response 13 of 61:

Sep 8 20:40 UTC 1998

I am a woman and do not consider myself fat.  I weigh about 114 and wear a
size 14 shirt (for the sleeve length and shoulders).  People are also composed
of bones, and muscles, you can't just measure total poundage and prove much.
Jim has come out as overweight on weight charts and is mostly muscle/bone.
I expect that a healthy weight differs for each person, depending on bone
structure, metabolism, etc.  Charts are statistical, people are individuals.
I consider myself a bit underweight because I am hungry a lot of the time and
am eating healthy food, so am probably below the correct weight.  Misti may
be the proper weight for her build and metabolism, losing weight could very
possibly cause more health problems than it would cure in her case, and like
she says, a steady diet of dieting is bad for anyone's health.  But I also
think that it can damage your skeletal system, and your cardiovascular system,
to have to deal with excess weight.  I doubt that anyone could come up with
a satisfacotyr definition of who is fat.  You can choose some cutoff point
for ratios of fat to lean tissue, I suppose, but would you call an Eskimo fat
if she is at the optimum balance for her climate?
        I also think that most Americans are not eating a healthy diet and for
that reason are above their optimal weight.  Reducing the food intake is not
going to fix things, they have to change the types of things they eat.
        I agree with Misti that the healthiest composition for a particular
person's body is not necessarily the same composition which is currently in
style, and that people can do their bodies damage by following body fashions.
        Are schools teaching nutrition nowadays?

response 15 of 61:

Sep 9 17:34 UTC 1998

Re resp:12 -

There's a "Body Fat Calculator" on the web at URL

        http://top.monad.net/~vsi/java/bfc.html

You take some body measurements that are easy to obtain with a scale and
tape measure, plug them into a java applet, and it shows you your
percentage of body fat. The formula it uses is the same one given in
Sears' book "Enter the Zone", I believe. I'm not qualified to vouch for
the accuracy of the method, but I can say that when applied to me the
results aren't surprising, and I've been watching my percentage go down
over the last few months as I've been making a conscientious effort to
get more fit.

As long as we're talking about "being fat" as a social concept that has
only to do with fashion and outward appearance, I'll agree with you that
it's a pretty subjective concept, and that one person's opinion is about
as good (or bad) as another's. However, in an earlier response you made
claims about health benefits of being a "fat person", and for those to
have any validity, or any precise meaning at all, we need a more
objective concept of what "being fat" means. That's why I asked about a
definition. 

The things I've read -- all of it "popular" literature, admittedly --
suggest that one's percentage of fat weight to total weight is a
reasonable measure, and that this doesn't necessarily match external
appearance. A person can "look" thin but have a high percentage of fat
body weight or "look" fat but have a low percentage. Paradoxically, one
can lose weight but become more "fat" because you lose more lean muscle
weight than fat. Or you can gain weight and become less "fat". (Covert
Bailey comments on this in his book "Fit or Fat".) So, what precisely is
meant by "fat" when we are talking about health benefits?

response 17 of 61:

Sep 10 01:49 UTC 1998

by the way, in rereading this I discovered I inadvertently lied up there
somewhere -- 30 was a typo, I'm actually 39.

response 19 of 61:

Sep 10 16:49 UTC 1998

Thanks for the references. I'll check them out.

response 21 of 61:

Sep 10 17:37 UTC 1998

I read a book claiming that short people live longer, it is less work on the
heart, and that larger people only have an advantage in such things as hunting
and war.  Women live longer than men on average, but women and men the same
size live about the same number of years.  My grandfather was about 5 4 and
died at about age 95.
        I have a set of instructions for measuring how 'fat' you are in a
nutrition book, it has to do with pinching your arm and measuring that and
comparing it with the distance between write bones.  Jim came out as very low
for men, and I came out as average for men and extremely low for women.  You
can also calculate frame size from height to wrist circumference ratio - Jim
comes out average and I am small-medium.
If anyone has access to calipers, I can describe what measurements to take
and then calculate your results for you from the charts.

response 23 of 61:

Sep 10 22:59 UTC 1998

Well, there's the even more accurate dissection method... but it's hard to
track changes with that method.  ;)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.)

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.)