Will TM display his snip and run cowardice again?

On 9 Feb 2008, ch...@nowayjose.com (Chris) wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, The Master <tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
>wrote:
>>http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archive...ainst-weight-=
l
>>oss-dieting/
>>
>>On the page I found while trying to find the success rate of Weight
>>Watchers, I found that diets work only 11% of the time. But I continued
>>reading the site, and found it very educational.
>>
>>Among other things:
>>
>>Every 10% of weight loss INCREASES mortality from cancer by 27%, and
>>INCREASES mortality by 14% overall.
>>
>>People who maintain their weight after college had a 29% HIGHER risk of
>>death then those who gain.
>>
>>In people between 20 and 49, the mortality rate of people with a BMI of 1=
5
>>is the same as those with a BMI of 50.
>>
>>In people between 50 and 59, the mortality rate of people with a BMI of 1=
5
>>was almost twice as much as those with a BMI of 50.
>>
>>Naturally thin people, when they increased their calorie intake, gained
>>only a few pounds before turning "hypermetabolic", even when consuming
>>10,000 calories a day!
>
>No cite on this claim.
>
>>
>>To lose weight through dieting, over weight people need to adopt eating
>>habits similar to anorexia. Most already have "normal" eating habits.
>>
>>People with a BMI of more then 25 have similar mortality rates as those
>>between 20 and 25. However, people with a BMI under 20 have about 2X tha=
t
>>same mortality rate.
>
>What about those with BMI's over 30 and 40? That's not mentioned in the
>article.
>
>>
>>The PROOF is obvious... Diets kill.
>
>
>>Citations
>>
>>Anderson JW, Konz EC, Frederich RC, Wood CL (2001), =93Long-term weight-l=
oss
>>maintenance: a meta-analysis of US studies,=94 American Journal of Clinic=
al
>>Nutrition, vol 74, p 579-584
>>
>>Blair, S.N., Kohl, Paffenbarger, Clark, Cooper, and Gibbons (1989).
>>=93Physical Fitness and All Cause Mortality, A Prospective Study of Healt=
hy
>>Men and Women,=94 Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 262 p.=

>>2395-2401.
>
>Here's the graphic from the article:
>
>http://www.amptoons.com/blog/images/..._mortality.png
>
>Here's the abstract:
>
>JAMA. 1989 Nov 3;262(17):2395-401.Links
>Comment in:
>JAMA. 1990 Apr 18;263(15):2047-8.=20
>Physical fitness and all-cause mortality. A prospective study of healthy
>men and women.Blair SN, Kohl HW 3rd, Paffenbarger RS Jr, Clark DG, Cooper
>KH, Gibbons LW.
>Institute for Aerobics Research, Dallas, Tex 75230.
>
>We studied physical fitness and risk of all-cause and cause-specific
>mortality in 10,224 men and 3120 women who were given a preventive medical=

>examination. Physical fitness was measured by a maximal treadmill exercise=

>test. Average follow-up was slightly more than 8 years, for a total of
>110,482 person-years of observation. There were 240 deaths in men and 43
>deaths in women. Age-adjusted all-cause mortality rates declined across
>physical fitness quintiles from 64.0 per 10,000 person-years in the
>least-fit men to 18.6 per 10,000 person-years in the most-fit men (slope,
>-4.5). Corresponding values for women were 39.5 per 10,000 person-years to=

>8.5 per 10,000 person-years (slope, -5.5). These trends remained after
>statistical adjustment for age, smoking habit, cholesterol level, systolic=

>blood pressure, fasting blood glucose level, parental history of coronary
>heart disease, and follow-up interval. Lower mortality rates in higher
>fitness categories also were seen for cardiovascular disease and cancer of=

>combined sites. Attributable risk estimates for all-cause mortality
>indicated that low physical fitness was an important risk factor in both
>men and women. Higher levels of physical fitness appear to delay all-cause=

>mortality primarily due to lowered rates of cardiovascular disease and
>cancer.
>
>
>>
>>Ernsberger, Paul and Koletsky, Richard (1999), =93Biomedical Rationale fo=
r a
>>Wellness Approach to Obesity,=94Journal of Social Issues, vol 55, p. 221-=
260.
>
>Editorial.
>
>>
>>Gaesser, Glenn (2002), Big Fat Lies: The Truth About Your Weight And Your=

>>Health, Updated Edition, Gurze Books, Carlsbad, CA..
>
>Fat acceptance propaganda book.
>
>>
>>Garner, David and Wooley, Susan (1991), =93Confronting the Failure of
>>Behavior and Dietary Treatments for Obesity,=94 Clinical Psychology Revie=
w,
>>vol 11, p 729-780.
>
>Editorial based on creative interpretations of published studies.
>
>>
>>Kassierer, Jerome and Angell, Marcia (1998), =93Losing Weight - An Ill-Fa=
ted
>>New Year=92s Resolution,=94 New England Journal of Medicine, vol 338(1), =
p 52-54.
>
>Editorial based on creative interpretations of published studies.
>
>>
>>Miller, Wayne (1999). =93How effective are traditional dietary and exerci=
se
>>interventions for weight loss?,=94 Medicine and Science in Sports and
>>Exercise, vol 31 no 8 p. 1129-1134
>
>Here's the extract:
>
>1: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Aug;31(8):1129-34. Links
>How effective are traditional dietary and exercise interventions for weigh=
t
>loss?Miller WC.
>Exercise Science Programs, The George Washington University Medical Center=
,
>Washington DC 20052, USA. wmil...@gwu.edu
>
>Health care professionals have used restrictive dieting and exercise
>intervention strategies in an effort to combat the rising prevalence of
>obesity in affluent countries. In spite of these efforts, the prevalence o=
f
>obesity continues to rise. This apparent ineffectiveness of diet and
>exercise programming to reduce obesity has caused many health care
>providers, obesity researchers, and lay persons to challenge the further
>use of diet and exercise for the sole purpose of reducing body weight in
>the obese. The purposes of this paper were to examine the history and
>effectiveness of diet and exercise in obesity therapy and to determine the=

>best future approach for health promotion in the obese population. A brief=

>survey of the most popular dieting techniques used over the past 40 yr
>shows that most techniques cycle in and out of popularity and that many of=

>these techniques may be hazardous to health. Data from the scientific
>community indicate that a 15-wk diet or diet plus exercise program produce=
s
>a weight loss of about 11 kg with a 60-80% maintenance after 1 yr. Althoug=
h
>long-term follow-up data are meager, the data that do exist suggest almost=

>complete relapse after 3-5 yr. The paucity of data provided by the
>weight-loss industry has been inadequate or inconclusive. Those who
>challenge the use of diet and exercise solely for weight control purposes
>base their position on the absence of weight-loss effectiveness data and o=
n
>the presence of harmful effects of restrictive dieting. Any intervention
>strategy for the obese should be one that would promote the development of=

>a healthy lifestyle. The outcome parameters used to evaluate the success o=
f
>such an intervention should be specific to chronic disease risk and
>symptomatologies and not limited to medically ambiguous variables like bod=
y
>weight or body composition.
>
>The extract clearly states that there is a lack of adequate data.
>>
>>Westenhoefer J, von Falck B, Stellfeldt A, and Fintelmann S (2004).
>>=93Behavioural correlates of successful weight reduction over 3y. Results=

>>from the Lean Habits Study,=94 International Journal of Obesity, vol 28 (=
2),
>>p 334-335
>
>
>1: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 Feb;28(2):334-5. Links
>Behavioural correlates of successful weight reduction over 3 y. Results
>from the Lean Habits Study.Westenhoefer J, von Falck B, Stellfeldt A,
>Fintelmann S.
>Department of Nutrition and Home Economics, Hamburg University of Applied
>Sciences, Hamburg, Germany. joac...@westenhoefer.de
>
>OBJECTIVE: To examine behavioural characteristics of subjects with
>successful long-term weight reduction. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study
>with 3 y follow-up. SETTING: Multicentre study of participants of a
>commercial weight-reduction programme (BCM-Programme). SUBJECTS: Until
>February 2000, 6857 voluntary study participants were included. Analyses
>are based on 1247 subjects with complete 3 y data. INTERVENTIONS:
>Open-group dietary and behavioural counselling with initial meal
>substitutions. RESULTS: Subjects show a number of significant behavioural
>improvements, for example, choice of low-fat food, flexible control of
>eating behaviour and coping with stress. Subjects who maintain these
>changes by the end of the first year have a higher probability of
>successful weight reduction after 3 y. CONCLUSIONS: Successful weight
>maintenance is associated with more pronounced improvements of health
>behaviours after 1 y. The likelihood of success increases with the number
>of behavioural patterns which are involved in the process of change.
>
>The Amptoons article is full of intentional misinterpretations and
>misrepresentations of studies, plus it relies on questionable editorials t=
o
>make its point.
>
>You lose, fatboy. Do your research next time.

You ignored this message last time. I am reposting it since you referenced=

this web site again as a credible source to justify your fat acceptance.
You should have no problems responding to each point made in this response.=


Are you going to respond or prove that, once again, you are a snip and run
coward?

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote pages and pages and pages of gibberish,
followed by these comments:

>> The Amptoons article is full of intentional misinterpretations and
>> misrepresentations of studies, plus it relies on questionable editorials t=
> o
>> make its point.
>>
>> You lose, fatboy. Do your research next time.
>
> You ignored this message last time.

Go back and try to read it Kenny. I fell asleep three times trying to get
through it... Christ man, you HONESTLY expected me to post a reply?

Here it is...

"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,"

I win.

> I am reposting it since you referenced=

That's all you got, a post that I didn't reply to? I don't know if I
should laugh at you, or pitty you.

> this web site again as a credible source to justify your fat acceptance.
> You should have no problems responding to each point made in this response.=

I'll go ahead and make a second reply to your long ass post, if it will
really make you happy...

> Are you going to respond or prove that, once again, you are a snip and run
> coward?

WWwwwwwwhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.........
Boohoo Kenny.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Kenny coppied the following gibberish from some
other place, and expected me to write a reply to all of it:

>>> Naturally thin people, when they increased their calorie intake, gained
>>> only a few pounds before turning "hypermetabolic", even when consuming
>>> 10,000 calories a day!
>>
>> No cite on this claim.

Ummmm.... Ok... ? Not sure the point, but ok...

>>> People with a BMI of more then 25 have similar mortality rates as those
>>> between 20 and 25. However, people with a BMI under 20 have about 2X tha=
> t
>>> same mortality rate.
>>
>> What about those with BMI's over 30 and 40? That's not mentioned in the
>> article.

And that's my fault why exactly?

>> JAMA. 1989 Nov 3;262(17):2395-401.Links
>> Comment in:
>> JAMA. 1990 Apr 18;263(15):2047-8.=20
>> Physical fitness and all-cause mortality. A prospective study of healthy
>> men and women.Blair SN, Kohl HW 3rd, Paffenbarger RS Jr, Clark DG, Cooper
>> KH, Gibbons LW.
>> Institute for Aerobics Research, Dallas, Tex 75230.

Keeping gibberish to make Kenny happy. Not sure if snipping it out would
be bad. or not. So here it is, just to make crybaby fat basher from
bitching about how I edited his mind altering, fantastic reply that so far
is a huge ass waste of time. But that's just me. Ok, anyhow, on to the
next section.

>> We studied physical fitness and risk of all-cause and cause-specific
>> mortality in 10,224 men and 3120 women who were given a preventive medical=
>
>> examination. Physical fitness was measured by a maximal treadmill exercise=
>
>> test. Average follow-up was slightly more than 8 years, for a total of
>> 110,482 person-years of observation.

Fantastic. I have to keep this background information in, just to keep
Kenny happy. Still don't know if I can delete it or not. But again,
rather then hear him and Jade bitch about it, I'll keep it in to make them
happy...

>> There were 240 deaths in men and 43
>> deaths in women.

OH MY GOD, medical studies kill people! Is this the information you want
me to reply to? I hope so, because we obviously need to ban all medical
studies! Wait, I don't think this is it. Shit, how much more of this
crap must I read to get to your point?

>> Age-adjusted all-cause mortality rates declined across
>> physical fitness quintiles from 64.0 per 10,000 person-years in the
>> least-fit men to 18.6 per 10,000 person-years in the most-fit men (slope,
>> -4.5). Corresponding values for women were 39.5 per 10,000 person-years to=
>
>> 8.5 per 10,000 person-years (slope, -5.5). These trends remained after
>> statistical adjustment for age, smoking habit, cholesterol level, systolic=
>
>> blood pressure, fasting blood glucose level, parental history of coronary
>> heart disease, and follow-up interval. Lower mortality rates in higher
>> fitness categories also were seen for cardiovascular disease and cancer of=
>
>> combined sites. Attributable risk estimates for all-cause mortality
>> indicated that low physical fitness was an important risk factor in both
>> men and women. Higher levels of physical fitness appear to delay all-cause=
>
>> mortality primarily due to lowered rates of cardiovascular disease and
>> cancer.

Sooo.... Mortality was corelated to fitness level, defined as a test on a
treadmill? I see references to fitness all over the place, but not one
mention of BMI. Let me look back up and see..

"Physical fitness was measured by a maximal treadmill exercise test."

Yes, fitness is the ability to exercise on a treadmill... Ok, perhaps I
missed all the BMI references then. Let me look back and see...

Nope, no mention of BMI, just fitness...

>>> Ernsberger, Paul and Koletsky, Richard (1999), =93Biomedical Rationale fo=
> r a
>>> Wellness Approach to Obesity,=94Journal of Social Issues, vol 55, p. 221-=
> 260.

I'm assuming it's ok to snip out the parts of the message that I wrote,
such as the above. I'll keep it for reference, but delete the rest of it
below this point.

>> Here's the extract:
>>
>> 1: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Aug;31(8):1129-34. Links
>> How effective are traditional dietary and exercise interventions for weigh=
> t
>> loss?Miller WC.
>> Exercise Science Programs, The George Washington University Medical Center=
> ,
>> Washington DC 20052, USA. wmil...@gwu.edu

Keeping above for reference, even though it's not needed, again just so
Kenny and Jade won't bitch and moan like a pair of babies. God damn they
are annoying. Like getting a splinter in your foot, and having to walk
over to the restroom to get the tweezers to get it out... Anyhow...

>> Health care professionals have used restrictive dieting and exercise
>> intervention strategies in an effort to combat the rising prevalence of
>> obesity in affluent countries. In spite of these efforts, the prevalence o=
> f
>> obesity continues to rise.

No shit sherlock! Jesus Christ, do we really need a study to tell us the
obvious? Oh crap, I hope this isn't the part Kenny wanted me to reply
to...

>> This apparent ineffectiveness of diet and
>> exercise programming to reduce obesity has caused many health care
>> providers, obesity researchers, and lay persons to challenge the further
>> use of diet and exercise for the sole purpose of reducing body weight in
>> the obese. The purposes of this paper were to examine the history and
>> effectiveness of diet and exercise in obesity therapy and to determine the=
>
>> best future approach for health promotion in the obese population.

Sounds like this one will be a huge waste of time. But I'm sure Kenny
thinks there is some valuable information in it. Not sure why though...
So far, they already shown that diets and exercise aren't effective. So
I honestly don't know the point of this swill... I hope there is a pay
off.

>> A brief=
>
>> survey of the most popular dieting techniques used over the past 40 yr
>> shows that most techniques cycle in and out of popularity and that many of=
>
>> these techniques may be hazardous to health. Data from the scientific
>> community indicate that a 15-wk diet or diet plus exercise program produce=
> s
>> a weight loss of about 11 kg with a 60-80% maintenance after 1 yr. Althoug=
> h
>> long-term follow-up data are meager, the data that do exist suggest almost=
>
>> complete relapse after 3-5 yr.

See, diets aren't effective for long term weight loss. Almost a complete
relapse after 3-5 years? Sounds like I'm proven correct once again.
Kenny, is this the point, to show me just how correct I am? I'm looking
above, and see no other "points" or "pseudo-points" that this article
tries to make.

>>The paucity of data provided by the
>> weight-loss industry has been inadequate or inconclusive. Those who
>> challenge the use of diet and exercise solely for weight control purposes
>> base their position on the absence of weight-loss effectiveness data and o=
> n
>> the presence of harmful effects of restrictive dieting.

If a fat bashing troll says all you have to do is diet and exercise, and
there is no proof that such activities actually work for people who are
already fat, doesn't it stand to reason that it's a waste of time?
However, the best one follows...

>> Any intervention
>> strategy for the obese should be one that would promote the development of=
>
>> a healthy lifestyle. The outcome parameters used to evaluate the success o=
> f
>> such an intervention should be specific to chronic disease risk and
>> symptomatologies and not limited to medically ambiguous variables like bod=
> y
>> weight or body composition.

Healthy lifestyle? Shit, that's what Robin has been saying ever since
I've been here! Kenny, thank you! You just proved that Robin is correct
and the fat haters are false! I'm sure that's not what you intended to
do, but it is totally what you did.

>> The extract clearly states that there is a lack of adequate data.

Yes, lack of data that diets work. If fat bashers argue that the diets
work, souldn't there be data that diets work? If no data exists that
diets work, why assume they do work? Show me proof! Oh wait, there isn't
any... HAHAHAHAHA.... I win again, you suck again.

>> 1: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 Feb;28(2):334-5. Links
>> Behavioural correlates of successful weight reduction over 3 y. Results
>> from the Lean Habits Study.Westenhoefer J, von Falck B, Stellfeldt A,
>> Fintelmann S.
>> Department of Nutrition and Home Economics, Hamburg University of Applied
>> Sciences, Hamburg, Germany. joac...@westenhoefer.de

*sigh* Again, for reference. UGH! Kenny kenny kenny... Sounds like you
just keep sucking, your points are invalid, and you fail to prove anything
except just how much a waste of time replying to you really is.

>> OBJECTIVE: To examine behavioural characteristics of subjects with
>> successful long-term weight reduction. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study
>> with 3 y follow-up. SETTING: Multicentre study of participants of a
>> commercial weight-reduction programme (BCM-Programme). SUBJECTS: Until
>> February 2000, 6857 voluntary study participants were included. Analyses
>> are based on 1247 subjects with complete 3 y data. INTERVENTIONS:
>> Open-group dietary and behavioural counselling with initial meal
>> substitutions.

Background gobblycrap that I have to keep in or crybaby Kenny will bitch
and moan and tantrum. You know, I hate having a news reader that requires
me to not quote too much of the message relative to what I write. If I
quote a lot, i need to write a lot. That's part of the reason why I don't
keep all this shit, it's worthless, I'm not replying to it, and it makes
me need to fill in space with random swill myself just to make "Pine"
happy. Shit, I hope it's enough...


>> RESULTS: Subjects show a number of significant behavioural
>> improvements, for example, choice of low-fat food, flexible control of
>> eating behaviour and coping with stress. Subjects who maintain these
>> changes by the end of the first year have a higher probability of
>> successful weight reduction after 3 y. CONCLUSIONS: Successful weight
>> maintenance is associated with more pronounced improvements of health
>> behaviours after 1 y. The likelihood of success increases with the number
>> of behavioural patterns which are involved in the process of change.

Health behaviors? Coping with stress? Ok... Not sure what you were
trying to prove with this one, but ok...

>> The Amptoons article is full of intentional misinterpretations and
>> misrepresentations of studies, plus it relies on questionable editorials t=
> o
>> make its point.

Actually, it made it's point just fine.

>> You lose, fatboy. Do your research next time.

So.... you were able to look at the medical research it cited? Then
what are you bitching for?

> You ignored this message last time.

What message? You mean your copy/paste the cites, that DO prove the case,
and then your added "problem" with the study that amount to little more
then a pout "but I KNOW I'm right"? Sorry Kenny, you fail.

Now I need to add in empty BS lines just to make my news reader happy. I
quoted too many lines relative to what I wrote, so now I need to add in
more lines...
akjgsfdg
afhgjakfjhkafjhsdhfg
ahdfjghsdgfhdfjhkjds
ashafghsjdghjsdhjdgh
ashgjafghsjdfhgjsdfhjahf
asgnkjasgfhjasfghjklahfgkajfh
askgjqskghsjhfgsafghkjlafh
angfakjghajkfghjsaghjkashgjkasfgh
asjgfjkashfgjkafjgkhafjghsf
saghjksahgjkashfgjkasghasfgjshagjasgf
asjghasghksjaghjsdfghjsagh
ashgjhasjghaskjgh

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Kenny coppied the following gibberish from some other
>place, and expected me to write a reply to all of it:
>
>>>>Naturally thin people, when they increased their calorie intake, gained
>>>>only a few pounds before turning "hypermetabolic", even when consuming
>>>>10,000 calories a day!
>>>
>>>No cite on this claim.
>
>Ummmm.... Ok... ? Not sure the point, but ok...

Why am I not surprised?

>
>>>>People with a BMI of more then 25 have similar mortality rates as those
>>>>between 20 and 25. However, people with a BMI under 20 have about 2X tha=
>>t
>>>>same mortality rate.
>>>
>>>What about those with BMI's over 30 and 40? That's not mentioned in the
>>>article.
>
>And that's my fault why exactly?

I never stated that it was your fault, but you are failing to prove how
this applies specifically to fat people such as yourself with BMI's over
40.

>
>>>JAMA. 1989 Nov 3;262(17):2395-401.Links
>>>Comment in:
>>>JAMA. 1990 Apr 18;263(15):2047-8.=20
>>>Physical fitness and all-cause mortality. A prospective study of healthy
>>>men and women.Blair SN, Kohl HW 3rd, Paffenbarger RS Jr, Clark DG, Cooper
>>>KH, Gibbons LW.
>>>Institute for Aerobics Research, Dallas, Tex 75230.
>
>Keeping gibberish to make Kenny happy. Not sure if snipping it out would
>be bad. or not. So here it is, just to make crybaby fat basher from
>bitching about how I edited his mind altering, fantastic reply that so far
>is a huge ass waste of time. But that's just me. Ok, anyhow, on to the
>next section.

You are a proven snip and run coward. We all must keep you honest.

>
>>>We studied physical fitness and risk of all-cause and cause-specific
>>>mortality in 10,224 men and 3120 women who were given a preventive medical=
>>
>>>examination. Physical fitness was measured by a maximal treadmill exercise=
>>
>>>test. Average follow-up was slightly more than 8 years, for a total of
>>>110,482 person-years of observation.
>
>Fantastic. I have to keep this background information in, just to keep
>Kenny happy. Still don't know if I can delete it or not. But again,
>rather then hear him and Jade bitch about it, I'll keep it in to make them
>happy...
>
>>>There were 240 deaths in men and 43
>>>deaths in women.
>
>OH MY GOD, medical studies kill people! Is this the information you want
>me to reply to? I hope so, because we obviously need to ban all medical
>studies! Wait, I don't think this is it. Shit, how much more of this
>crap must I read to get to your point?
>
>>>Age-adjusted all-cause mortality rates declined across
>>>physical fitness quintiles from 64.0 per 10,000 person-years in the
>>>least-fit men to 18.6 per 10,000 person-years in the most-fit men (slope,
>>>-4.5). Corresponding values for women were 39.5 per 10,000 person-years to=
>>
>>>8.5 per 10,000 person-years (slope, -5.5). These trends remained after
>>>statistical adjustment for age, smoking habit, cholesterol level, systolic=
>>
>>>blood pressure, fasting blood glucose level, parental history of coronary
>>>heart disease, and follow-up interval. Lower mortality rates in higher
>>>fitness categories also were seen for cardiovascular disease and cancer of=
>>
>>>combined sites. Attributable risk estimates for all-cause mortality
>>>indicated that low physical fitness was an important risk factor in both
>>>men and women. Higher levels of physical fitness appear to delay all-cause=
>>
>>>mortality primarily due to lowered rates of cardiovascular disease and
>>>cancer.
>
>Sooo.... Mortality was corelated to fitness level, defined as a test on a
>treadmill? I see references to fitness all over the place, but not one
>mention of BMI. Let me look back up and see..
>
>"Physical fitness was measured by a maximal treadmill exercise test."
>
>Yes, fitness is the ability to exercise on a treadmill... Ok, perhaps I
>missed all the BMI references then. Let me look back and see...
>
>Nope, no mention of BMI, just fitness...

You have been claiming that you, with a BMI of 40+, because you can walk
briskly for 30 minutes have the same risk of premature death as a normal
weight person who can do the same. I'm still waiting for proof.

