Fitness kicks BMI's ass....

[Existential Angst]

http://www.helpingyoucare.com/17240/...ing-death-risk

I found the above from
http://www.helpingyoucare.com/17436/...-can-live-with ,
which is a review of a 44 pg exercise ditty from Harvard whatever whatever.

Seems like Harvard is tryna jump on the fitness bandwagon. That review will
quite drive home the point of just how ubiquitously important all this
exercese stuff is. Altho they have a piss-poor idea of what exercise
actually is.

Reminds me of Osteoporotic Sally Fields and her Boniva, lifting a 5# weight,
and wondering why she has osteoporosis.

The mega-fitness industry has, paradoxically, developed around the fact
that mutha****as REFUSE to g-d run and lift a simple g-d weight off the
ground, over their heads. Some will do kettlebells, cuz, well, Friedes and
DragonDoor impute magical properties'n'**** to kb's, and the jerk-off kb
swing seems to suffice for most, anyway.... goodgawd....

Along those lines, the Harvard Guide is perty much exercise pap, and is why
exercise doesn't realize its full therapeutic potential, cuz assholes are
just mickey-mouse about it. And unfortunately, the medical community seems
hell-bent on diluting exercise protocols to the point of ineffectiveness.

Not that you have to do this boot camp P90x bull****, but you should get
winded, sweaty, flushed once in a while, with a lactic acid burn. High HR
goes without saying.....

Altho, farmers and agrarians, who do that stuff all day, proly don't need
intensity. We do, cuz, well, we are on our asses almost 24 hours a day.

That fitness can/will kick BMI's ass can actually be deduced from first
principles, altho these principles would be beyond the grasp of the likes of
pillpopper and g-dGohde. Given micronutrient adequacy -- a very big
given -- exercise would also trump lotsa dietary protocols, as well, imo.
Up to a point, of course. Bec, basically, exercise IS a form of deep tissue
nutrition, or better, a vehicle for deep-tissue/cellular nutrition. AND the
only "real form" of the much-abused notion of detoxification.
--
EA

[John H. Gohde]

On Dec 29, 5:45*pm, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
> http://www.helpingyoucare.com/17240/...ant-than-body-...
>
> I found the above fromhttp://www.helpingyoucare.com/17436/harvard-guide-to-exercise-a-progr...,
> which is a review of a 44 pg exercise ditty from Harvard whatever whatever.
>
> Seems like Harvard is tryna jump on the fitness bandwagon. *That reviewwill
> quite drive home the point of just how ubiquitously important all this
> exercese stuff is. Altho they have a piss-poor idea of what exercise
> actually is.
>
> Reminds me of Osteoporotic Sally Fields and her Boniva, lifting a 5# weight,
> and wondering why she has osteoporosis.
>
> The mega-fitness industry has, paradoxically, *developed around the fact
> that mutha****as REFUSE to g-d run and lift a simple g-d weight off the
> ground, over their heads. *Some will do kettlebells, cuz, well, Friedesand
> DragonDoor impute magical properties'n'**** to kb's, and the jerk-off kb
> swing seems to suffice for most, anyway.... * goodgawd....
>
> Along those lines, the Harvard Guide is perty much exercise pap, and is why
> exercise doesn't realize its full therapeutic potential, cuz assholes are
> just mickey-mouse about it. *And unfortunately, the medical community seems
> hell-bent on diluting exercise protocols to the point of ineffectiveness.
>
> Not that you have to do this boot camp P90x bull****, but you should get
> winded, sweaty, flushed once in a while, with a lactic acid burn. *HighHR
> goes without saying.....
>
> Altho, farmers and agrarians, who do that stuff all day, proly don't need
> intensity. *We do, cuz, well, we are on our asses almost 24 hours a day..
>
> That fitness can/will kick BMI's ass can actually be deduced from first
> principles, altho these principles would be beyond the grasp of the likesof
> pillpopper and g-dGohde. *Given micronutrient adequacy -- a very big
> given -- exercise would also trump lotsa dietary protocols, as well, imo.
> Up to a point, of course. *Bec, basically, exercise IS a form of deep tissue
> nutrition, or better, a vehicle for deep-tissue/cellular nutrition. *AND the
> only "real form" of the much-abused notion of detoxification.
> --
> EA

My favorite anti-osteoporosis exercise when I worked out at a gym was
calf raises which I did with close to 400 pounds of weight. Not
particularly difficult, but that exercises stresses the entire
skeleton when you use a lot of weight.

