|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 61 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 25 of 61:
|
Sep 11 13:00 UTC 1998 |
Misti, the calipers measure the distance between the two sides of a fold of
skin-fat-skin hanging from your upper arm. Loose skin is the same thickness
as tight skin and will not affect measurements, even though it may make your
arm look larger. I am curious - after weight loss does the skin eventually
shrink to fit?
An example of how weight is controlled genetically: I have a wedding
photo of my father's parents. My father, and his father, were about my size,
under 5 feet 6 inches and skinny. So were his three brothers, who all had
thin wives and thin children. My father's mother was probably about 300
pounds in the photo and remained that way until her death (at about age 70
of complications of diabetes, I think). So were her three daughters, and the
husbands and children of the two larger of them. It could not have been
environmental as they were all eating the same way (my father's siblings,
anyway). I don't know if his sisters married heavy men, I was not around at
the time, but both members of the couple were large when I knew them, and one
of my cousins has been described as round in all directions. (He married a
thin wife who stayed relatively thin).
My father's sisters' male children were fat, my father's brothers
female
children thin. I cannot figure out the genetics of this.
There is also definitely an environmental effect, as Jim's thin
daughter found out when she started cooking for and eating with a husband
whose mother is fat and who refuses to eat vegetables. (She never liked
vegetables either). Meat and pastries can put the pounds on.
|
mta
|
|
response 26 of 61:
|
Sep 11 16:21 UTC 1998 |
Whether the skin eventually "shrinks to fit" depends on several factor, Sindi.
Age, amount of weight lost, speed with which you lose it, and general health.
I don't expect mine will ever completely fit again. (I lost too much, too
fast, and when I was too old.
|
keesan
|
|
response 27 of 61:
|
Sep 11 21:06 UTC 1998 |
From a book on back exercises:
The Overweight Person with Back Pain
Obesity, a condition in which a person is 20 percent of more above his
or her ideal weight, is inconvent, unhealthy, and psychologically destructive.
Obesity is associated with an increased risk of high blood pressure, heart
disease, stroke, hardening of the arteries, and diabetes.
...excess weight in the abdominal area pulls the belly forward and can
cause the pelvis to tip forward, shortening the psoas and causing strain in
teh lower back.
Overweight people generally are not as mobile as their more fit peers,
and when they exercise, their excess poundage can put extreme stress on their
joings. To protect the joints, increase mobility and fitness, and burn fat,
I recommend a low-impact form of aerobic activity.
I will let Misti point out the unspoken assumptions in the above, as
well as comment on the spoken assumption that overweight people are less
active than average.
The book recommends walking up stairs instead of using an elevator, 'carry
your groceries rather than have them delivered' (does anyone still deliver?),
walk to work, park at the far end of the parking lot, and do lots of exercises
while waiting in line or talking on the phone.
Jim suggests digging in the garden and shoveling snow.
|
mta
|
|
response 28 of 61:
|
Sep 11 21:36 UTC 1998 |
View hidden response.
|
mta
|
|
response 29 of 61:
|
Sep 11 21:37 UTC 1998 |
OK, John, I finally found a definition for fatness and obesity on the U of
Chicago web site.
* Fat is defined as a body mass index 25 or above.
* Obesity is defined as a body mass index 40 or above.
|
keesan
|
|
response 30 of 61:
|
Sep 13 18:36 UTC 1998 |
How about a definition or discussion of what constitutes fitness?
|
remmers
|
|
response 31 of 61:
|
Sep 14 00:14 UTC 1998 |
Re resp:29 - I'm aware of the BMI-based definitions of "overweight"
and "obese", and suspect that they're too simplistic for some of the
same reasons that you do. I guess what I was really asking was this:
What are the definitions of "fat women" and "fat people" in the
context of your statement in resp:10 -
"Did you know that fat actually protects people from certain diseases? That's
not a widely diseminated piece of information but it's true. Among the
protections that fat offers: fat women are far less likely to develop
osteoporosis. Fat people who get cancer or tuberculosis are far more likely
to recover and go on to live healthy lives. There are others, but I'd have
to look them up."
What is the source of this information, and what definition of "fat" is
being used there?
|
keesan
|
|
response 32 of 61:
|
Sep 14 16:04 UTC 1998 |
I have read that being overweight predisposes people towards some types of
cancer, by affecting the hormones. Breast cancer I think was one.
Having too little fat might cause problems with the immune system. I expect
there is an optimum range which differs for each person.
My very obese aunt died of colon cancer, but I expect that both the obesity
and the cancer were the result of a poor diet. When visiting there I was fed
peanut butter and jelly on white bread for lunch,and fried chicken (no
vegetables or anything else with fiber) for supper. It is hard to separate
out cause and effect. Someone who eats a healty diet and exercises often,
but remains fat due to metabolic reasons, such as Misti, will avoid many of
the problems statistically associated with fatness (which is often caused by
poor diet and exercise).
Jim and I tried to figure out the percentage of our calories from fat.
Grains and beans are about 5%, vegetables and fruits less. We buy about 3
gallons of oil (olive and peanut) a year between us, and eat some peanuts,
which comes to about 200 calories a day from refined fats and nuts, or maybe
as much as 10% fat of calories from fat. Probably less. How do people manage
to get their fat intake as high as 40% calories from fat? I don't think it
can easily be done on a whole-foods non-animal-product diet unless you eat
an awful lot of fried foods and nuts.
|
mta
|
|
response 33 of 61:
|
Sep 14 21:33 UTC 1998 |
John, have you looked at the web pages I posted the URLs for? Have you looked
at the book I suggested?
Many of the reports I've read have defined "fat" and "obesity", but I'm afraid
that I don't have the URLs or papers available right now. I know that BFL
also defines then for many of the studies it reviews, but my copy is in a box
somewhere right now. Threfore I can only say that you have to look at
particular studies for specific definitions -- but I have been well over the
the threshold in all of the studies I've read. (5'3" 300 lbs. -- I read most
of them before "the metamorphosis" began.)
Sindi, you're right. I've never claimed that fat in the face of a poor diet
and no exercise protects anyone from anything. Only when combined with
adequate nutrition and exercise does a little padding provide any benefits.
I suspect that had her genes been different your aunt would have been slim
and still died of colon cancer -- her diet sounds like a nightmare! All that
fat is definitely an invitation to trouble.
The definition of fit is a lot easier to find. The standard I've heard for
"fitness" is the ability to attain and maintain one's "target heart rate" for
10 minutes comfortably -- still able to speak without gasping, no pain, etc.)
Now someone is going to ask me to define a target heart rate, right? ;) I'm
not sure how to calculate it, but I hve a hunch that Scott might...
|
i
|
|
response 34 of 61:
|
Sep 15 01:14 UTC 1998 |
For breast cancer (and i think several others), the studies found the
correlation with [total or % of] fat calories in the diet. Since the
average weight and % body fat of a population will rise as you add more
fatty junk food to their diet and reduce exercise, it's easy to get a
good statistical correlation between being fatter & higher risks of
cancer. Any good statistician knows that correlation is not causation,
and statistics applying to the average may not apply to *any* individual,
but a do-gooder public health *does* have reason to proclaim "lose
weight" as a simplistic message when trying to get through the skulls
of Joe & Jane Couchpotato.
(I guess i view extreme obesity in a person who's good about diet and
exercise about the way i view diabetes - hardly their fault, negative
consequences for health & lifestyle are impossible to completely avoid,
and a "cure" is beyond the reach of 20th-century medical science.)
|
scott
|
|
response 35 of 61:
|
Sep 15 10:57 UTC 1998 |
(Actually, I don't have a target heart rate formula on tap, though I'm going
to guess it is 185-age, or something like that. I'm not very scientific about
training, actually.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 36 of 61:
|
Sep 15 11:53 UTC 1998 |
220-age is the formula I've seen.
Re resp:33 - What with being out of town and other busy-ness, I haven't
done the homework yet. But never fear, I shall.
|
mta
|
|
response 37 of 61:
|
Sep 15 19:58 UTC 1998 |
OK. ;) It's not that I don't want to answer your questions,it's just that
there's too much information out there for me to try to retype it all here.
(Also, I'm not a very good debater. I read critically enough, but I have a
memory like a stainless steele seive and tend to remember only the gist of
what I've read -- and, if I'm lucky-- where I read it.)
|
beeswing
|
|
response 38 of 61:
|
Sep 17 03:43 UTC 1998 |
Ok, I'm back.
Misti asked why I wanted to lose weight anyway. Good question. Keep in
mind I am not one of these whiny-ass girls who can't eat a pea without
going ballistic. If I am hungry I will eat, and not shuffle my food
around on the plate. If a guy thinks I am a hog then he can just bite
me.
It comes down to this:
1) I'd feel better
2) Less stress on my ankles, which are about shot
3) I could wear clothes that I like but are not entirely flattering
with the physique I have now
4) I just want to.
I am in grad school part time and working full time, so now I am doing
good to sleep, let alone eat.
|
keesan
|
|
response 39 of 61:
|
Sep 17 20:32 UTC 1998 |
Try eating something bulky when you are hungry, such as fruit.
|
mta
|
|
response 40 of 61:
|
Sep 17 23:46 UTC 1998 |
I don;t know about beeswing, but if I'm really hungry, fruit makes me quesy.
I'm much better off with brown rice, whole grain bread, cheese, or meat. If
I'm only peckish, or if I eat it with other things fruit is wonderful, though.
|
keesan
|
|
response 41 of 61:
|
Sep 18 00:35 UTC 1998 |
Brown rice and whole grain bread are also filling. Maybe the fruit sugar
bothers you, Misti. If you eat something with fiber and water, including
oatmeal and potatoes (without butter) your stomach fills up and you don't feel
so hungry (for a while, anyway).
|
mta
|
|
response 42 of 61:
|
Sep 18 21:39 UTC 1998 |
I think the fruit sugar probably is the culprit since I susepct it shoots my
blood sugar way out of control if I'm really hungry.
Actually I find that a little fat on my carbohydrates both makes them more
satisfying and slows the carb release so that my blood sugar makes a much
smoother upward and downward curve. (Rather than a huge spike followed by
a dramtic drop.)
|
keesan
|
|
response 43 of 61:
|
Sep 22 15:10 UTC 1998 |
I don't think fat delays carbohydrate release, but it takes longer to digest
and thus lengthens the period in which your blood sugar is high enough.
Protein also takes longer to digest that starch.
|
mta
|
|
response 44 of 61:
|
Sep 22 22:23 UTC 1998 |
Well, I don't pretend to know the reason, but I do know that if I eat a slice
of bread, within an hour my bloodsugar goes up 30-100 points (I haven't
figured out exactly why the difference, and then at 3 hours is down to where
it started or less. If I butter the bread, the rise is longer (3 hours or
so) but the peak is lower.
It seems like maybe the whole mess of carbs and fats is digesting slower so
my pancreas doesn't have to deal with 100 units of carb in one hour, but
rather gets 30 units per hour for three hours.
(That's a verbal illustration. The units don't represent much of anything
other than percentage of demand on my pancreas.)
|
beeswing
|
|
response 45 of 61:
|
Sep 24 03:42 UTC 1998 |
i love rice, fruit, etc. However I seem to function best on a high
protein diet. How do I get protein besides meat and beans?
|
remmers
|
|
response 46 of 61:
|
Sep 24 10:23 UTC 1998 |
Eggs, dairy products, tofu. Or add protein powder to other things.
|
keesan
|
|
response 47 of 61:
|
Sep 24 14:15 UTC 1998 |
Grains and vegetables also have protein. Try a balanced diet without refined
foods (which tend not to have much protein) such as white flour or white rice
or white sugar.
|
remmers
|
|
response 48 of 61:
|
Sep 26 00:33 UTC 1998 |
Re resp:42 and resp:43 - In his book _Mastering the Zone_, Barry
Sears has something to say about the role of fat in relation to
carbohydrates that supports Misti's observations:
"...fat slows down the entry of carbohydrates into the
bloodstream. In essence, fat acts like a control rod in
a nuclear reactor to prevent an overproduction of insulin.
The slower the rate that carbohydrate enters the blood-
stream, the lower the insulin production. And the lower
the insulin levels, the more likely you are to release
stored body fat for energy. So in fact, fat is really
your ally in chipping away stored body fat."
|
beeswing
|
|
response 49 of 61:
|
Sep 27 05:14 UTC 1998 |
I have heard the Zone is good for hypoglycemics. Is it a vegetarian
diet?
BTW, eggs are out of the question, I hate them.
|