Re: Obesity epidemic (TOTALLY acceptable)

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
>
>And other studies suggest the BMI is irrelivent, that what does matter is
>a fitness measure defined in the study as the ability to walk briskly for
>30 minutes.

Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people (BMI 40+)
who have the "ability to walk briskly for
30 minutes" have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of any
fitness. Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states that
thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic]. I believe that you have
cited him too.

http://www2.vhi.ie/topic/fitandfat

"Even Blair concedes that it's better to be lean and fit than overweight
and fit. For one thing, extra weight puts stress on the joints, increasing
the risk of arthritis. Fat around the midsection can also promote Type 2
diabetes by hampering your body's response to insulin. "

Anyone that swallows your propaganda will live a short and unhealthy life.

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote a whole lot of gibberish:

> Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people (BMI 40+)
> who have the "ability to walk briskly for
> 30 minutes" have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of any
> fitness. Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states that
> thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic].

Ofcourse he did. But also said "Normal-weight individuals in our study
had greater longevity only if they were physically fit; furthermore, obese
individuals who were fit did not have increased mortality,"

Take a look at www.medscape.com/viewarticle/566963 for the information you
asked for.


Now, let me just say that I addressed your exact question. But I'm sure
if I trim out the rest of the swill you wrote, you will bitch to me about
not addressing some crap that you think is mindblowingly important. I'll
keep it for your reference, even though I see no need to comment on it.




> I believe that you have
> cited him too.
>
> http://www2.vhi.ie/topic/fitandfat
>
> "Even Blair concedes that it's better to be lean and fit than overweight
> and fit. For one thing, extra weight puts stress on the joints, increasing
> the risk of arthritis. Fat around the midsection can also promote Type 2
> diabetes by hampering your body's response to insulin. "
>
> Anyone that swallows your propaganda will live a short and unhealthy life.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote a whole lot of gibberish:
>
>>Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people (BMI 40+)
>>who have the "ability to walk briskly for
>>30 minutes" have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of any
>>fitness. Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states that
>>thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic].
>
>Ofcourse he did. But also said "Normal-weight individuals in our study
>had greater longevity only if they were physically fit; furthermore, obese
>individuals who were fit did not have increased mortality,"
>
>Take a look at www.medscape.com/viewarticle/566963 for the information you
>asked for.

The article is not available without registration. I'm not going to
register to read it. Copy and paste the damn thing.

foryou@futurewebhost.com (Kenny) wrote in
news:20080411002056.8E8714E4EF@outpost.zedz.net:

> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
> wrote:
>>On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote a whole lot of gibberish:
>>
>>>Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people (BMI
>>>40+) who have the "ability to walk briskly for
>>>30 minutes" have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of
>>>any fitness. Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states
>>>that thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic].
>>
>>Ofcourse he did. But also said "Normal-weight individuals in our study
>>had greater longevity only if they were physically fit; furthermore,
>>obese individuals who were fit did not have increased mortality,"
>>
>>Take a look at www.medscape.com/viewarticle/566963 for the information
>>you asked for.
>
> The article is not available without registration. I'm not going to
> register to read it. Copy and paste the damn thing.

User Agent Switcher for Firefox (and copying Googglebot) is your friend
when trying to access many sites that require login.

__________________________________________________ __________________

Fitness Linked to Reduced Mortality, Even in Obese Subjects

December 5, 2007 — Another study exploring the relationship between being
fat, being fit, and living longer has found that lower fitness is an
independent predictor of all-cause mortality, even after adjustment for
adiposity [1]. In the study, obese subjects who were fit had a lower risk
of dying than normal-weight subjects who were physically inactive.

"It may be possible to reduce all-cause death rates among older adults,
including those who are obese, by promoting regular physical activity,
such as brisk walking for 30 minutes or more on most days of the week . .
.. which will keep most individuals out of the low-fitness category," the
authors, led by Dr Xuemei Sui (University of South Carolina, Columbia),
write in the December 5, 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association.

The study tracked a cohort of 2603 adults aged 60 or over for a mean of 12
years, during which time 450 people died. Adjusted death rates were lowest
for people with the lowest body-mass index (BMI), lowest waist
circumference, or in the highest quintile for fitness level — this last
that held true even in severely obese subjects, who were much less likely
to die if their fitness levels were higher. When fitness was factored into
the waist circumference analysis and vice versa, fitness predicted
mortality risk regardless of smoking, baseline health, BMI, waist
circumference, or percent body fat, whereas waist circumference was no
longer significantly associated with increased mortality after fitness was
considered.

"Normal-weight individuals in our study had greater longevity only if they
were physically fit; furthermore, obese individuals who were fit did not
have increased mortality," the authors conclude.
Focusing on physical activity, not fat

In an interview with heartwire, senior author on the study, Dr Steven N
Blair (University of South Carolina), suggested that the findings speak to
the value of prescribing fitness, rather than focusing solely on weight
loss in older subjects.

"This does not say that we should ignore obesity in this older population
or any other, but it does underscore the extreme importance of being
active and fit, whether you're normal weight, overweight, or obese," he
said. Indeed, in his study, only half of subjects with class II obesity
were in the lowest category of physical fitness.

"We've put so much emphasis on weight loss, and obesity is awful — it's
the biggest health problem we've ever had, etc," Blair pointed out. "But
that strategy doesn't seem to be particularly effective; we've been doing
it for a couple of decades." Instead, Blair says he now focuses on
reminding his patients to walk for at least 30 minutes five days a week,
eat a healthy diet, and try not to gain additional weight. "And I think
that's good advice. A lot of people say, well, I did what the doctor told
me and I started taking those three 10-minute walks a day and I only lost
a pound over six months, and I said, to heck with it. But I tell them,
exercise is good for you regardless of whether you lost a lot of weight or
not."

Blair also acknowledged that while the analysis showed no mortality costs
of obesity in fit subjects, there are other social and medical reasons for
losing weight.
Source

1. Sui X, LaMonte MJ, Laditka JN, et al. Cardiorespiratory fitness and
adiposity as mortality predictors in older adults. JAMA. 2007;298:2507-
2516.

The complete contents of Heartwire, a professional news service of WebMD,
can be found at www.theheart.org, a Web site for cardiovascular healthcare
professionals.
Learning Objectives for This Educational Activity
Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

1. Describe the association between physical fitness and body mass
index and mortality in older patients.
2. Describe the effect of abdominal obesity and percent body fat on
mortality in older patients.

Clinical Context

By 2030, 22% of the US population, or 70 million individuals, will be
older than 65 years. Approximately 32% of those in the United States are
obese, with a decline in physical activity level and increase in BMI with
increasing age. Some studies suggest that obesity-related mortality
decreases with age, but little is known about the effect of physical
fitness or measures of adiposity on mortality in older persons.

This is a longitudinal study of a cohort of healthy adults aged 60 years
or older to examine the association between physical fitness and mortality
and the effect of measures of adiposity on the association.
Study Highlights

* Included were 2603 adults aged 60 years or older (mean age, 64.4
years; 19.8% women) enrolled in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study who
completed a baseline health examination from 1979 to 2001.
* Participants were seen regularly for preventive health screening
examinations and counseling for exercise and other lifestyle risks for
chronic disease.
* All participants completed a baseline maximal treadmill exercise
test and achieved at least 85% of age-predicted maximal heart rate.
* Excluded were those with a BMI of less than 18.5 kg/m2 and younger
than age 60 years at baseline.
* The participants were predominantly white, educated, and from middle
to upper socioeconomic classes.
* Baseline medical examination and fasting serum tests were completed.
* Percent body fat was determined by hydrostatic weighing and 7
skinfold measures.
* Adiposity was assessed by BMI in the following categories: normal
(BMI, 18.5 - 24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI, 25.0 - 29.9 kg/m2), obese class
I (BMI, 30 - 34.9 kg/m2), and obese class II (BMI, 35.0 kg/m2 or higher).
* Adiposity was also assessed as abdominal obesity by waist
circumference defined as normal (? 88 cm for women and ? 102 cm for men)
or high, and percent body fat (< 30% for women and < 25% for men) was
defined as normal or high.
* Fitness was determined by a maximal treadmill exercise test and a
modified Balke protocol.
* Test endpoint was volitional exhaustion or clinician-determined, and
fitness was categorized into quintiles with use of metabolic equivalent
tasks.
* Vital status was ascertained with the National Death Index and death
certificates, with causes of death identified from the International
Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International
Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes.
* Overall, mean BMI was 26.3 kg/m2, mean waist circumference was 90.3
cm, 24.5% had abdominal obesity, 10% had diabetes, and 50% had
hypertension.
* There were 4509 deaths during a mean follow-up of 12 years and
31,236 person-years of exposure.
* Subanalysis by sex was not conducted because of the small number of
deaths in women.
* Death rates per 1000 person-years adjusted for age and sex were
13.9, 13.3, 18.3, and 31.8 across increasing BMI groups (P = .01 for
tend).
* Mortality rates were 13.3 and 18.2 for normal vs high waist
circumference (P = .004).
* Mortality rates were 13.7 and 14.6 for normal and high body fat (not
significantly different).
* Mortality rates were 32.6, 16.6, 12.8, 12.3, and 8.1 across
increasing quintiles of fitness (P < .001 for trend).
* The association between waist circumference and mortality persisted
after adjustment for smoking, baseline health status, and BMI but not
after adjustment for fitness.
* Fitness was an independent predictor of mortality after adjustment
for multiple adiposity factors.
* Hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality across incremental quintiles of
fitness were 1.00, 0.53, 0.44, 0.43, and 0.30.
* HR for abdominal obesity was 1.25, but this did not persist after
adjustment for fitness.
* Thus, fitness and BMI, but not abdominal adiposity or percent body
fat, were predictors of mortality in older persons.
* Fit individuals who were obese had a lower mortality risk than unfit
normal-weight or lean persons.
* The authors concluded that clinicians should recommend regular
physical activity in older adults, normal and overweight alike, to
preserve functional capacity and improve mortality outcomes.

Pearls for Practice

* Physical fitness and BMI are independent predictors of mortality in
healthy persons aged 60 years or older.
* Abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference and percent
body fat are not independent predictors of mortality in healthy older
adults.

__________________________________________________ ____________________

--
Look at that. The one, the only, the original, the stupid Naughty Boy is
back. Who said Usenet couldn't go further downhill?

On Apr 10, 8:20*pm, for...@futurewebhost.com (Kenny) wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote a whole lot of gibberish:
>
> >>Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people (BMI 40+)
> >>who have the "ability to walk briskly for
> >>30 minutes" have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of any
> >>fitness. *Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states that
> >>thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic].
>
> >Ofcourse he did. *But also said "Normal-weight individuals in our study
> >had greater longevity only if they were physically fit; furthermore, obese
> >individuals who were fit did not have increased mortality,"
>
> >Take a look atwww.medscape.com/viewarticle/566963for the information you
> >asked for.
>
> The article is not available without registration. *I'm not going to
> register to read it. *Copy and paste the damn thing.

Exactly, why put out the effort when you can sit on your dead dumb ass
and complain. Isn't that what you and your buddies accuse fat people
of doing? Moron.

W.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote:

>>> Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people (BMI 40+)
>>> who have the "ability to walk briskly for
>>> 30 minutes" have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of any
>>> fitness. Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states that
>>> thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic].
>>
>> Ofcourse he did. But also said "Normal-weight individuals in our study
>> had greater longevity only if they were physically fit; furthermore, obese
>> individuals who were fit did not have increased mortality,"
>>
>> Take a look at www.medscape.com/viewarticle/566963 for the information you
>> asked for.
>
> The article is not available without registration. I'm not going to
> register to read it. Copy and paste the damn thing.

That's funny. I can access it from google without having to register...
Oh well, here it is.

***

December 5, 2007 - Another study exploring the relationship between being
fat, being fit, and living longer has found that lower fitness is an
independent predictor of all-cause mortality, even after adjustment for
adiposity [1]. In the study, obese subjects who were fit had a lower risk
of dying than normal-weight subjects who were physically inactive.


"It may be possible to reduce all-cause death rates among older adults,
including those who are obese, by promoting regular physical activity,
such as brisk walking for 30 minutes or more on most days of the week . .
.. which will keep most individuals out of the low-fitness category," the
authors, led by Dr Xuemei Sui (University of South Carolina, Columbia),
write in the December 5, 2007 issue of the Journal of the American Medical
Association.


The study tracked a cohort of 2603 adults aged 60 or over for a mean of 12
years, during which time 450 people died. Adjusted death rates were lowest
for people with the lowest body-mass index (BMI), lowest waist
ircumference, or in the highest quintile for fitness level - this last
that held true even in severely obese subjects, who were much less likely
to die if their fitness levels were higher. When fitness was factored into
the waist circumference analysis and vice versa, fitness predicted
mortality risk regardless of smoking, baseline health, BMI, waist
circumference, or percent body fat, whereas waist circumference was no
longer significantly associated with increased mortality after fitness was
considered.

"Normal-weight individuals in our study had greater longevity only if they
were physically fit; furthermore, obese individuals who were fit did not
have increased mortality," the authors conclude.


Focusing on physical activity, not fat


In an interview with heartwire, senior author on the study, Dr Steven N
Blair (University of South Carolina), suggested that the findings speak to
the value of prescribing fitness, rather than focusing solely on weight
loss in older subjects.


"This does not say that we should ignore obesity in this older population
or any other, but it does underscore the extreme importance of being
active and fit, whether you're normal weight, overweight, or obese," he
said. Indeed, in his study, only half of subjects with class II obesity
were in the lowest category of physical fitness.


"We've put so much emphasis on weight loss, and obesity is awful - it's
the biggest health problem we've ever had, etc," Blair pointed out. "But
that strategy doesn't seem to be particularly effective we've been doing
it for a couple of decades." Instead, Blair says he now focuses on
reminding his patients to walk for at least 30 minutes five days a week,
eat a healthy diet, and try not to gain additional weight. "And I think
that's good advice. A lot of people say, well, I did what the doctor told
me and I started taking those three 10-minute walks a day and I only lost
a pound over six months, and I said, to heck with it. But I tell them,
exercise is good for you regardless of whether you lost a lot of weight or
not."


Blair also acknowledged that while the analysis showed no mortality costs
of obesity in fit subjects, there are other social and medical reasons for
losing weight.

***

Now I'm sure you and your friends will start yapping about that last line.
And that's fine, but also not what I was talking about. My statement was,
and still is, that mortality rates are only dependent on fitness level,
and independent of BMI, as the study says.

I may be fat, but I CAN walk briskly for 30 minutes... According to the
study, my risk of mortality is the same as a skinny person who can do the
same 30 minute brisk walk.

So... Why should I lose weight again? About the only thing you have left
is the social impact. Again, that's losing it for YOU, not for ME.

The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> writes:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote:
>
>>>> Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people
>>>> (BMI 40+) who have the "ability to walk briskly for 30 minutes"
>>>> have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of any
>>>> fitness. Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states
>>>> that thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic].
>>>
>>> Ofcourse he did. But also said "Normal-weight individuals in our
>>> study had greater longevity only if they were physically fit;
>>> furthermore, obese individuals who were fit did not have increased
>>> mortality,"
>>>
>>> Take a look at www.medscape.com/viewarticle/566963 for the
>>> information you asked for.
>>
>> The article is not available without registration. I'm not going to
>> register to read it. Copy and paste the damn thing.
>
> That's funny. I can access it from google without having to
> register... Oh well, here it is.

You must have been registered before. I had the same problem.

Secondly, this isn't a study. It's a summary of a study. What's more
it appears to be a meta-study combining the numbers from several other
related studies. These sorts of things matter.

> December 5, 2007 - Another study exploring the relationship between
> being fat, being fit, and living longer has found that lower fitness
> is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality, even after
> adjustment for adiposity [1]. In the study, obese subjects who were
> fit had a lower risk of dying than normal-weight subjects who were
> physically inactive.

OK, this sounds interesting, but it is nothing more than the summary.
There's certainly no evidence in this paragraph.

> "It may be possible to reduce all-cause death rates among older
> adults, including those who are obese, by promoting regular physical
> activity, such as brisk walking for 30 minutes or more on most days of
> the week . . . which will keep most individuals out of the low-fitness
> category," the authors, led by Dr Xuemei Sui (University of South
> Carolina, Columbia), write in the December 5, 2007 issue of the
> Journal of the American Medical Association.

Likewise this is just supposition. The Dr. himself states that it *may*
be possible to reduce all-cause death rates with regular exercise.

Here comes the evidence.

> The study tracked a cohort of 2603 adults aged 60 or over for a mean
> of 12 years, during which time 450 people died. Adjusted death rates
> were lowest for people with the lowest body-mass index (BMI), lowest
> waist ircumference, or in the highest quintile for fitness level -
> this last that held true even in severely obese subjects, who were
> much less likely to die if their fitness levels were higher. When
> fitness was factored into the waist circumference analysis and vice
> versa, fitness predicted mortality risk regardless of smoking,
> baseline health, BMI, waist circumference, or percent body fat,
> whereas waist circumference was no longer significantly associated
> with increased mortality after fitness was considered.

The first thing that jumps out at the careful reader is that all of the
participants were 60 years old or older. This means that the
information really only applies to you if you happen to fit that age
category. It's possible, for example, that if they started with younger
individuals they would find that weight played a more important role in
survival, but that by the time the population reaches 60 enough people
susceptible to death from causes linked to obesity are already dead that
it isn't such a factor.

The second thing that one should notice is that adjusted death rates
were still lowest for those with the lowest body-mass index, the lowest
waist circumference. The folks in the top quintile for fitness
qualified too, but I would bet that there is a *lot* over overlap in
those three groups.

The article doesn't state 1) how they measured fitness, and 2) what sort
of fitness level had to be achieved to be considered in the top
quintile. The interview seems to suggest that 30 minutes of brisk
walking a day would put a person in the magical top quintile, but
without more information on how fitness was measured I don't see how
that conclusion could be drawn.

The study also only followed the participants for a mean of 12 years,
and most of the participants were still alive at the end, so it doesn't
really say anything about which populations lived the longest. If your
goal is to make it to 72 and you happen to be 60 right now then being
fit but fat might be an acceptable strategy. It is hard to conclude
more than that from the data given.

> "Normal-weight individuals in our study had greater longevity only if
> they were physically fit; furthermore, obese individuals who were fit
> did not have increased mortality," the authors conclude.

<snip interview with Dr Blair>

> Now I'm sure you and your friends will start yapping about that last
> line. And that's fine, but also not what I was talking about. My
> statement was, and still is, that mortality rates are only dependent
> on fitness level, and independent of BMI, as the study says.

In 60+ year old people who were followed for a mean of 12 years.

> I may be fat, but I CAN walk briskly for 30 minutes... According to
> the study, my risk of mortality is the same as a skinny person who can
> do the same 30 minute brisk walk.

Once again, that's what you would *like* this to say, but it is not what
the study actually says. The study said that you need to be in the top
quintile of physical fitness not that you need to be able to walk
briskly for 30 minutes.

Walking briskly for 30 minutes a day is a good thing. Just make sure
that you actually DO it, and not be content with the fact that you CAN
do it.

> So... Why should I lose weight again? About the only thing you have
> left is the social impact. Again, that's losing it for YOU, not for
> ME.

It is my experience that maintaining a high level of physical fitness,
especially later in life, is much more difficult if you are morbidly
obese. You are certainly correct, however, in stating that in the end
the choice is yours. If you don't care about the social impact, and if
you aren't worried about the health impact then I don't see the downside
in being fat.

Jason

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Jason Earl wrote:

>> That's funny. I can access it from google without having to
>> register... Oh well, here it is.
>
> You must have been registered before. I had the same problem.

When I accessed the URL directly, it gave me the same "you mst register"
crap... The weird thing is when I search for it on google, and click
google's link, it takes me to the page without having to register. Like I
said, weird...

> The first thing that jumps out at the careful reader is that all of the
> participants were 60 years old or older.

Yeah, that's partly because they are looking for mortality rates, and
people in their 60's tend to die off at a slightly faster rate then people
in their 30's...

> This means that the
> information really only applies to you if you happen to fit that age
> category.

And point being...? Are you saying that young people die off faster then
old people?

> It's possible, for example, that if they started with younger
> individuals they would find that weight played a more important role in
> survival, but that by the time the population reaches 60 enough people
> susceptible to death from causes linked to obesity are already dead that
> it isn't such a factor.

That's a rather big argument. Have the proof? Have an actual medical
study? Have anything other then a "possibility"? The fact of the matter
is, I have a study to back my position, what do you have? Oh yeah,
nothing...

> 2) what sort
> of fitness level had to be achieved to be considered in the top
> quintile. The interview seems to suggest that 30 minutes of brisk
> walking a day would put a person in the magical top quintile, but
> without more information on how fitness was measured I don't see how
> that conclusion could be drawn.

Then make your own study to study the study. Or better yet, write him a
letter and ask. You know the Doctor's name, and the university he works
for. I'm sure you can look online and get the university's mailing
address. If you write a letter and ask nice, you might even get a reply.

> The study also only followed the participants for a mean of 12 years,
> and most of the participants were still alive at the end, so it doesn't
> really say anything about which populations lived the longest. If your
> goal is to make it to 72 and you happen to be 60 right now then being
> fit but fat might be an acceptable strategy.

The argument that fat bashers use is typically one that obesity kills all
by itself. Over 12 years, if the argument is true, there would be a
statistical increase in mortality of obese members of the group. There
wasn't. In fact, the corelation was to the "fitness" level. Fit but
obese subjects saw no increase in mortality rates relative to fit and
skinny. On the other hand, skinny and unfit had the same mortality rates
as obese and unfit. In other words, obesity had nothing to do with it.

> It is hard to conclude
> more than that from the data given.

In other words, it studies an aspect that you never thought of before,
creating results you don't agree with, and must now attack it? Why don't
you write the author and ask him? I'd love to hear about the reply you
get back.

>> I may be fat, but I CAN walk briskly for 30 minutes... According to
>> the study, my risk of mortality is the same as a skinny person who can
>> do the same 30 minute brisk walk.
>
> Once again, that's what you would *like* this to say,

And it does...

> but it is not what the study actually says.

Ummmm... Yeah, that IS what it says. Good try though.

>> So... Why should I lose weight again? About the only thing you have
>> left is the social impact. Again, that's losing it for YOU, not for
>> ME.
>
> It is my experience that maintaining a high level of physical fitness,
> especially later in life, is much more difficult if you are morbidly
> obese.

That may very well be the case. But again, it's the fitness level of the
person, not the pure BMI, that affects mortality.

> You are certainly correct, however, in stating that in the end
> the choice is yours. If you don't care about the social impact, and if
> you aren't worried about the health impact then I don't see the downside
> in being fat.

Thank you.

The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> writes:

> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Jason Earl wrote:
>
>>> That's funny. I can access it from google without having to
>>> register... Oh well, here it is.
>>
>> You must have been registered before. I had the same problem.
>
> When I accessed the URL directly, it gave me the same "you mst
> register" crap... The weird thing is when I search for it on google,
> and click google's link, it takes me to the page without having to
> register. Like I said, weird...

That is weird. When I looked this up in Google Groups to find the
original article I was able to link to it as well.

Here's the link to the Pubmed summary:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

>> The first thing that jumps out at the careful reader is that all of
>> the participants were 60 years old or older.
>
> Yeah, that's partly because they are looking for mortality rates, and
> people in their 60's tend to die off at a slightly faster rate then
> people in their 30's...

Yes, but what kills people in their 30s is very different from what
kills people in their 60s. If you are already dead at 36 then you won't
make it into a study that covers 60 year-olds.

By your logic we should do mortality rate studies on people that are
over the age of 100. They are basically guaranteed to die. Of course,
the information on what kills a man at 112 is not particularly useful to
somene in his 30s, but it's still SCIENCE.

>> This means that the information really only applies to you if you
>> happen to fit that age category.
>
> And point being...? Are you saying that young people die off faster
> then old people?

My point is that unless you fit the age group that is being studied, the
conclusions don't really apply to you. Seriously, they don't.

Let's take an extreme example. Let's say we are studying a congenital
disease that was invariably fatal within the first 10 years of life, and
you had a study (like the one above) that measured the mortality of 30
year old specimens. The results would be that no specimens died of the
congenital disease (because they don't live to be 30), but you couldn't
use that study to state that the disease wasn't deadly to 5 year olds.

It's the same thing really.

The diseases that I am really worried about are the ones that kill
people before they are 60, not the ones that kill people after they are
60.

>> It's possible, for example, that if they started with younger
>> individuals they would find that weight played a more important role
>> in survival, but that by the time the population reaches 60 enough
>> people susceptible to death from causes linked to obesity are already
>> dead that it isn't such a factor.
>
> That's a rather big argument. Have the proof? Have an actual medical
> study? Have anything other then a "possibility"? The fact of the
> matter is, I have a study to back my position, what do you have? Oh
> yeah, nothing...

You have a study that covers deaths for people over 60. Trying to
stretch the data so that it covers other populations is one of the
easiest ways to come to the wrong conclusion using a scientific study.

Heart disease and other diseases linked with obesity are one of the
primary (non-accidental) killers for people who die before they reach
60. Pulling these deaths out of the study compromises the data entirely
for people younger than 60.

I'm just pointing out how these studies actually work. As an aside,
after reading the summary of the actual study I wouldn't be surprised if
the conclusions of the study did apply to somewhat younger age groups (I
don't think that it would hold for 5 year-olds, as an extreme example).
Weight is important, but if you are big but still able to outrun most of
the people you know then you are probably doing all right.

Just like on the Savannah death doesn't come for the oldest necessarily,
but for the slowest.

>> 2) what sort of fitness level had to be achieved to be considered in
>> the top quintile. The interview seems to suggest that 30 minutes of
>> brisk walking a day would put a person in the magical top quintile,
>> but without more information on how fitness was measured I don't see
>> how that conclusion could be drawn.
>
> Then make your own study to study the study. Or better yet, write him
> a letter and ask. You know the Doctor's name, and the university he
> works for. I'm sure you can look online and get the university's
> mailing address. If you write a letter and ask nice, you might even
> get a reply.

Actually, I did better than that. I looked up the actual study and read
the summary myself. I would read the entire study, I'm somewhat curious
what the cutoff times were for the exercise, but I don't want to pay the
JAMA $15, and I think the abstract is good enough for our needs.

After reading the study fitness was measured using a maximal treadmill
exercise duration. What this means is that the person was put on a
treadmill and the speed and slope of the treadmill was gradually
increased until the person can no longer continue.

In other words, we are not talking about a leisurely brisk walk. To get
into the top quintile you had to *outrun* 80% of the people in the
study.

>> The study also only followed the participants for a mean of 12 years,
>> and most of the participants were still alive at the end, so it
>> doesn't really say anything about which populations lived the
>> longest. If your goal is to make it to 72 and you happen to be 60
>> right now then being fit but fat might be an acceptable strategy.
>
> The argument that fat bashers use is typically one that obesity kills
> all by itself. Over 12 years, if the argument is true, there would be
> a statistical increase in mortality of obese members of the group.
> There wasn't. In fact, the corelation was to the "fitness" level.
> Fit but obese subjects saw no increase in mortality rates relative to
> fit and skinny. On the other hand, skinny and unfit had the same
> mortality rates as obese and unfit. In other words, obesity had
> nothing to do with it.

That's not at all what the study (or even the summary) said. I'll quote
the actual abstract (and explain it) so that you don't get confused.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause mortality through December 31,
2003. RESULTS: There were 450 deaths during a mean follow-up of 12
years and 31 236 person-years of exposure. Death rates per 1000
person-years, adjusted for age, sex, and examination year were 13.9,
13.3, 18.3, and 31.8 across BMI groups of 18.5-24.9, 25.0-29.9,
30.0-34.9, and > or =35.0, respectively (P = .01 for trend);

What that means is that the 35 or greater BMI group had nearly twice the
mortality of any of the lower groups.

13.3 and 18.2 for normal and high waist circumference (> or =88 cm
in women; > or =102 cm in men) (P = .004); 13.7 and 14.6 for normal
and high percent body fat (> or =30% in women; > or =25% in men) (P
= .51);

This part has to do with body fat and waist circumference and is far
less exciting.

Here comes the bit about fitness:

and 32.6, 16.6, 12.8, 12.3, and 8.1 across incremental fifths of
fitness (P < .001 for trend).

As you can see, that's pretty exciting. The bottom quintile was four
times more likely to die than the top quintile. Apparently life is a
footrace and it really is "devil catch the hindmost."

This is especially good news for people (like myself) that happen to be
strength training enthusiasts. Carrying a lot of extra muscle tends to
screw up our BMI numbers, but apparently this doesn't matter as long as
we can still score well on a treadmill maximal endurance test.

The association between waist circumference and mortality persisted
after further adjustment for smoking, baseline health status, and
BMI (P = .02) but not after additional adjustment for fitness (P =
.86). Fitness predicted mortality risk after further adjustment for
smoking, baseline health, and either BMI, waist circumference, or
percent body fat (P < .001 for trend).

This part is pretty straight forward. It basically said that being in
the bottom quintile of fitness predicted death better than anything
else.

>> It is hard to conclude more than that from the data given.
>
> In other words, it studies an aspect that you never thought of before,
> creating results you don't agree with, and must now attack it? Why
> don't you write the author and ask him? I'd love to hear about the
> reply you get back.

No, what I mean is that the summary of the study that you linked to left
out important details.

The actual study had these (very sensible) conclusions:

CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, fitness was a significant
mortality predictor in older adults, independent of overall or
abdominal adiposity. Clinicians should consider the importance of
preserving functional capacity by recommending regular physical
activity for older individuals, normal-weight and overweight alike.

Even getting out of the bottom quintile is a big step in the right
direction, cutting your risk roughly in half. However, as a relatively
big person myself that has actually done this sort of test I must point
out that it is much easier to score well on these tests if you are
smaller. Even small amounts of weight loss make a big difference as the
treadmill gets moving faster and the angle gets steeper. Big people
that do well on these sorts of tests tend to be in very active.

>>> I may be fat, but I CAN walk briskly for 30 minutes... According to
>>> the study, my risk of mortality is the same as a skinny person who
>>> can do the same 30 minute brisk walk.
>>
>> Once again, that's what you would *like* this to say,
>
> And it does...

No it doesn't. Seriously, talk to your physician about a treadmill
stress test if you don't believe me. Or google for treadmill stress
test and set one up on a treadmill for yourself. Bruce is the most
common protocol. As an aside, using the Bruce protocol after 15 minutes
you are running 5.5 MPH at 20% incline.

As you can see that's nothing like a 30 minute walk.

>> but it is not what the study actually says.
>
> Ummmm... Yeah, that IS what it says. Good try though.

No, it is what the summary (by Dr. Blair) said. As you can see, there's
a bit of a difference. My point in going over this is so that you can
see the importance of getting the primary information.

If you are happy with the way your life is going, who am I to say that
you should do something different?

>>> So... Why should I lose weight again? About the only thing you
>>> have left is the social impact. Again, that's losing it for YOU,
>>> not for ME.
>>
>> It is my experience that maintaining a high level of physical
>> fitness, especially later in life, is much more difficult if you are
>> morbidly obese.
>
> That may very well be the case. But again, it's the fitness level of
> the person, not the pure BMI, that affects mortality.

I mostly agree. If you are big but can still score well on a treadmill
stress test then you probably are set. The study doesn't really cover
younger age groups, but the data probably correlates fairly well.

>> You are certainly correct, however, in stating that in the end the
>> choice is yours. If you don't care about the social impact, and if
>> you aren't worried about the health impact then I don't see the
>> downside in being fat.
>
> Thank you.

You are welcome.

Here's the thing. I am not a fat basher. Heck, at 6'2" and 230 pounds
I am pretty big myself. At one point (before I started exercising) I
weighed in at 260 lbs. What's more, I have quite a few family members
that weigh well in excess of 300 lbs.

I'm not trying to burst your bubble. Your post simply showed some of
the problems associated with relying on newspaper summaries of
scientific research. Most newspaper summaries are crap, pure and
simple. They are too simplistic, and they are basically designed to get
people to jump to the wrong conclusion.

You are free to choose what you feel is an acceptable amount of risk,
but the choice should be a well-informed decision.

Jason

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:
>The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote:
>>
>>>>> Post a credible cite that demonstrates that morbidly obese people
>>>>> (BMI 40+) who have the "ability to walk briskly for 30 minutes"
>>>>> have a lower mortality rate than HWP people (BMI 20-24) of any
>>>>> fitness. Even Dr Blair, who the fat acceptors love to cite, states
>>>>> that thin and fit is better than fat and fit[sic].
>>>>
>>>> Ofcourse he did. But also said "Normal-weight individuals in our
>>>> study had greater longevity only if they were physically fit;
>>>> furthermore, obese individuals who were fit did not have increased
>>>> mortality,"
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at www.medscape.com/viewarticle/566963 for the
>>>> information you asked for.
>>>
>>> The article is not available without registration. I'm not going to
>>> register to read it. Copy and paste the damn thing.
>>
>> That's funny. I can access it from google without having to
>> register... Oh well, here it is.
>
>You must have been registered before. I had the same problem.

I'm going to piggyback on to your response since you have made some of the
same points I was going to make.

>
>Secondly, this isn't a study. It's a summary of a study. What's more
>it appears to be a meta-study combining the numbers from several other
>related studies. These sorts of things matter.

TM did the old snipperoo on the article. More about that later.

>
>> December 5, 2007 - Another study exploring the relationship between
>> being fat, being fit, and living longer has found that lower fitness
>> is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality, even after
>> adjustment for adiposity [1]. In the study, obese subjects who were
>> fit had a lower risk of dying than normal-weight subjects who were
>> physically inactive.
>
>OK, this sounds interesting, but it is nothing more than the summary.
>There's certainly no evidence in this paragraph.

TM, as well as the rest of the fat acceptors, hunt high and low for this
crap then misrepresent it.

>
>> "It may be possible to reduce all-cause death rates among older
>> adults, including those who are obese, by promoting regular physical
>> activity, such as brisk walking for 30 minutes or more on most days of
>> the week . . . which will keep most individuals out of the low-fitness
>> category," the authors, led by Dr Xuemei Sui (University of South
>> Carolina, Columbia), write in the December 5, 2007 issue of the
>> Journal of the American Medical Association.
>
>Likewise this is just supposition. The Dr. himself states that it may
>be possible to reduce all-cause death rates with regular exercise.
>
>Here comes the evidence.
>
>> The study tracked a cohort of 2603 adults aged 60 or over for a mean
>> of 12 years, during which time 450 people died. Adjusted death rates
>> were lowest for people with the lowest body-mass index (BMI), lowest
>> waist ircumference, or in the highest quintile for fitness level -
>> this last that held true even in severely obese subjects, who were
>> much less likely to die if their fitness levels were higher. When
>> fitness was factored into the waist circumference analysis and vice
>> versa, fitness predicted mortality risk regardless of smoking,
>> baseline health, BMI, waist circumference, or percent body fat,
>> whereas waist circumference was no longer significantly associated
>> with increased mortality after fitness was considered.
>
>The first thing that jumps out at the careful reader is that all of the
>participants were 60 years old or older. This means that the
>information really only applies to you if you happen to fit that age
>category. It's possible, for example, that if they started with younger
>individuals they would find that weight played a more important role in
>survival, but that by the time the population reaches 60 enough people
>susceptible to death from causes linked to obesity are already dead that
>it isn't such a factor.
>
>The second thing that one should notice is that adjusted death rates
>were still lowest for those with the lowest body-mass index, the lowest
>waist circumference. The folks in the top quintile for fitness
>qualified too, but I would bet that there is a lot over overlap in
>those three groups.
>
>The article doesn't state 1) how they measured fitness, and 2) what sort
>of fitness level had to be achieved to be considered in the top
>quintile. The interview seems to suggest that 30 minutes of brisk
>walking a day would put a person in the magical top quintile, but
>without more information on how fitness was measured I don't see how
>that conclusion could be drawn.
>
>The study also only followed the participants for a mean of 12 years,
>and most of the participants were still alive at the end, so it doesn't
>really say anything about which populations lived the longest. If your
>goal is to make it to 72 and you happen to be 60 right now then being
>fit but fat might be an acceptable strategy. It is hard to conclude
>more than that from the data given.
>
>> "Normal-weight individuals in our study had greater longevity only if
>> they were physically fit; furthermore, obese individuals who were fit
>> did not have increased mortality," the authors conclude.

There were TWO obese classifications. That paragraph does not state if one
or both were being used, nor how high the BMI of the Obese Class II group
went. For the record, TM's BMI is over 40 (morbidly obese).

>
><snip interview with Dr Blair>
>
>> Now I'm sure you and your friends will start yapping about that last
>> line. And that's fine, but also not what I was talking about. My
>> statement was, and still is, that mortality rates are only dependent
>> on fitness level, and independent of BMI, as the study says.
>
>In 60+ year old people who were followed for a mean of 12 years.
>
>> I may be fat, but I CAN walk briskly for 30 minutes... According to
>> the study, my risk of mortality is the same as a skinny person who can
>> do the same 30 minute brisk walk.

It does not say that, liar. First off, you have stated that you are 35
years old, not 60+. You have also stated that your BMI is over 40. There
is no distinct classification in the study for people with BMI's of 40+.
There is a classification for people over 35 BMI, but there is no mention
what, if any part of that group, is over 40 BMI. Lastly, the quote is "In
the study, obese subjects who were fit had a lower risk of dying than
normal-weight subjects who were physically inactive."

So, TN. Copy and paste here where it states that someone who is 35 years
old and has a BMI of 40+ (the definition of morbid obesity) and can walk
briskly for 30 minutes had the same mortality rate of a normal-weight
subject of the same age who can walk briskly for 30 minutes. That is your
claim, after all.

>
>Once again, that's what you would like this to say, but it is not what
>the study actually says. The study said that you need to be in the top
>quintile of physical fitness not that you need to be able to walk
>briskly for 30 minutes.

You are correct. First off, the subjects were 60 years old at the start of
the study and followed for an average of 12 years. Many morbidly obese
people expire before then. Dr Blair might've had more data, but was
selective in presenting it. Who knows?

>
>Walking briskly for 30 minutes a day is a good thing. Just make sure
>that you actually DO it, and not be content with the fact that you CAN
>do it.

You can bet that TM is not doing it on a regular basis.

>
>> So... Why should I lose weight again? About the only thing you have
>> left is the social impact. Again, that's losing it for YOU, not for
>> ME.
>
>It is my experience that maintaining a high level of physical fitness,
>especially later in life, is much more difficult if you are morbidly
>obese. You are certainly correct, however, in stating that in the end
>the choice is yours. If you don't care about the social impact, and if
>you aren't worried about the health impact then I don't see the downside
>in being fat.
>
>Jason

Thanks to Naughty Boy, we have caught TM doing his snip and run coward
routine.

>Clinical Context
>
>By 2030, 22% of the US population, or 70 million individuals, will be
>older than 65 years. Approximately 32% of those in the United States are
>obese, with a decline in physical activity level and increase in BMI with
>increasing age. Some studies suggest that obesity-related mortality
>decreases with age, but little is known about the effect of physical
>fitness or measures of adiposity on mortality in older persons.
>
>This is a longitudinal study of a cohort of healthy adults aged 60 years
>or older to examine the association between physical fitness and mortality
>and the effect of measures of adiposity on the association.
>Study Highlights
>
> * Included were 2603 adults aged 60 years or older (mean age, 64.4
>years; 19.8% women) enrolled in the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study who
>completed a baseline health examination from 1979 to 2001.
> * Participants were seen regularly for preventive health screening
>examinations and counseling for exercise and other lifestyle risks for
>chronic disease.
> * All participants completed a baseline maximal treadmill exercise
>test and achieved at least 85% of age-predicted maximal heart rate.
> * Excluded were those with a BMI of less than 18.5 kg/m2 and younger
>than age 60 years at baseline.
> * The participants were predominantly white, educated, and from middle
>to upper socioeconomic classes.
> * Baseline medical examination and fasting serum tests were completed.
> * Percent body fat was determined by hydrostatic weighing and 7
>skinfold measures.
> * Adiposity was assessed by BMI in the following categories: normal
>(BMI, 18.5 - 24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI, 25.0 - 29.9 kg/m2), obese class
>I (BMI, 30 - 34.9 kg/m2), and obese class II (BMI, 35.0 kg/m2 or higher).
> * Adiposity was also assessed as abdominal obesity by waist
>circumference defined as normal (? 88 cm for women and ? 102 cm for men)
>or high, and percent body fat (< 30% for women and < 25% for men) was
>defined as normal or high.
> * Fitness was determined by a maximal treadmill exercise test and a
>modified Balke protocol.
> * Test endpoint was volitional exhaustion or clinician-determined, and
>fitness was categorized into quintiles with use of metabolic equivalent
>tasks.
> * Vital status was ascertained with the National Death Index and death
>certificates, with causes of death identified from the International
>Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and International
>Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes.
> * Overall, mean BMI was 26.3 kg/m2, mean waist circumference was 90.3
>cm, 24.5% had abdominal obesity, 10% had diabetes, and 50% had
>hypertension.
> * There were 4509 deaths during a mean follow-up of 12 years and
>31,236 person-years of exposure.
> * Subanalysis by sex was not conducted because of the small number of
>deaths in women.
> * Death rates per 1000 person-years adjusted for age and sex were
>13.9, 13.3, 18.3, and 31.8 across increasing BMI groups (P = .01 for
>tend).

^TM did not want you to see the part above.^

There were 32% more deaths in the Obese Class I group (BMI 30-34.9) compare
to the normal weight group, and there were 129% more deaths in the Obese
Class II group (BMI 35+)compare to the normal weight group. TM wants you
to believe that someone with a BMI of over 40 who can walk briskly for 30
minutes has the same risk of premature death as a normal weight person who
can do the same.


> * Mortality rates were 13.3 and 18.2 for normal vs high waist
>circumference (P = .004).
> * Mortality rates were 13.7 and 14.6 for normal and high body fat (not
>significantly different).
> * Mortality rates were 32.6, 16.6, 12.8, 12.3, and 8.1 across
>increasing quintiles of fitness (P < .001 for trend).
> * The association between waist circumference and mortality persisted
>after adjustment for smoking, baseline health status, and BMI but not
>after adjustment for fitness.
> * Fitness was an independent predictor of mortality after adjustment
>for multiple adiposity factors.
> * Hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality across incremental quintiles of
>fitness were 1.00, 0.53, 0.44, 0.43, and 0.30.
> * HR for abdominal obesity was 1.25, but this did not persist after
>adjustment for fitness.
> * Thus, fitness and BMI, but not abdominal adiposity or percent body
>fat, were predictors of mortality in older persons.
> * Fit individuals who were obese had a lower mortality risk than unfit
>normal-weight or lean persons.
> * The authors concluded that clinicians should recommend regular
>physical activity in older adults, normal and overweight alike, to
>preserve functional capacity and improve mortality outcomes.
>
>Pearls for Practice
>
> * Physical fitness and BMI are independent predictors of mortality in
>healthy persons aged 60 years or older.
> * Abdominal obesity as measured by waist circumference and percent
>body fat are not independent predictors of mortality in healthy older
>adults.

You lose again, TM.

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Jason Earl wrote:

>> Yeah, that's partly because they are looking for mortality rates, and
>> people in their 60's tend to die off at a slightly faster rate then
>> people in their 30's...
>
> Yes, but what kills people in their 30s is very different from what
> kills people in their 60s.

However, according to most medical professionals, obesity kills no matter
what. As such, a fat 60 year old should have a higher chance of kicking
off because of obesity, just like as a fat 36 year old.

> If you are already dead at 36 then you won't
> make it into a study that covers 60 year-olds.

What caused the 36 year old to kick off? If it was obesity related, the
medical professionals argue that it's an elevated risk, just like a 60
year old would face if obese. 60 year olds, on the other hand, are more
likely to break their hip then a 36 year old. The study, however, looked
at obesity, and that should affect all age groups.

> By your logic we should do mortality rate studies on people that are
> over the age of 100. They are basically guaranteed to die. Of course,
> the information on what kills a man at 112 is not particularly useful to
> somene in his 30s, but it's still SCIENCE.

I see the point you are trying to make, but I disagree with it. Obesity
complications such as heart attack and such should exist across all
age brackets. Arguably, they should actually be more common in 60 year
olds since the fat had a longer time to cause the damage to a more frail
body that's harder to heal. The lack of ANY corelation between obesity
and mortality indicates that obesity isn't a factor at all, and that would
apply to all age brackets.

That is, if there WAS a corelation, how much of one may be affected by
age, but the lack of any corelation means that the corelation doesn't
exist.

> My point is that unless you fit the age group that is being studied, the
> conclusions don't really apply to you. Seriously, they don't.

The factor of corelation wouldn't necessarily apply, provided there was
one. The lack of any corelation, however, indicates the lack of any
corelation period. Arguing that there still is one isn't science, it's
inane.

> Let's take an extreme example. Let's say we are studying a congenital
> disease that was invariably fatal within the first 10 years of life,

Invalid example, since it is argued that obesity is fatal durring all
stages of life. For your argument to be valid, obesity would be fatal
only to a specific age, then suddenly be ok. Is that REALLY your
argument?

> You have a study that covers deaths for people over 60.

Concerning a condition that affects EVERYONE, according to medical
professionals. As such, 60 year olds should also be affected, but they
aren't. So again, for your argument to be valid, obesity is only a factor
of mortality up to a specific age, then is suddenly ok.

> Trying to
> stretch the data so that it covers other populations is one of the
> easiest ways to come to the wrong conclusion using a scientific study.

So if I stay fat until I'm 60, it's all good and I'm fine, right? I only
have to worry until I'm 59?

I'll start snipping out your repeat argument, since it's already failed to
impress me. I hope that's ok. If it's not, please look above for
repeated reply.

> That's not at all what the study (or even the summary) said. I'll quote
> the actual abstract (and explain it) so that you don't get confused.

Why is it that since I don't agree with you, you automagically assume I
just don't "understand" your point? I understand it, I just think it
fails.

> CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, fitness was a significant
> mortality predictor in older adults, independent of overall or
> abdominal adiposity. Clinicians should consider the importance of
> preserving functional capacity by recommending regular physical
> activity for older individuals, normal-weight and overweight alike.

independent of overall or abdominal adiposity.
independent of overall or abdominal adiposity.
independent of overall or abdominal adiposity.
independent of overall or abdominal adiposity.

What was that line again? Oh yeah...

independent of overall or abdominal adiposity.

Anyhow, back to your points...

> Even small amounts of weight loss make a big difference as the
> treadmill gets moving faster and the angle gets steeper. Big people
> that do well on these sorts of tests tend to be in very active.

And isn't that the point? Big and active people are still big... As
such, the raw fact of obesity doesn't affect mortality rates. Someone who
is lazy, however, will have a higher risk independent of obesity. Isn't
that what I have been saying, what the study said, and what you are
arguing against?

>>>> I may be fat, but I CAN walk briskly for 30 minutes... According to
>>>> the study, my risk of mortality is the same as a skinny person who
>>>> can do the same 30 minute brisk walk.
>>>
>>> Once again, that's what you would *like* this to say,
>>
>> And it does...
>
> No it doesn't.

I apologize, according to the interview as quoted in the news story I so
kindly posted, and you seem to have failed to read. The doctor who
conducted this study said that a 30 minute brisk walk most days of the
week is all the exercise you need to stay out of the danger zone. For an
exact quote, please review my previous post. You are welcomed.

>> That may very well be the case. But again, it's the fitness level of
>> the person, not the pure BMI, that affects mortality.
>
> I mostly agree. If you are big but can still score well on a treadmill
> stress test then you probably are set. The study doesn't really cover
> younger age groups, but the data probably correlates fairly well.

Oh? So aren't you now contradicting your previous statements in this
exact same post? Previously you said they don't apply at all, now you say
that they probably do apply fairly well.

> I'm not trying to burst your bubble.

My bubble?

Actually, my good friend, I read these posts out of the s.s.f-a "fat
acceptance" group. It is occupied by some fat people who would like
nothing more then to discuss issues of daily life and political activism.
It is, however, also occupied by many people who find great pleasure in
the mocking, annoying, and overall pestering the above mentioned fat
people.

At times, these "trolls" post stories of either an inflamatory nature,
or of a medical study that says all fat people will die a horrid death
because of obesity and obesity alone.

This is the first study in a long time, that sheds like on the true nature
of early mortality, being that it's not obesity but rather fitness. The
conductors of the study are quoted as saying a brisk 30 minute walk is all
the ezercise you need to stay out of the high risk group. And the trolls
went, excuse my french, ape shit over it.

Attacking the study like you wouldn't believe, just like you did. Saying
it's not valid, just like you did. Saying that you need more then a 30
minute brisk walk most days of the week, just like you did...

But hey, you say you aren't a fat basher, right?

I prepared a longer reply, but it got fairly old fast. My original
(unsnipped) explained my problems with your evaluation of the article in
question, as well as pointed out the difference between reading the
actually Abstract of a study as compared to a newspaper article
discussing the possible ramifications of the study.

The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> writes:

>> I'm not trying to burst your bubble.
>
> My bubble?
>
> Actually, my good friend, I read these posts out of the s.s.f-a "fat
> acceptance" group. It is occupied by some fat people who would like
> nothing more then to discuss issues of daily life and political
> activism. It is, however, also occupied by many people who find great
> pleasure in the mocking, annoying, and overall pestering the above
> mentioned fat people.

I am reading this is misc.fitness.weights. I just am generally
interested in studies related to fitness. I was just trying to point
out some of the problems that in your interpretation of the study. The
problems are still there, but it makes little sense to continue to argue
them because they are mainly semantics.

Continuing to criticize minor misrepresentations you made of the study
seemed pretty childish considering that you got the take home message
mostly correct.

> At times, these "trolls" post stories of either an inflamatory nature,
> or of a medical study that says all fat people will die a horrid death
> because of obesity and obesity alone.

That's ridiculously simplistic. Obesity is a risk indicator, but as
this study points out fitness is a more important risk indicator (for 60
year olds anyway . My guess is that also applies for younger age
groups.

> This is the first study in a long time, that sheds like on the true
> nature of early mortality, being that it's not obesity but rather
> fitness. The conductors of the study are quoted as saying a brisk 30
> minute walk is all the ezercise you need to stay out of the high risk
> group. And the trolls went, excuse my french, ape shit over it.

That actually wasn't measured by the study and is mere conjecture on the
part of the Dr. Blair. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if 30
minutes of brisk walking daily was enough to lift people out of the
bottom quintile for fitness which is the truly deadly zone.

So once again arguing on my part is just semantics. Besides, a brisk 30
minute walk is a good thing. Why not encourage people?

> Attacking the study like you wouldn't believe, just like you did.

Actually, the study looked very solid. I merely attacked your
misrepresentations of the study.

> Saying it's not valid, just like you did. Saying that you need more
> then a 30 minute brisk walk most days of the week, just like you
> did...

A brisk walk once a day would probably get you out of the lowest
quintile for fitness. It almost certainly would get you out of the
lowest quintile for 60+ year-olds which were covered in the study.

> But hey, you say you aren't a fat basher, right?

No, I am not a fat basher. I honestly was trying to help you learn to
read medical studies. To a certain extent you clearly still
misunderstand the difference between the scientific data and the
interpretation of the data. I also clearly failed to demonstrate why it
is problematic to take a study that covered 60+ year olds and apply it
to younger age groups.

However, like I said before I actually *agree* with your conclusions and
so I don't see the point in explaining why I don't believe that this
particular study actually supports some of those conclusions.

If you are curious I believe I could come up with a better example as to
why mortality studies of 60+ year-olds don't necessarily apply to
younger age groups. I could also point out why your assertion that
there is no correlation between BMI and mortality in 60+ year-olds is
just patently wrong (fitness is a better indicator, but BMI was still a
very strong indicator).

If you are not curious, then we'll just leave it at that.

However, the the real take home point is precisely as you have stated
it. Fitness is the best indicator for mortality rates, and getting out
of the bottom quintile (which probably can be accomplished with a daily
brisk walk) would essentially cut your mortality rate in half.

Of course, you could cut your mortality rate in half again by aiming for
the top quintile, but that's very likely to take more than just a daily
brisk walk.

Jason

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Jason Earl wrote:

> Continuing to criticize minor misrepresentations you made of the study
> seemed pretty childish considering that you got the take home message
> mostly correct.

Then we mostly agree...

>> This is the first study in a long time, that sheds like on the true
>> nature of early mortality, being that it's not obesity but rather
>> fitness. The conductors of the study are quoted as saying a brisk 30
>> minute walk is all the ezercise you need to stay out of the high risk
>> group. And the trolls went, excuse my french, ape shit over it.
>
> That actually wasn't measured by the study and is mere conjecture on the
> part of the Dr. Blair. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if 30
> minutes of brisk walking daily was enough to lift people out of the
> bottom quintile for fitness which is the truly deadly zone.

The story quoted "the authors" as saying exactly that in the article, as
well as the previously mentioned part about mortality rates were
independent of BMI.

"It may be possible to reduce all-cause death rates among older adults,
including those who are obese, by promoting regular physical activity,
such as brisk walking for 30 minutes or more on most days of the
week, which will keep most individuals out of the low-fitness category,"
the authors, led by Dr Xuemei Sui (University of South Carolina,
Columbia), write in the December 5, 2007 issue of the Journal of the
American Medical Association.

"Normal-weight individuals in our study had greater longevity only if they
were physically fit; furthermore, obese individuals who were fit did not
have increased mortality," the authors conclude.

> I could also point out why your assertion that
> there is no correlation between BMI and mortality in 60+ year-olds is
> just patently wrong (fitness is a better indicator, but BMI was still a
> very strong indicator).

Again, I'm going by quotes from the good Doctor on that one. His words,
not mine. However, I'll gladly use them.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote:

>> OK, this sounds interesting, but it is nothing more than the summary.
>> There's certainly no evidence in this paragraph.
>
> TM, as well as the rest of the fat acceptors, hunt high and low for this
> crap then misrepresent it.

I didn't misrepresent it, I presented it as is, saying it was a good site
that talked about various things. And that's exactly what it did. You
might not like what it says, but I didn't misrepresent it. And that fact
burns you up.

The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam> writes:

> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote:
>
>>> OK, this sounds interesting, but it is nothing more than the
>>> summary. There's certainly no evidence in this paragraph.
>>
>> TM, as well as the rest of the fat acceptors, hunt high and low for
>> this crap then misrepresent it.
>
> I didn't misrepresent it, I presented it as is, saying it was a good
> site that talked about various things. And that's exactly what it
> did. You might not like what it says, but I didn't misrepresent it.
> And that fact burns you up.

I am starting to see why it was that you were so hostile to my earlier
remarks.

Jason