Men refused cancer treatment in Britain

"Wayne" <wrjones@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:eijrue01e2n@news2.newsguy.com...
> Contrary to what women think, there is no 'old boys network'.

Why do you think women think that?

Some women might, some men might, I don't know. I don't think it.

> Men don't admit they have a problem and hate to ask for help. Women on the
> other hand do talk to each other and are not afraid or ashamed to ask for
> help and they are quite militant about it.

Some are, not all.

> The incidence of breast cancer is much lower than prostate cancer in my
> experience

I don't think so ...

> but I'm sure the funding is far greater. The only charity I know of which
> specifically raises money for prostate cancer is the 'motorcycle ride for
> dad' held each spring here in Ottawa and now in several other canadian
> cities.

So start another.

There are some in UK, I've never heard of a motorcycle ride for dad.

Sweeping statements aren't credible.

"Mary Fisher" (mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk) writes:
> "Wayne" <wrjones@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:eijrue01e2n@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Contrary to what women think, there is no 'old boys network'.
>
> Why do you think women think that?

Its a comfortable lie, to cover up their own choices' consequences.

> Some women might, some men might, I don't know. I don't think it.

" The singular of 'anecdote' is NOT 'citation'. "

>> Men don't admit they have a problem and hate to ask for help. Women on the
>> other hand do talk to each other and are not afraid or ashamed to ask for
>> help and they are quite militant about it.
>
> Some are, not all.

Ibid " anecdote ". In point of fact, given the vastly different
resources aimed at male and female medical issues, its logical to
conclude that awareness will be close to that imbalance.

Hint: More than 10 times as much $$$ is spent on breast cancer as
prostate cancer, yet both have almost identical rates of occurance
and of deaths from them.

>> The incidence of breast cancer is much lower than prostate cancer in my
>> experience
>
> I don't think so ...

Then, you are flat out *wrong*. Using Statistics Canada's " Canada At
A Glance 2006 " abstract, one finds the following data:

Page 7, Lifetime Probability of developing and dying from cancer.

Male Developing Dying
Prostate 12.0% 3.6%

Female
Breast 11.4% 3.7%

>> but I'm sure the funding is far greater. The only charity I know of which
>> specifically raises money for prostate cancer is the 'motorcycle ride for
>> dad' held each spring here in Ottawa and now in several other canadian
>> cities.
>
> So start another.

Better yet, lets *take* money from the breats cancer people, until
its the same as the prostate cancer, and then, divvy up the difference
50/50...

Thats, like, ya know... *equality*...

> There are some in UK, I've never heard of a motorcycle ride for dad.
>
> Sweeping statements aren't credible.

<laughs> Then, neither was yours, toots !

Andre

On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:14:05 -0500, "Wayne" <wrjones@newsguy.com>
wrote:

>Contrary to what women think, there is no 'old boys network'. Men don't
>admit they have a problem and hate to ask for help. Women on the other hand
>do talk to each other and are not afraid or ashamed to ask for help and they
>are quite militant about it. The incidence of breast cancer is much lower
>than prostate cancer in my experience but I'm sure the funding is far
>greater. The only charity I know of which specifically raises money for
>prostate cancer is the 'motorcycle ride for dad' held each spring here in
>Ottawa and now in several other canadian cities.
>Wayne
>In Otawa
>
Part of that is many prostate cancers are of little to no clinical
significance. If you live long, enough, the odds on being able to find
a cancer in the prostate gland at autopsy is near 100%.

Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
high the patient will die with it, but not of it.

A similiar problem is now beginning to turn up on whole body scans,
and Virtucal Colonoscopy. A lot are turning up suspicious findings,
That result in significant (expensive and potentially hazardous)
investigations, only to discover that the there is nothing of
consequence. For example Virtual Colonoscopy (a CT scan) turns up
unrelated findings in about 1/3 of all patients, and the resulting
investigations add about $250 to the average cost. Optical colonoscopy
doesn't usually find anything outside the colon.

"matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...
....
>
> A similiar problem is now beginning to turn up on whole body scans,
> and Virtucal Colonoscopy. A lot are turning up suspicious findings,
> That result in significant (expensive and potentially hazardous)
> investigations, only to discover that the there is nothing of
> consequence. For example Virtual Colonoscopy (a CT scan) turns up
> unrelated findings in about 1/3 of all patients, and the resulting
> investigations add about $250 to the average cost. Optical colonoscopy
> doesn't usually find anything outside the colon.

That's interesting, I didn't know that, thanks.

Mary

matt weber wrote:
> 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment [for PCa]. The treatment
> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.

You're crossposting that pearl into the wrong forums. Try telling it to
a healthy, active 60-yo man with Gleason 7 T2 PC, let alone a
45-year-old man just diagnosed with ANY PCa . . . or to their brides.

I.P. Freely
but at least I'm still peeing

I have sat back and observed the frequent silliness of this thread, but
am at last impelled to respond to the egregious 11/5 post by "matt
weber." Please note that I have not cross-posted, which is essentially a
waste of bandwidth.

He wrote in pertinent part:
> Part of that is many prostate cancers are of little to no clinical significance. If you live long, enough, the odds on being able to find a cancer in the prostate gland at autopsy is near 100%.
>
So 'tis said.
> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment.
Vague. What, exactly, is "fairly common?" Hint: is it "fairly common"
among pts dxd in their fifties as opposed to those dxd in their sixties?
Or seventies? Or later?
> The treatment for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
>
And what is the evidence, the clinical scientific evidence, in support
of that statement?
> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>
Maybe true if the pt is elderly at first dx. Otherwise, what's the
evidence in support of that statement?

(snip)

Regards,

Steve J

"Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are
signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

Steve Jordan wrote:

> I have sat back and observed the frequent silliness of this thread, but
> am at last impelled to respond to the egregious 11/5 post by "matt
> weber." Please note that I have not cross-posted, which is essentially a
> waste of bandwidth.

He won't see your question.
He posts on alt.support.cancer.
J

I'm glad I didn't watch and wait. I had a GL 8 cancer already in the
Lymph nodes with a PSA of 4.8. Now I'm in the battle of my life. My
point - there is no insignificant cancer and statistics don't tell the
story as your life is affected, not the textbooks.I gave to breast
cancer charity and I gave to prostate cancer charity.

Rich

On November 5, J wrote:

Quoting me:
>> I have sat back and observed the frequent silliness of this thread, but
>> am at last impelled to respond to the egregious 11/5 post by "matt
>> weber." Please note that I have not cross-posted, which is essentially a
>> waste of bandwidth.
>>
He replied:
> He won't see your question.
> He posts on alt.support.cancer.
>
Thanks for the info, but I don't care whether or not "matt" sees my
post. It is the folks who might be susceptible to believing his posts
that I was addressing.

Regards,

Steve J

"Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are
signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

"matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:14:05 -0500, "Wayne" <wrjones@newsguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Contrary to what women think, there is no 'old boys network'. Men don't
>>admit they have a problem and hate to ask for help. Women on the other
>>hand
>>do talk to each other and are not afraid or ashamed to ask for help and
>>they
>>are quite militant about it. The incidence of breast cancer is much lower
>>than prostate cancer in my experience but I'm sure the funding is far
>>greater. The only charity I know of which specifically raises money for
>>prostate cancer is the 'motorcycle ride for dad' held each spring here in
>>Ottawa and now in several other canadian cities.
>>Wayne
>>In Otawa
>>
> Part of that is many prostate cancers are of little to no clinical
> significance.

The same may be true of many early breast cancers.

> If you live long, enough, the odds on being able to find
> a cancer in the prostate gland at autopsy is near 100%.
>
> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>
> A similiar problem is now beginning to turn up on whole body scans,
> and Virtucal Colonoscopy. A lot are turning up suspicious findings,
> That result in significant (expensive and potentially hazardous)
> investigations, only to discover that the there is nothing of
> consequence. For example Virtual Colonoscopy (a CT scan) turns up
> unrelated findings in about 1/3 of all patients, and the resulting
> investigations add about $250 to the average cost. Optical colonoscopy
> doesn't usually find anything outside the colon.

matt weber wrote:
> >
>> a cancer in the prostate gland at autopsy is near 100%.
>
> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>
> Supposing you're one of the unlucky ones who die "with it." I guess you're willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. Bottom line is baby boomers are getting into their 50s and 60s and i guess the society at large done't want't to be inundated with expenses for aggressive treatment for these people.bec the gov't ends a lot of the expensive.

Why do they keep on saying a person is more likely to die of natural
causes than of pca. Obviously some do (the oldest ones) but some
don't.

If society doesn't want to be deluged with medical bills as a result of
widespread pca testing and treatment their emphasis as far as testing
should be to devise that that could more accurately predict the outcom
(separate the "natural diers" from the "artificial."

Leah.

matt weber wrote:
> >
>> a cancer in the prostate gland at autopsy is near 100%.
>
> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>
> Supposing you're one of the unlucky ones who die "with it." I guess you're willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good. Bottom line is baby boomers are getting into their 50s and 60s and i guess the society at large done't want't to be inundated with expenses for aggressive treatment for these people.bec the gov't ends a lot of the expensive.

Why do they keep on saying a person is more likely to die of natural
causes than of pca. Obviously some do (the oldest ones) but some
don't.

If society doesn't want to be deluged with medical bills as a result of
widespread pca testing and treatment their emphasis as far as testing
should be to devise that that could more accurately predict the outcom
(separate the "natural diers" from the "artificial."

Leah.

I.P. Freely wrote:


> Try telling it to
> a healthy, active 60-yo man with Gleason 7 T2 PC, let alone a
> 45-year-old man just diagnosed with ANY PCa . . . or to their brides.
>
> I.P. Freely


>
Dear I.P.

I: really I can't thank you enoiugh for saying this. Arguments against
psa intervention makes it sound like certain people are expendable --
which is fine except when it strikes you or your loved ones. I feel
demeaned when people trot out all these statistics to support the arg.
that it's not worth it to treat pca patients. The doctors encourage
this: they tell people "Nobody dies of this," so nobody knows this is
the 2nd largsest killer of men and results in impotency sometimes.
Tell all all that to the 30,000 men a year who die ot it.

Prostate cancer IMO is not treated as a life-threaening illness but as
a nuisance of aging. And I think I read an article in NYT sayiing that
men who are treated for this have the same outcome as the non-treated
so it doesn't matter. Obviously, we know some treatments can prolong
lives.

Nowadays they say "50 is the new 30". Meaning we are really "younger"
than our physical age. It used to be that a man of 60 would be
considered "old" but people like you who keep fit are in better
condition than men of a younger age who have bad habits..They just had
the NYC marathon and there is no shohas rtage of "older" runners.
..Honestly, nowadays i consider "old " to be around it..

My mother is 82 and she will have a fit if you call her a senior
citizen, elderly, whatever. She seems genuinely surpised that people
think she's old. . And she really is in good health, her doctor told
her she should try out for the Olympics. And now she has been told she
got a perfect score on al cognitive test -- she doesn't have
Alzeimer's anymore than I do!

On a totally different subject I thought you might want to see one of
my favorite older movies, "Tunes of Glory" which I think is British
and deals with such issues as discipline, honor, duty. in a Scottish
regiment. I mention that bec. I know you have been in the military


That "bearing" comes across in your posts!

Thank you especially for mentioning "their brides". This affects us
too. And for that matter for younger men what about their children?

Best wishes,


Leah

callalily wrote:

> If society doesn't want to be deluged with medical bills as a result of
> widespread pca testing and treatment their emphasis as far as testing
> should be to devise that that could more accurately predict the outcom
> (separate the "natural diers" from the "artificial."
>
They're working on all that -- and on finding new markers better than
PSA at identifying PC -- as we type. In fact, all SORTS of PC studies
are blooming at record rates lately. My research uro onc tells me
research and studies are on a track which may lead to vaccine approval
within a couple of years, much more effective chemo tx in maybe 5 years,
and nanoparticle treatments at 7 years . . . to name just a scant few of
new studies and research topics. There's MONEY in this stuff, and it's
being pursued with capitalistic vigor. There's even a study to determine
the effects of statins on prostates.

And you accidentally hit one nail on its head with the "artificial"
(i.e., all non-PC) causes of death. So MANY of them are self-induced
that maybe "artificial" is a valid term.

I.P.

"matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...

> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.

What a load of equestrian feces!

Watchful waiting in most cancers is essentially suicide by stupidity.






--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:O4C3h.24997$OE1.12617@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
>
> "matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...
>
> > Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
> > for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
> > These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
> > high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>
> What a load of equestrian feces!
>
> Watchful waiting in most cancers is essentially suicide by stupidity.
>
>
Of course, the self-selected studies done so far always favor what the
author wanted. The randomized controls are just now being done, the PIVOT
studies. It is tragic that after 100 years of surgery, this is the first
large-scale evaluation, outside the usual 'my patient' books. And the
results are still out after 10 years of what was reported on NPR a few years
ago as the Minneapolis study. 10 years is a long time with no results to
report.

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:O4C3h.24997$OE1.12617@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
>
> "matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...
>
>> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
>> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
>> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
>> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>
> What a load of equestrian feces!
>
> Watchful waiting in most cancers is essentially suicide by stupidity.
>


But not in many prostate cancers

callalily wrote:
> I.P. Freely wrote:
>
>> Try telling it to
>> a healthy, active 60-yo man with Gleason 7 T2 PC, let alone a
>> 45-year-old man just diagnosed with ANY PCa . . . or to their brides.
> Thank you especially for mentioning "their brides". This affects us
> too. And for that matter for younger men what about their children?

> I can't thank you enoiugh for saying this.

Glad to oblige.

> Prostate cancer IMO is not treated as a life-threaening illness but as
> a nuisance of aging. And I think I read an article in NYT sayiing that
> men who are treated for this have the same outcome as the non-treated
> so it doesn't matter. Obviously, we know some treatments can prolong
> lives.

As logical as it seems, has this been established?

> people like you who keep fit are in better
> condition than men of a younger age who have bad habits.

I had to laugh at that one. My uro was poking around my painful lower
abs to determine whether the pain was from the surgery, and asked me to
flex them to help him locate the painful spot. When I did, he jumped
back two feet, laughed, and said he's not used to that level of
musculature in his patients.

> On a totally different subject I thought you might want to see one of
> my favorite older movies, "Tunes of Glory" which I think is British
> and deals with such issues as discipline, honor, duty. in a Scottish
> regiment.

I've seen it. I love movies like that, as I can identify with their
message. It's vital message even in our daily lives in that it's
important to "do the right thing".

> I mention that bec. I know you have been in the military.
> That "bearing" comes across in your posts!

Not sure whether to consider that a positive or negative comment (just
kidding), but I consider it a compliment.

I.P.

"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
news:2YI3h.264432$5R2.18721@pd7urf3no...
>
> "Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:O4C3h.24997$OE1.12617@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..
>>
>> "matt weber" <mattheww50@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:5josk2plcltk6de8rsdf7pshtb2mqkim2c@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Hence 'watchful waiting' is a fairly common treatment. The treatment
>>> for many of these cancers is far more dangerous than the disease.
>>> These cancers often are so so slow growing that the odds are very
>>> high the patient will die with it, but not of it.
>>
>> What a load of equestrian feces!
>>
>> Watchful waiting in most cancers is essentially suicide by stupidity.
>>
>
> But not in many prostate cancers

His statement does not address prostate cancer. But, if it had, I would
have more accurately finished my statement by adding, "including almost all
prostate cancer"

In a recent study (mine) of 700 prostate cancer patients (those that have
come to this NG in the last 5 years) researchers (me) found that only eight
(1.1%) were, upon their last communication, using WW. Of those, none
reported an initial PSA greater that 6.2. And none have reported a steadily
rising PSA.

I realize that doesn't mean that some of us who selected treatment might not
have died, but I think the voting would be very lopsided with few
undecideds.

Speaking of which, I am sure most of those have ceased in their WW. If you
are still here, please comment on your current status.

ab@c.d rosbif
alle1013@hotmail.com alle
ankkurit@hotmail.com sisu
auerbach@aapr.com] Alex Auerbach
keith@hasler6516.fsnet.co.uk KEITHHASLER
lawrence@psychological-hug.com Lawrence J. Bookbinder
lyman@ruaturtle.com Ly
x@x.net roger




--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

> In a recent study (mine) of 700 prostate cancer patients (those that have
> come to this NG in the last 5 years) ....

Steve, I guess since you're crossposting this to four different newsgroups,
you might want to let everyone in all the other newsgroups know which one is
"this NG."

Please note this reply is not crossposted outside a.s.c.p.

JerryW

"JerryW" <jerryw@seemysig.net> wrote in message
news:_rK3h.6269$B31.4636@newssvr27.news.prodigy.ne t...
>
>> In a recent study (mine) of 700 prostate cancer patients (those that have
>> come to this NG in the last 5 years) ....
>
> Steve, I guess since you're crossposting this to four different
> newsgroups, you might want to let everyone in all the other newsgroups
> know which one is "this NG."
>
> Please note this reply is not crossposted outside a.s.c.p.

Dammit!!!

I have to figure out how to set a rule that says "if newsgroup is
'alt.support.cancer.prostate', print "OK"; else, reach out and slap user"

Thanks Jerry.

--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in a cross posted message
news:tPJ3h.23130$pq4.11692@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com. ..

>> But not in many prostate cancers
>
> His statement does not address prostate cancer. But, if it had, I would
> .................


Please let me apologize for my accidental rudeness... again... in cross
posting.

Steve Kramer wrote:

> Please let me apologize for my accidental rudeness... again... in cross
> posting.
>
Don't sweat it, Steve. X-posting makes sense as long as the topic is
appropriate, as yours is, to the forums involved. (Don't know what
soc.men is, so I don't include it when X-posting, but "cancer" is on
topic in all these forums.)

I.P.

Hello all,

I.P. Freely wrote:
Doc asked me to flex them [lower abs] to help him locate the painful
spot. When I did, he jumped back two feet, laughed, and said he's not
used to that level of musculature in his patients.

>Abs of Steel, Wow. And I'll bet the upper abs and obliques are just as shipshape.

You're lucky to have such a strong stomach. It comes in handy in Life
and it doesn't look bad on a guy, either. To some women, "Abs is what
Makes the Man."

Husb.'s washboard abs are now but a fond memory but he does have the
most beautiful gluts -- gluts that could launch a thousand ships.
Absolute poetry in motion.

His rear-end rightfully belongs in a great museum, or even better -- in
a Piazza in Rome, where it could take its place alongside the world's
greatest sculptures and be admired by the throngs.

Maybe someday.

> I've seen it. I love movies like that, as I can identify with their
> message. It's vital message even in our daily lives in that it's
> important to "do the right thing".

Right, we have to deal with that all the time. Can I suggest another --
Henry V by Kenneth Brannagh (and the version with L. Olivier is great
too). As a backup try Breaker Morant.

> Not sure whether to consider that a positive or negative comment (just
kidding), but I consider it a compliment.

It was so meant. It really makes me laugh when you order these poor men
to go to basic "training." You know people who work out don't always
do it because they're so virtuous. Like in my case after we were
married spouse started going to gym 3x/wk just to get away from me.

Seriously, I used to weight train for a couple of years and I really
liked it, especially mentally. You know the exert/inhale,
release/exhale thing is a sort of meditation. I stopped going after I
hurt my neck doing chin-ups on the Gravitron machine (you stand on a
platform and use weights to do dips, pull ups, etc). They had told me
this machine wasn't meant for women but I am such a competitive type
that I decided to try it anyway.

Now I'm happilysedentary, except for my jaw and finger muscles.

Nice to talk to you. Don't want to take you away from your sit-ups.

(how many do you do a day?)


Best,


Leah

callalily wrote:
>
> You're lucky to have such a strong stomach. It comes in handy in Life
> and it doesn't look bad on a guy, either. To some women, "Abs is what
> Makes the Man."

Don't let me mislead you and get you all hot and bothered. '-)
I never said my abs are VISIBLE. Strong and solid, yes, but "padded"; it
takes obsessively, maybe even unhealthily, low body fat to show off
washboard abs. Turns out that abs in general and a washboard in
particular have more to with looks than with functional strength anyway.
It's the inner core muscles that matters in athletic pursuits and active
daily life, and they're deeply hidden.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

> Husb.'s washboard abs are now but a fond memory but he does have the
> most beautiful gluts -- gluts that could launch a thousand ships.
> Absolute poetry in motion.

My wife still tells me that, too. But she's biased.

> Seriously, I used to weight train for a couple of years and I really
> liked it, especially mentally.

My wife has been a gym rat on and off for many years, especially the
last year. I've seen many men react in surprise at her handshake grip,
and she's quite useful in the yard and shop. She has clearly recognized
and often exclaimed over the last three decades how much her sports have
helped her deal with the crap the Old Boy Network in the Department of
Defense tried to shovel her way. A three-star Pentagon general or a
Secretary of State -- and civilians can't comprehend the presence these
people command and the force they exude -- is much less frightening to
one who has raced motorcycles across untracked terrain horses can't
negotiate.

> Don't want to take you away from your sit-ups.
> (how many do you do a day?)

Done right, by definition, working any muscle more than 12-15 reps is
just low-efficiency aerobics. These people who do scores or hundreds of
situps or crunches are burning a few calories but accomplishing little
else. And situps are just for looks, which I quit worrying about weeks ago.

I.P.

Hello--

I.P. Freely wrote:
callalily wrote:You're lucky to have such a strong stomach. It comes
in handy in Lifeand it doesn't look bad on a guy, either. To some
women, "Abs is what Makes the Man."
>
> Don't let me mislead you and get you all hot and bothered. '-)
>
I never said my abs are VISIBLE. Strong and solid, yes, but "padded";
It
> takes obsessively, maybe even unhealthily, low body fat to show off
> washboard abs. Turns out that abs in general and a washboard in
> particular have more to with looks than with functional strength anyway.
> It's the inner core muscles that matters in athletic pursuits and active
> daily life, and they're deeply hidden.


IP: You are spoiling for a fight. Back in Brooklyn we would say, "Put
up your dukes." You are making my husb sound like a "manorexic." You
are simply ignorant. My husband did have beautiful washboard abs but
he was of normal weight -- it just so happens that most of that
weight was in Lean Muscle Mass. He looked slim not starved. And he
was not obsessive at all -- was doing it for fitness and wasn't
interested in being Arnold S.

At the gym they told him that his bodyfat of 11% was excellent, so
don't go telling me its unhealthy. ( I just looked at a chart of ideal
bodyfat for men: athletic was <10% and lean 10-15%.) As a matter of
fact the trainer told him, "You may be 45 but you have the body of a
28-yr.-old."

That makes him "38" now. Hold old is your body??

Who cares about "functional strength." I must be a very shallow person
because looks are important to me. And those washboards looked mighty
good.

> Husb.'s washboard abs are now but a fond memory but he does have the
> > most beautiful gluts -- gluts that could launch a thousand ships.
> > Absolute poetry in motion.
>
> My wife still tells me that, too. But she's biased.

His gluts are part nature and part nurture. He used to spend hours on
the Rearmaster (is it Stairmaster?). I think that's how you get buns
of steel.

> . A three-star Pentagon general or a Secretary of State -- and civilians can't comprehend the presence these people command and the force they exude -- is much less frightening to
> one who has raced motorcycles across untracked terrain horses can't negotiate.

I can't believe it! You stand by idly while your wife races
motorcycles. Do you have any idea how dangerous that is? You know a
person is 21 times more likely to die in a motorcycle crash than in an
automobile crash.

I have a friend who bikes here in nyc and it is the most dangerous of
all to ride in urban traffic during daylight hours. He uses it to go
to and from work and rides it in all weather conditions, year-round. I
read that motorcycling (and other extreme sports) are becoming popular
with "affluent" middle-aged types. You know they do it to stave off
mortality.

You know a great sage once said: "The only safe motorcycle is one that
is sitting in the garage."

How much life insurance does she have?


> > Don't want to take you away from your sit-ups.
> > (how many do you do a day?)
>
> Done right, by definition, working any muscle more than 12-15 reps is
> just low-efficiency aerobics

Says who? I used to do three sets of reps. That's normal in weight
training.

These people who do scores or hundreds of situps or crunches are
burning a few calories but accomplishing little else. And situps are
just for looks, which I quit worrying about weeks ago.

But your wife seems to appreciate your looks.
..
Happy veterans day to you.

Leah

callalily wrote: (and this is getting long, OT, and self-indulgent, but
FUN -- for me. Feel free to ignore it.)

> I.P. Freely wrote:
> callalily wrote:You're lucky to have such a strong stomach. It comes
> in handy in Lifeand it doesn't look bad on a guy, either. To some
> women, "Abs is what Makes the Man."

> I never said my abs are VISIBLE. Strong and solid, yes, but "padded";
> It
>> takes obsessively, maybe even unhealthily, low body fat to show off
>> washboard abs. Turns out that abs in general and a washboard in
>> particular have more to with looks than with functional strength anyway.
>> It's the inner core muscles that matters in athletic pursuits and active
>> daily life, and they're deeply hidden.
>
> IP: You are spoiling for a fight. Back in Brooklyn we would say, "Put
> up your dukes." You are making my husb sound like a "manorexic." You
> are simply ignorant.

Stupid, maybe, but not ignorant, in this case. I've spent >20 years
studying dozens of textbooks on exercise physiology, have taken college
courses in it, almost pursued a graduate degree in it, and worked all
this past winter with a personal trainer/med student who manages a human
performance lab and trains pro athletes. It was he who told me of and
established my training around the difference between serious athletes
-- especially competitive individual and team sports -- and casual
recreational pursuits, between LOOKIN' good in a swim suit and BEING
good at whole-body sports. That difference is core strength -- strength
and endurance in the inner torso muscles that connect our upper body to
our lower body during whole-body sports -- and those muscles aren't
visible. There's nothing wrong with "lookin' good" in the sense of
having a washboard stomach or six-pack abs, but it takes time and work
to develop them and very low body fat to best display them, two things
counterproductive to my other interests. Many male models who trade on
their abs do so on near-starvation diets -- just enough protein (and a
LOT of hard work) to form the washboard and not one extra calorie to
hide it. So whether one emphasizes aesthetic abs or a high-power core,
it ain't about luck; as you know it's the result of a lot of hard work
and/or a lot of the right type of play.

> At the gym they told him that his bodyfat of 11% was excellent, so
> don't go telling me its unhealthy. ( I just looked at a chart of ideal
> bodyfat for men: athletic was <10% and lean 10-15%.)

I and most charts agree that 11% is healthy if attained by exercise
rather than undernourishment. But many models and many athletes like to
boast of far lower body fat percentages; one of my buds loves to talk
about his 6% body fat attained by quadrathlon training and eating bushes
and bean sprouts . . . but he gets exhausted hours before I do when
we're playing weekend warrior.

> Who cares about "functional strength."

Anyone and and everyone who actually USES their strength for work or
play, as I do all day and every day when possible.

> You stand by idly while your wife races motorcycles.

My wife's's still laughing at that one, and I told her yesterday.

For >15 years I rode pro-level dirt racing motorcycles 4-7 days a week,
at speeds and over unmarked virgin terrain non-Baja-racers would not
comprehend, in swamps/ deserts/ 200-foot-high dunes/ forests/ canyons/
cliffs/ snow/ mud/ sand/ slickrock/ dirt/ streams/ Bonneville salt
flats/ rain/ snow/ hail/ over a 140-degree (F) temperature range, and
then I straddled high-performance snowmobiles and added high cornices,
closed ski resorts, and "snow" frozen so hard that neither ice skates
nor snowmobiles left any marks. (We often raced all over Utah's ski
resorts from supper until breakfast, changed clothes, and went back to
work . . . 'cause it was Thursday morning.) I also chaired a state-wide
off-road motorcycle racing commission overseeing 3,000 racers competing
in 72 annual dirt bike races of all types from closed tracks to
cross-country races that left some Baja racers bug-eyed (ever see
pictures of Moab, Utah or its national parks? Now imagine racing through
them at speeds that would get you arrested on U.S. interstate highways).
I raced a dozen of the latter each year, but the SERIOUS riding was on
my 40 non-race weekends every year because when there's no checkered
flag, finishing doesn't count, so we can cut loose and REALLY have some
fun. Then all that gradually gave way to 20 years and counting of
windsurfing in gale force winds and overhead waves every time they're
available, which I haven't done now since, oh, last Thursday, and won't
get to do again until Monday and again Wednesday.

I suspect you can tell two things: 1) I LOVE my sports, and 2)
functional core strength is vital to them.

And I suspect she got the idea of racing motorcycles from me.

> Do you have any idea how dangerous that is?
> You know a person is 21 times more likely to die in a motorcycle
> crash than in an automobile crash.

Let's see . . . 15 years of up to 300 racers per race in 72 races up to
150 miles in length equals, uh, er, many more man (and woman-) miles
than our entire Apollo program traveled in putting man on the moon
multiple times, and all we got out of the former was some broken legs,
arms, and collar bones. One top pro racer was finally killed . . . by
sitting in his hot tub with the flu, which messes with one's temperature
regulation system. Not one of my own 5,000-10,000 dirt bike crashes cost
me one day of work. Slings, limps, a few vicodin pills, pain, yes, but
no lost work time. My wife's most memorable crash? Boobs -- hell, her
entire chestal area -- that turned every color in the medical rainbow
over the next several weeks (plus a separated AC joint).

If Socrates had today's toys available, maybe he would have said "A life
spent without pushing the envelope is not worth living".

OK, here we go: "A safe life is not worth living". Works for me. If I
wanted safe, Id'da added ADT and RT to my RP.

> I have a friend who bikes here in nyc and it is the most dangerous of
> all to ride in urban traffic during daylight hours.

Now THAT scares the crap out of me. I want my life in MY hands, not the
hands of OTHER stupid people. I quit street riding 35 years ago not long
after having to use my Tae Kwando on a CAR that tried to squeeze my
wife's motorcycle out of her lane into oncoming traffic . . . which, HA
HA HA, included a city cop who pulled the car over.

> motorcycling (and other extreme sports) are becoming popular
> with "affluent" middle-aged types. You know they do it to stave off
> mortality.

Some sports -- or street motorcycling -- have just the opposite effect;
they accelerate mortality, or at least morbidity.

> How much life insurance does she have?

Each of our policies would almost cover the mortgage, and mine should
last at its fixed premium until PC has either killed me or stopped
trying. Timed our fixed-premium 20-year term policies pretty well.

>>> Don't want to take you away from your sit-ups.
>>> (how many do you do a day?)
>> Done right, by definition, working any muscle more than 12-15 reps is
>> just low-efficiency aerobics
>
> Says who? I used to do three sets of reps. That's normal in weight
> training.

You're right. I meant 12-15 per set, with 2-3 sets. I was referring to
the guys who do scores or hundreds of crunches. That's essentially
fanning the air. You can appreciate the uselessness of 200 or 400 bicep
curls. 2-3 sets of 8-12 weighted crunches will build bigger abs, then if
one wants to show them off, very low body fat reveals them.

> But your wife seems to appreciate your looks.

She appreciates ME (dare I say "my inner core"?). The looks are just
icing on the cake. '-)

I.P.

I.P. Freely wrote:
> callalily wrote: (and this is getting long, OT, and self-indulgent, but
> FUN -- for me. Feel free to ignore it.)
>
> > I.P. Freely wrote:
> > callalily wrote:You're lucky to have such a strong stomach. It comes
> > in handy in Lifeand it doesn't look bad on a guy, either. To some
> > women, "Abs is what Makes the Man."
>
> > I never said my abs are VISIBLE. Strong and solid, yes, but "padded";
> > It
> >> takes obsessively, maybe even unhealthily, low body fat to show off
> >> washboard abs. Turns out that abs in general and a washboard in
> >> particular have more to with looks than with functional strength anyway.
> >> It's the inner core muscles that matters in athletic pursuits and active
> >> daily life, and they're deeply hidden.
> >
> > IP: You are spoiling for a fight. Back in Brooklyn we would say, "Put
> > up your dukes." You are making my husb sound like a "manorexic." You
> > are simply ignorant.
>
> Stupid, maybe, but not ignorant, in this case. I've spent >20 years
> studying dozens of textbooks on exercise physiology, have taken college
> courses in it, almost pursued a graduate degree in it, and worked all
> this past winter with a personal trainer/med student who manages a human
> performance lab and trains pro athletes. It was he who told me of and
> established my training around the difference between serious athletes
> -- especially competitive individual and team sports -- and casual
> recreational pursuits, between LOOKIN' good in a swim suit and BEING
> good at whole-body sports. That difference is core strength -- strength
> and endurance in the inner torso muscles that connect our upper body to
> our lower body during whole-body sports -- and those muscles aren't
> visible. There's nothing wrong with "lookin' good" in the sense of
> having a washboard stomach or six-pack abs, but it takes time and work
> to develop them and very low body fat to best display them, two things
> counterproductive to my other interests. Many male models who trade on
> their abs do so on near-starvation diets -- just enough protein (and a
> LOT of hard work) to form the washboard and not one extra calorie to
> hide it. So whether one emphasizes aesthetic abs or a high-power core,
> it ain't about luck; as you know it's the result of a lot of hard work
> and/or a lot of the right type of play.

IP I still say you're just jealous. JJ is not a male model (altho it
has been suggested to him) and he does not participate in competitive
sports. And he never starved himself. He's just lucky to have the
"skinny" gene.

I think the bottom line is that he is not a serious athlete and it sure
sounds like you are. So we can come to terms on this whole subject.
>
> > At the gym they told him that his bodyfat of 11% was excellent, so
> > don't go telling me its unhealthy. ( I just looked at a chart of ideal
> > bodyfat for men: athletic was <10% and lean 10-15%.)
>
> I and most charts agree that 11% is healthy if attained by exercise
> rather than undernourishment. But many models and many athletes like to
> boast of far lower body fat percentages; one of my buds loves to talk
> about his 6% body fat attained by quadrathlon training and eating bushes
> and bean sprouts . . . but he gets exhausted hours before I do when
> we're playing weekend warrior.

How do you know all this? Do you run a modeling agency?
>
> > Who cares about "functional strength."
>
> Anyone and and everyone who actually USES their strength for work or
> play, as I do all day and every day when possible.
>
> > You stand by idly while your wife races motorcycles.
>
> My wife's's still laughing at that one, and I told her yesterday.
>
> For >15 years I rode pro-level dirt racing motorcycles 4-7 days a week,
> at speeds and over unmarked virgin terrain non-Baja-racers would not
> comprehend, in swamps/ deserts/ 200-foot-high dunes/ forests/ canyons/
> cliffs/ snow/ mud/ sand/ slickrock/ dirt/ streams/ Bonneville salt
> flats/ rain/ snow/ hail/ over a 140-degree (F) temperature range, and
> then I straddled high-performance snowmobiles and added high cornices,
> closed ski resorts, and "snow" frozen so hard that neither ice skates
> nor snowmobiles left any marks. (We often raced all over Utah's ski
> resorts from supper until breakfast, changed clothes, and went back to
> work . . . 'cause it was Thursday morning.) I also chaired a state-wide
> off-road motorcycle racing commission overseeing 3,000 racers competing
> in 72 annual dirt bike races of all types from closed tracks to
> cross-country races that left some Baja racers bug-eyed (ever see
> pictures of Moab, Utah or its national parks? Now imagine racing through
> them at speeds that would get you arrested on U.S. interstate highways).
> I raced a dozen of the latter each year, but the SERIOUS riding was on
> my 40 non-race weekends every year because when there's no checkered
> flag, finishing doesn't count, so we can cut loose and REALLY have some
> fun. Then all that gradually gave way to 20 years and counting of
> windsurfing in gale force winds and overhead waves every time they're
> available, which I haven't done now since, oh, last Thursday, and won't
> get to do again until Monday and again Wednesday.

IP, why not suggest a motorcycle ride for PC like there is in Ottawa. I
think it's a great idea (as long as it's safe).
>
> I suspect you can tell two things: 1) I LOVE my sports, and 2)
> functional core strength is vital to them.
>
> And I suspect she got the idea of racing motorcycles from me.
>
> > Do you have any idea how dangerous that is?
> > You know a person is 21 times more likely to die in a motorcycle
> > crash than in an automobile crash.
>
> Let's see . . . 15 years of up to 300 racers per race in 72 races up to
> 150 miles in length equals, uh, er, many more man (and woman-) miles
> than our entire Apollo program traveled in putting man on the moon
> multiple times, and all we got out of the former was some broken legs,
> arms, and collar bones. One top pro racer was finally killed . . . by
> sitting in his hot tub with the flu, which messes with one's temperature
> regulation system. Not one of my own 5,000-10,000 dirt bike crashes cost
> me one day of work. Slings, limps, a few vicodin pills, pain, yes, but
> no lost work time. My wife's most memorable crash? Boobs -- hell, her
> entire chestal area -- that turned every color in the medical rainbow
> over the next several weeks (plus a separated AC joint).

IP, obviously you have a guardian angel. When I researched biking for
my friend I found out that there are some "thrill-seeking, risk taking"
personality types. Some of them, unfortunately are not as lucky as
you.
>
> If Socrates had today's toys available, maybe he would have said "A life
> spent without pushing the envelope is not worth living".
>
> OK, here we go: "A safe life is not worth living". Works for me. If I
> wanted safe, Id'da added ADT and RT to my RP.

You are right. It sounds like you have a wonderful life and I am
jealous. I grew up in the city and never even learned to ice skate, let
alone ski. You should live life to the fullest but I don't agree with
the part about "pushing the envelope." Maybe that works for you but I
wouldn't recommend it to everybody. There is a researcher in England
who has coined a word for people who like living on the "edge" but for
the moment it escapes me. It is a unique personality type.
>
> > I have a friend who bikes here in nyc and it is the most dangerous of
> > all to ride in urban traffic during daylight hours.
>
> Now THAT scares the crap out of me. I want my life in MY hands, not the
> hands of OTHER stupid people. I quit street riding 35 years ago not long
> after having to use my Tae Kwando on a CAR that tried to squeeze my
> wife's motorcycle out of her lane into oncoming traffic . . . which, HA
> HA HA, included a city cop who pulled the car over.
>
> > motorcycling (and other extreme sports) are becoming popular
> > with "affluent" middle-aged types. You know they do it to stave off
> > mortality.
>
> Some sports -- or street motorcycling -- have just the opposite effect;
> they accelerate mortality, or at least morbidity.

I wish I could convince him of that. I have already shows him 100s of
pp. of research. But men will be men.

> > >> Done right, by definition, working any muscle more than 12-15 reps is
> >> just low-efficiency aerobics
> >
> > Says who? I used to do three sets of reps. That's normal in weight
> > training.
>
> You're right. I meant 12-15 per set, with 2-3 sets. I was referring to
> the guys who do scores or hundreds of crunches. That's essentially
> fanning the air. You can appreciate the uselessness of 200 or 400 bicep
> curls. 2-3 sets of 8-12 weighted crunches will build bigger abs, then if
> one wants to show them off, very low body fat reveals them.

I only see this in movies where some soldier or athlete is forced to do
situps or pushups as a punishment. There is a great movie about a
black guy (called "Coach" something) who took over an inner-city
basketball team which was failing and turned it into a first-place
team. Also, the coach insisted that the players perform well
academically and they did. (Based on a true story). What I remember
from the movie is that he used to enforce discipline by prescribing
sit-ups and the like, maybe 500 of them. It sounds unhealthy.
>
> > But your wife seems to appreciate your looks.
>
> She appreciates ME (dare I say "my inner core&