[[email protected] |]

On Dec 29, 2:45*pm, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
> http://www.helpingyoucare.com/17240/...ant-than-body-...
>
> I found the above fromhttp://www.helpingyoucare.com/17436/harvard-guide-to-exercise-a-progr...,
> which is a review of a 44 pg exercise ditty from Harvard whatever whatever.
>
> Seems like Harvard is tryna jump on the fitness bandwagon. *That reviewwill
> quite drive home the point of just how ubiquitously important all this
> exercese stuff is. Altho they have a piss-poor idea of what exercise
> actually is.
>
> Reminds me of Osteoporotic Sally Fields and her Boniva, lifting a 5# weight,
> and wondering why she has osteoporosis.
>
> The mega-fitness industry has, paradoxically, *developed around the fact
> that mutha****as REFUSE to g-d run and lift a simple g-d weight off the
> ground, over their heads. *Some will do kettlebells, cuz, well, Friedesand
> DragonDoor impute magical properties'n'**** to kb's, and the jerk-off kb
> swing seems to suffice for most, anyway.... * goodgawd....
>
> Along those lines, the Harvard Guide is perty much exercise pap, and is why
> exercise doesn't realize its full therapeutic potential, cuz assholes are
> just mickey-mouse about it. *And unfortunately, the medical community seems
> hell-bent on diluting exercise protocols to the point of ineffectiveness.
>
> Not that you have to do this boot camp P90x bull****, but you should get
> winded, sweaty, flushed once in a while, with a lactic acid burn. *HighHR
> goes without saying.....
>
> Altho, farmers and agrarians, who do that stuff all day, proly don't need
> intensity. *We do, cuz, well, we are on our asses almost 24 hours a day..
>
> That fitness can/will kick BMI's ass can actually be deduced from first
> principles, altho these principles would be beyond the grasp of the likesof
> pillpopper and g-dGohde. *Given micronutrient adequacy -- a very big
> given -- exercise would also trump lotsa dietary protocols, as well, imo.
> Up to a point, of course. *Bec, basically, exercise IS a form of deep tissue
> nutrition, or better, a vehicle for deep-tissue/cellular nutrition. *AND the
> only "real form" of the much-abused notion of detoxification.
> --
> EA

Haven't you heard of homeopathic exercise? The less one does the
stronger the water memory.

Honestly the BMI is crude measure. The loss of adipose tissue
and the gain of muscle mass both help and take a better
methods of measurement. A vinyl cloth tape measure like
use to measure the waist is likely a bit better and certainly
cheaper than a scales. Measure the Belly waist and the Buttox
waist, make it a ratio. The ratio for a man should be under
0.90 as I recall and under 0.70 in females. I am at ~< 0.90.

Now to find a willing female at or below 0.70...................Trig

[[email protected]]

"Honestly the BMI is crude measure. The loss of adipose tissue and the
gain of muscle mass both help and take a better methods of measurement.
A vinyl cloth tape measure like use to measure the waist is likely a bit
better and certainly cheaper than a scales. Measure the Belly waist and
the Buttox waist, make it a ratio. The ratio for a man should be under
0.90 as I recall and under 0.70 in females. I am at ~< 0.90."

The limitations of the bmi at the extremes of the bell curve are well
known. It is a good first approximation and easy to do. For the vast
majority in the fat, so to speak, middle of the bell curve it is fine.

More recent versions of it also include waiste numbers and the
combination the best fit to measure body fat and correlation to
disorders thereof.

[a425couple]

"Existential Angst" <[email protected]> wrote in message...
> http://www.helpingyoucare.com/17240/...ing-death-risk
> --- Seems like Harvard is tryna jump on the fitness bandwagon

In my humble opinion, best post I've seen on
this group in years. Thanks.

[John H. Gohde]

On Dec 29 2011, 5:45*pm, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net>
wrote:

Only if you are a fat ass.

[John H. Gohde]

On Dec 29 2011, 5:45*pm, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net>
wrote:

The world ain't the problem, it is YOU.

I see this in Hollywood an awfully lot. Poor me, why wont the world
accept me and my 300+ pounds? Who do you think you are kidding? No
body, but yourself.

Call it Plus Size if you want to, but Plus Size people have a problem
which they have an absolutely remarkable ability to ignore. They can
look in the minor, and NOT see what everybody else is seeing.

Every time I put on a few too many pounds, I feel bloated. What is
your excuse?

Trust me, Plus Size individuals die prematurely young 100 percent of
the time. Furthermore, they are plagued with health problems through
their lifetime. Gee, could it possibly be due their 300+ pounds of
body weight?

Be as fit as your want too. People of NORMAL weight have got it
right. Overweight people have got it ALL wrong.

[Existential Angst]

"a425couple" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> "Existential Angst" <[email protected]> wrote in message...
>> http://www.helpingyoucare.com/17240/...ing-death-risk
>> --- Seems like Harvard is tryna jump on the fitness bandwagon
>
> In my humble opinion, best post I've seen on
> this group in years. Thanks.

Why thank you.

And there is actually a bit more, if one wants to additionally read "between
the lines".

Gohde once again demonstrates another <whoosh>, and in fact the real
nitty-gritty of fitness escapes MOST people.
With tremendous help from the media, of course. Jerking off Le Pubic has
become an industry artform.

They even have various Industry Awards for doing so -- no foolin.... and a
name for the field, I discussed in the 12/31 post Can you run 5 miles: It's
called Innovative Marketing.
I call it The Mind****.

Proly, if you did a literature search, the "studies" favoring raw weight
loss would far outnumber the ones favoring raw fitness, but it is almost a
certainty that the former are wrong, and the latter are right -- short of
morbid obesity.

And actually, a more accurate way of stating the issue/problem is this:
(warning to Gohde: yer gonna have to put on yer beanie cap and REALLY
concentrate!!!)

The statistical effect of raw fitness on health will decrease as the degree
of overweight increases.

Also, the statistical effect of raw weight loss on health will decease as
the degree of obesity/overweight decreases.

AND, the stastical effect of raw weight loss on health will decrase as the
degree of fitness increase.... !!!

But here's a REALLY neat notion:
Consider the **%-wise** effect of fitness on health, wrt weight:

The statistical effect of raw fitness on health *on a given individual* will
increase %-wise MORE as the degree of overweight increases. !!!

This may seem inconsistent with the above, but it isn't at all, ito the
statistical context.
It basically sez, Exercise will greatly help a morbidly obese person AS a
morbidly obese person, but he is STILL at great risk, compared to the
general population.

Iow, suppose both a 6' 150# guy and a 6' 300# guy are unable to run a mile.
Test their biochemical markers.
Test them again after they CAN run a mile.

%-wise, the improvement of the markers of the 300# will likely DWARF the
improvement of the 150# guy -- largely because there is so much more ROOM
for improvement in the 300# guy, but still, the statistical case likely
remains.
Essentially a physiological example of Newton's Law of Cooling, and delta
T.....

But also, that is not to say that the mortality stats for this 300# cohort
will be better than the 150# cohort..... just that the % improvement will
be better.

Dr. Stephen Blair has done extensive research into this, and examined
various "health markers" on all 4 combinations of fitness and fatness -- ie,
skinny/fit, skinny/unfit, fat/fit, fat/unfit.

POP QUIZ, BOYZNGERLZ......

How would YOU rank these combo's from best to worst??
<tick-tock> <tick-tock>
..
..
..
OK, hand in yer papers.....
Here's how Blair ranked them, from best to worst:

fat/fit, skinny/fit, skinny/unfit, fat/unfit.
!!!!!!!

Iow, the only "case" where fat "loses" is when it is combined with a lack of
fitness!!!!
The TWO WORST rankings are both the unfit cases, for both skinny and fat
people. !!!
Fat AND Fit wins!!!!

Completely demolishing the near paradigm- and culture-changing premise of
Covert Bailey's Fit OR Fat empire, which even made it to PBS's fundraising,
at one point.
Covert Bailey wadn't a bad guy, or a hustler, actually an educated
well-intentioned person/academic.
He was, well, just WRONG! Sorta like Pons and Fleishman....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...ld-fusion.html

But **** NEVER dies, apparently:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports...nAndPons.shtml

That, and Vornado's and water burning cars. goodgawd....


Now, of course, "how fat" would have to be agreed upon (as well as "how
skinny"), but, apropos of some numbers discussed below, picture the above
ranking for a 6' guy 220# vs. a 6' guy 180#, ie, a 40# diff. Or perhaps
more.

Now, Big Med and the studies spawned thereof will not back this up. But,
then, being an Evil Spawning, they are wrong as well.

To put this ito some concrete-ish numbers (concrete-ish = fabricated by moi,
toward the end of driving home the point, but also not fabricated in a total
vacuum, either -- iow, fabricated but not confabulated):

Consider 6' males, weighing between 125# and 250#, which corresponds to a
bmi range of 17 to 34.
Up to about 34, fitness likely does kick BMI's ass ito health. Depending
depending of course on what actually CONSTITUTES that bmi, ito fat/muscle
ratio -- there's a big diff between a 6' ft 250# guy who is 60% fat, and one
who is 15% fat.

But overall, within a normal fat range of 25-40 bf%, the effects of fitness
will likely predominate over raw weight loss, up to a bmi of about 34.
Imho....

Keep in mind that sed 6' guy at 185 gives a bmi of 25.1 (moi), technically
making him overweight!!!! Go figger, eh?


In the fitness vs. wt loss fracas, this type of "mis-labeled causality" is
COMMON in ad hoc, epidemiological-type studies, where the authors of and/or
the assholes interpreting these studies for le pubic cannot distinguish
between correlation, coincidence, and true cause and effect -- or even
"probable" cause and effect.

So we wade in a sea of chaotic information, of basically litanies of g-d
abstracts bandied about in a conceptual vacuum -- good ole PubMed, by the
well-intentioned, as well as the Corporately Malicious, who prey on le
pubic.

A very little known, little appreciated fact:
It is virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the lay person to assess the true
validity of a study. The most that most of us can due is impute validity
from a very obvious checklist, much of which can be easily fabricated or
concealed -- such author affiliation, how cohorts/groups were selected, etc
etc. Just imagine the complicated stuff, such as statistical methods, data
"selection", bench chemistry, etc etc.

For example (of "bench chemistry"), known to very few people, the whole
bull**** issue of fat burning during exercise is absolutely muddied by the
inability to accurate measure IMTGs, Intramuscular tri-glycerides. So all
these assholes proclaiming "fat-burning xones" are parroting assholes who
can't wrap their heads around the fact that the METHODS for measurement of
IMTGs are highly suspect to begin with.

The likely fact is, fat burning is a non-issue in exercise, regardless of
its type, and the ONLY consideration is the calories burn.
However, having said that, fat burning AFTER exercise is likely much higher
with heavy resistance training, having to do with the bmr, EPOC, and RQ (or
rer), another story.
And major textbooks, asserting the validity of a fat burning zone, have
completely screwed up the math.... unbelievable.

If it is impossible for a lay person to get the lay of the scientific land,
it's not much easier for an **expert in the very field** of that study to
assess the validity of a given study.
This has been demonstrated, very embarrasingly, time and time again not only
in the health sciences, but also in the hard sciences. Think Cold Fusion,
and the Bogdanoff Bros.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
And check out their new chins:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...c-surgery.html
holy ****....

That is why "knowledge" in health science is almost by definition a
consensus of "war-ing studies", or in a word, a vote.
Which is what "Review Studies" are all about.....
And it's hard to even assess THEM, and THEY are the ones trying to do the
assessing!!!!!!! Goodgawd......

THE classic example of this are the nutritional RDA's/DRI's, now put out by
the IOM
To wit :
Dats why there is this huge backpedal on Vit D, where for **decades** it was
"thought" (confabulated??) that not only was 400 iu "enough", but that there
was also a very narrow window of toxicity, making supplementing (beyond yer
quart of milk) dangerous.

The reason for this? Our RDA's, DRI's are piss-poor "review studies" on
nutrients, done by the NRC, IOM et al.

Heh, now Vit D is up to, what, 4,000 iu's???? 6,000, for PBS's Dr. Amen.
10,000 for some people here.
And Vit D is not the only one, f'sure f'sure.
Few people are aware, for example, that European RDAs are often FAR higher
than our RDAs.... How does the IOM explain DAT????

And the fact the groups like RKC and kettlebelliers-at-large choose to just
IGNORE Newton's Laws -- as do many other hustling fitness/health gurus, and
additionally with the laws of chemistry and physiology -- just adds to the
mud, muck, and mire of the Conceptual Chaos that le pubic is forced to wade
through.

'tis what 'tis..... ultimately "just" Social Darwinism, one could say, but
actually more serious than that.

You can say, Let dumb misled assholes be dumb misled assholes, .but the
reality is that when there are ENOUGH dumb assholes being misled -- all of
whom can breed and vote, both politically and with their dollars -- that
tangibly and intangibly affects, lassoo's the REST of us, the very least of
which is manifested by having to pay 10x the "fair price" for a nutritional
commodity, like Vit C. Also discussed in the Can you run 5 miles post.

The future is gloomy indeed.
--
EA

[Existential Angst]

On 30 Dec 2011 14:45:34 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

> "Honestly the BMI is crude measure. The loss of adipose tissue and the
> gain of muscle mass both help and take a better methods of measurement.
> A vinyl cloth tape measure like use to measure the waist is likely a bit
> better and certainly cheaper than a scales. Measure the Belly waist and
> the Buttox waist, make it a ratio. The ratio for a man should be under
> 0.90 as I recall and under 0.70 in females. I am at ~< 0.90."
>
> The limitations of the bmi at the extremes of the bell curve are well
> known. It is a good first approximation and easy to do. For the vast
> majority in the fat, so to speak, middle of the bell curve it is fine.
>
> More recent versions of it also include waiste numbers and the
> combination the best fit to measure body fat and correlation to
> disorders thereof.

Aw go fukk yourself.
--
EA

[[email protected]]

> "Honestly the BMI is crude measure. The loss of adipose tissue and the
> gain of muscle mass both help and take a better methods of measurement.
> A vinyl cloth tape measure like use to measure the waist is likely a bit
> better and certainly cheaper than a scales. Measure the Belly waist and
> the Buttox waist, make it a ratio. The ratio for a man should be under
> 0.90 as I recall and under 0.70 in females. I am at ~< 0.90."
>
> The limitations of the bmi at the extremes of the bell curve are well
> known. It is a good first approximation and easy to do. For the vast
> majority in the fat, so to speak, middle of the bell curve it is fine.
>
> More recent versions of it also include waiste numbers and the
> combination the best fit to measure body fat and correlation to
> disorders thereof.

"Aw go fukk yourself."

Hmm, what an interesting bmi you must have.

Bmi and fitness are only indirectly related. A skinny person with a low
bmi can be as "fit" , and more so, as a muscle bound pretty boy with a
bmi at the extremes of the bell curve..

I recall the height of the soviet weight lifting days. Their world
champions were noteworthy for the huge guts they had.

[Existential Angst]

On 03 Jan 2012 00:16:50 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>> "Honestly the BMI is crude measure. The loss of adipose tissue and the
>> gain of muscle mass both help and take a better methods of measurement.
>> A vinyl cloth tape measure like use to measure the waist is likely a bit
>> better and certainly cheaper than a scales. Measure the Belly waist and
>> the Buttox waist, make it a ratio. The ratio for a man should be under
>> 0.90 as I recall and under 0.70 in females. I am at ~< 0.90."
>>
>> The limitations of the bmi at the extremes of the bell curve are well
>> known. It is a good first approximation and easy to do. For the vast
>> majority in the fat, so to speak, middle of the bell curve it is fine.
>>
>> More recent versions of it also include waiste numbers and the
>> combination the best fit to measure body fat and correlation to
>> disorders thereof.
>
> "Aw go fukk yourself."
>
> Hmm, what an interesting bmi you must have.
>
> Bmi and fitness are only indirectly related. A skinny person with a low
> bmi can be as "fit" , and more so, as a muscle bound pretty boy with a
> bmi at the extremes of the bell curve..
>
> I recall the height of the soviet weight lifting days. Their world
> champions were noteworthy for the huge guts they had.

So? I'm wrong wont be the last time, aint the first and oh yeah Mr.
Superiority go **** yourself with a broken glass bottle up the ass.

--
EA

[[email protected]]

>> "Honestly the BMI is crude measure. The loss of adipose tissue and the
>> gain of muscle mass both help and take a better methods of measurement.
>> A vinyl cloth tape measure like use to measure the waist is likely a bit
>> better and certainly cheaper than a scales. Measure the Belly waist and
>> the Buttox waist, make it a ratio. The ratio for a man should be under
>> 0.90 as I recall and under 0.70 in females. I am at ~< 0.90."
>>
>> The limitations of the bmi at the extremes of the bell curve are well
>> known. It is a good first approximation and easy to do. For the vast
>> majority in the fat, so to speak, middle of the bell curve it is fine.
>>
>> More recent versions of it also include waiste numbers and the
>> combination the best fit to measure body fat and correlation to
>> disorders thereof.
>
> "Aw go fukk yourself."
>
> Hmm, what an interesting bmi you must have.
>
> Bmi and fitness are only indirectly related. A skinny person with a low
> bmi can be as "fit" , and more so, as a muscle bound pretty boy with a
> bmi at the extremes of the bell curve..
>
> I recall the height of the soviet weight lifting days. Their world
> champions were noteworthy for the huge guts they had.

"So? I'm wrong wont be the last time, aint the first and oh yeah Mr.
Superiority go **** yourself with a broken glass bottle up the ass."

Hmmm, is this a pretty boy fantasy?

Knowing what we don't know is the first step to learning.

[John H. Gohde]

On Jan 3, 12:06*pm, Existential Angst <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On 03 Jan 2012 00:16:50 GMT, p...@popper.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> "Honestly the BMI is crude measure. The loss of adipose tissue and the
> >> gain of muscle mass both help and take a better methods of measurement..
> >> A vinyl cloth tape measure like use to measure the waist is likely a bit
> >> better and certainly cheaper than a scales. Measure the Belly waist and
> >> the Buttox waist, make it a ratio. The ratio for a man should be under
> >> 0.90 as I recall and under 0.70 in females. I am at ~< 0.90."
>
> >> The limitations of the bmi at the extremes of the bell curve are well
> >> known. *It is a good first approximation and easy to do. *For the vast
> >> majority in the fat, so to speak, middle of the bell curve it is fine.
>
> >> More recent versions of it also include waiste numbers and the
> >> combination the best fit to measure body fat and correlation to
> >> disorders thereof.
>
> > "Aw go fukk yourself."
>
> > Hmm, what an interesting bmi you must have.
>
> > Bmi and fitness are only indirectly related. *A skinny person with a low
> > bmi can be as "fit" , and more so, as a muscle bound pretty boy with a
> > bmi at the extremes of the bell curve..
>
> > I recall the height of the soviet weight lifting days. *Their world
> > champions were noteworthy for the huge guts they had.
>
> So? I'm wrong wont be the last time, aint the first and oh yeah Mr.
> Superiority go **** yourself with a broken glass bottle up the ass.
>
> --
> EA

Sounds good to me. Go for it, p...@popper.com!