You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   4-28   29-53   54-61       
 
Author Message
25 new of 61 responses total.
mta
response 29 of 61: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Sep 13 18:36 UTC 1998

How about a definition or discussion of what constitutes fitness?
remmers
response 31 of 61: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Sep 17 20:32 UTC 1998

Try eating something bulky when you are hungry, such as fruit.
mta
response 40 of 61: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Sep 24 10:23 UTC 1998

Eggs, dairy products, tofu. Or add protein powder to other things.
keesan
response 47 of 61: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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. 

remmers
response 50 of 61: Mark Unseen   Sep 28 11:29 UTC 1998

The Zone diet is neither vegetarian nor non-vegetarian. The core of it
is a 40%/30%/30% ratio of calories from carbohydrate, protein, and fat
at every meal and snack, together with regulating the total amount you
eat so that you get the right amount of protein per day for your lean
body weight and activity level. 

The protein can come from either animal or vegetable sources, although
admittedly it is harder to get the recommended amount of protein from
vegetable sources alone. However, it is possible, and there's a website
with tips and recipes on this (see below).

There's a lot of information on the Zone diet available on the web. A
good place to start is the "Zone Diet Information Center" at

        http://www.he.net/~zone/

which has links to other Zone-related sites. Barry Sears' "official"
zone site is "The Zone Files" at

        http://www.eicotech.com/

In particular, there's some information on hypoglycemia there. Click on
"Archives", then "Search the Archives", then search for "hypoglycemia".

Zone info for vegetarians is on "The Zone Vegetarian" page at

        http://hometown.aol.com/ajbloom/zoneveg/index.htm

I've said this elsewhere, but I've been following the Zone diet for
about three months and it works great for me. (I'm not hypoglycemic
though, to the best of my knowledge.)
mta
response 51 of 61: Mark Unseen   Sep 30 03:18 UTC 1998

*sigh*  I should have known that even this item would be overrun with diet
talk eventually.

Bye, folks.
keesan
response 52 of 61: Mark Unseen   Sep 30 03:56 UTC 1998

Misti, we are actually talking about fat here, this was interesting
information and new to me.
Jim says he cannot be fit and fat, the things he wants to be able to do
require that he not carry a lot of weight around.  He is already carrying a
lot of heavy objects.  (Today a washing machine and a freezer).  And he cannot
bike as far if he weighs more, it is hard on his bike and his own body.  He
gets a sore butt if he weighs 15 pounds more.  He defines fit as being fit
for some particular thing you want to do.  If you do not want to carry
freezers or bike 50 miles, you can be fit and weigh more than he does.
He is fit for a particular lifestyle.  He also weighs less if he does not eat
salt, five pounds easily in fluid retained.
remmers
response 53 of 61: Mark Unseen   Sep 30 12:42 UTC 1998

Misti might never read what you just wrote, since she seems to have
resigned from this conference (no participation file). I'd hardly
describe this item as having been "overrun with diet talk" -- 
responses 49 and 50 were in that direction, but my #50 was just a
response to a question that beeswing raised. That strikes me as
normal drift, not worth having a hissy fit over. I *was* planning
to offer to start a separate Zone item to take that discussion out
of this item, if people showed interest in pursuing that thread.
 0-24   4-28   29-53   54-61       
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss