40 new of 61 responses total.
The problem with the calipers method (and it's a specialized problem, I'll admit) is that if you have lost a lot of weight suddenly and have a lot of loose skin, that will measure as "fat". That's why the only measure I truly trust is the immersion method. But that's not available just anywhere...
Well, there's the even more accurate dissection method... but it's hard to track changes with that method. ;)
<grin> True -- I think I'll pass on that one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How about a definition or discussion of what constitutes fitness?
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?
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.
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...
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.)
(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.)
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.
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.)
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.
Try eating something bulky when you are hungry, such as fruit.
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.
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).
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.)
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.
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.)
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?
Eggs, dairy products, tofu. Or add protein powder to other things.
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.
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."
I have heard the Zone is good for hypoglycemics. Is it a vegetarian diet? BTW, eggs are out of the question, I hate them.
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.)
*sigh* I should have known that even this item would be overrun with diet talk eventually. Bye, folks.
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.
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.
How do you resign from a conference? There are several that I looked at and never went back to. (Or is this getting too far from the topic?).
Join the conference, then type "resign" at the Ok prompt.
***otter shakes this item until it wakes up*** My own basis for knowing if someone is the wrong weight, either fat or thin, is whether their weight is the very first thing I notice about them. I am probably one of the fittest fat people (or the fattest fit people!) you could know. Based on my experience, I'm carrying about 40 extra pounds right now, but the nurse who weighed me last week stopped everything and had someone re-calibrate the scale before she was satisfied that it was accurate. I weigh a lot for the space I take up, because under my soft exterior is a lovely pile of well-developed muscle, especially legs and gluteals. (that's "major butt" for you layfolk <grin>) I am never still for long, and seldom eat anything that comes from a box. If you lined us all up and said, "walk 'til you can't," I'd be the one of the last to fall, because I've worked and worked on my endurance. Which brings me, I think, to Misti's original point. You can't tell if someone is fit by simply looking at how fat they are, and that as long as you are physically fit, you will be healthier than most regardless of your weight.
Any idea what your body fat percentage is?
Nope, no idea of the percentage of fat to everything else. I firmly believe in the immersion method over calipers, because I would know which places on me to pinch for the most (and least) favorable readings. I do know that my blood pressure is 95/60, resting pulse 80, and "bad" cholesterol was under 150 last year. My DO often kids me that with those numbers, I will live forever unless hit by a bus. Because of thumb reconstruction later today, I will have to nix weight training (a regular part of my life) until autumn, so I imagine I will drop some more body fat due to a planned increase in kinetic activities like power walking and wind sprints from three times weekly to four or five. Wonder if WMU has an immersion scale...you have piqued my curiousity.
Well, I'm deffinately not fit....I keep swearing that I'm going to work on it....(sigh) You'd think that since I just moved to a place that has a couple of swimming pools, a weight room, golf course, and jogging track, plus my living room now has enough room to work out in and my roomie just bought the Tae-Bo DVD, that I'd have done something. *sigh* Well, I'm going to make the big push. Deffinately 5, hopefully 10 lbs. by my brothers wedding at the end of Sept.
I've found that making a goal of "x pounds" is usually pretty frustrating for people to maintain. What looks like a better option is to make a goal of "every day 30 minutes" or something like that. Even walking around the neighborhood could count. Just doing something, anything, tends to get you into the habit of doing it.
If I don't set something, and then work twords it, then I don't work twords anything. And there fore, don't work.
You have several choices: