions such as Alaska (i.e. Eskimos) being heavier and
dying more of alcoholism than they would of heart attacks. I think that
they are heavier because of their genentic predisposition and this is
perhaps selected for by the fact that they need to survive the bitter cold
environments. I also vaguely recall that when it came to cardiac problems,
the Eskimos were thought to be healthier than the average american based
on their diet.
Also, I can take this point to another discussion which I don't think will
sit well with many people, but if you wish to debate whether some things
select for survival or not and whether it's genetically created or
not...the obvious thing would be to look at the homosexual v. heterosexual
discussion.
In addition, I recently saw a segment on a researcher at yale, who is
testing peple's ability to "taste" food, and exactly what it is they're
tasting and how does this compare to what someone else tastes, when they
eat the same material
Prelim. results (and quite crude testing) showed that there are three
different categories, some who are very sensitive to taste, others who are
neutral and others who don't get a lot of taste. THe pattern of taste buds
on one's tongue is also identified with each reaction, and the researcher
claims to see a very definite pattern. She is now beginning to think that
possibly this may have something relation to whether one tends to eat more
because of the lack of taste while those who are very sensitive and taste
everything acutely tend to not each much. And to clinch it, so far the
researcher sees a pattern where the ones who don't taste as much tend to
be heavier in weight than the ones who are acute tasters (given that
noone's trying to diet or is on a heavy exercise regimen).
Karlene
Steve Barnard
Floyd Davidson wrote:
>
Do you guys play much tennis up there in Alaska, Floyd. Not in the
winter, I'll wager. :-)
Steve Barnard
KLT
In article <6ah057$b...@camel20.mindspring.com>,
Donal...@like-mindspring-man.com (Donal Fagan) wrote:
> In article <klt-250198...@news.value.net>, k...@value.net says...
>
> >Gosh, you make it sound simply awful to have some extra padding.
>
> How? I wasn't the one dissecting cadavers, I had the chef salad.
>
> >I mean,
> >although the gluteus maximus is a muscle, can you imagine not having ANY
> >padding there? and although breasts are modified sweat glands, they are
> >made of fatty tissue...
>
> Well, you've got me there. I'm more of a leg man, but I do appreciate nice
> sweat glands, even if they are fatty tissue.
Consider this one a freebie.
KLT