>
>>>>Ernsberger, Paul and Koletsky, Richard (1999), =93Biomedical Rationale fo=
>>r a
>>>>Wellness Approach to Obesity,=94Journal of Social Issues, vol 55, p. 221-=
>>260.
>
>I'm assuming it's ok to snip out the parts of the message that I wrote,
>such as the above. I'll keep it for reference, but delete the rest of it
>below this point.
>
>>>Here's the extract:
>>>
>>>1: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999 Aug;31(8):1129-34. Links
>>>How effective are traditional dietary and exercise interventions for weigh=
>>t
>>>loss?Miller WC.
>>>Exercise Science Programs, The George Washington University Medical Center=
>>,
>>>Washington DC 20052, USA. wmil...@gwu.edu
>
>Keeping above for reference, even though it's not needed, again just so
>Kenny and Jade won't bitch and moan like a pair of babies. God damn they
>are annoying. Like getting a splinter in your foot, and having to walk
>over to the restroom to get the tweezers to get it out... Anyhow...
>
>>>Health care professionals have used restrictive dieting and exercise
>>>intervention strategies in an effort to combat the rising prevalence of
>>>obesity in affluent countries. In spite of these efforts, the prevalence o=
>>f
>>>obesity continues to rise.
>
>No shit sherlock! Jesus Christ, do we really need a study to tell us the
>obvious? Oh crap, I hope this isn't the part Kenny wanted me to reply to...
>
>>>This apparent ineffectiveness of diet and
>>>exercise programming to reduce obesity has caused many health care
>>>providers, obesity researchers, and lay persons to challenge the further
>>>use of diet and exercise for the sole purpose of reducing body weight in
>>>the obese. The purposes of this paper were to examine the history and
>>>effectiveness of diet and exercise in obesity therapy and to determine the=
>>
>>>best future approach for health promotion in the obese population.
>
>Sounds like this one will be a huge waste of time. But I'm sure Kenny
>thinks there is some valuable information in it. Not sure why though...
>So far, they already shown that diets and exercise aren't effective. So I
>honestly don't know the point of this swill... I hope there is a pay off.
>
>>>A brief=
>>
>>>survey of the most popular dieting techniques used over the past 40 yr
>>>shows that most techniques cycle in and out of popularity and that many of=
>>
>>>these techniques may be hazardous to health. Data from the scientific
>>>community indicate that a 15-wk diet or diet plus exercise program produce=
>>s
>>>a weight loss of about 11 kg with a 60-80% maintenance after 1 yr. Althoug=
>>h
>>>long-term follow-up data are meager, the data that do exist suggest almost=
>>
>>>complete relapse after 3-5 yr.
>
>See, diets aren't effective for long term weight loss. Almost a complete
>relapse after 3-5 years? Sounds like I'm proven correct once again.
>Kenny, is this the point, to show me just how correct I am? I'm looking
>above, and see no other "points" or "pseudo-points" that this article
>tries to make.

What part of "long-term follow-up data are meager" do you not understand?
There's no proof either way, dumbass.

>
>>>The paucity of data provided by the
>>>weight-loss industry has been inadequate or inconclusive. Those who
>>>challenge the use of diet and exercise solely for weight control purposes
>>>base their position on the absence of weight-loss effectiveness data and o=
>>n
>>>the presence of harmful effects of restrictive dieting.
>
>If a fat bashing troll says all you have to do is diet and exercise, and
>there is no proof that such activities actually work for people who are
>already fat, doesn't it stand to reason that it's a waste of time?
>However, the best one follows...
>
>>>Any intervention
>>>strategy for the obese should be one that would promote the development of=
>>
>>>a healthy lifestyle. The outcome parameters used to evaluate the success o=
>>f
>>>such an intervention should be specific to chronic disease risk and
>>>symptomatologies and not limited to medically ambiguous variables like bod=
>>y
>>>weight or body composition.
>
>Healthy lifestyle? Shit, that's what Robin has been saying ever since
>I've been here! Kenny, thank you! You just proved that Robin is correct
>and the fat haters are false! I'm sure that's not what you intended to
>do, but it is totally what you did.

Robin is not promoting a healthy lifestyle, she is promoting obesity.

>
>>>The extract clearly states that there is a lack of adequate data.
>
>Yes, lack of data that diets work.

It also infers that there's a lack of adequate data that diets don't work,
dumbass.

> If fat bashers argue that the diets
>work, souldn't there be data that diets work? If no data exists that
>diets work, why assume they do work? Show me proof! Oh wait, there isn't
>any... HAHAHAHAHA.... I win again, you suck again.

Only with your selective and defective reasoning.


>
>>>1: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004 Feb;28(2):334-5. Links
>>>Behavioural correlates of successful weight reduction over 3 y. Results
>>>from the Lean Habits Study.Westenhoefer J, von Falck B, Stellfeldt A,
>>>Fintelmann S.
>>>Department of Nutrition and Home Economics, Hamburg University of Applied
>>>Sciences, Hamburg, Germany. joac...@westenhoefer.de
>
>sigh Again, for reference. UGH! Kenny kenny kenny... Sounds like you
>just keep sucking, your points are invalid, and you fail to prove anything
>except just how much a waste of time replying to you really is.
>
>>>OBJECTIVE: To examine behavioural characteristics of subjects with
>>>successful long-term weight reduction. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study
>>>with 3 y follow-up. SETTING: Multicentre study of participants of a
>>>commercial weight-reduction programme (BCM-Programme). SUBJECTS: Until
>>>February 2000, 6857 voluntary study participants were included. Analyses
>>>are based on 1247 subjects with complete 3 y data. INTERVENTIONS:
>>>Open-group dietary and behavioural counselling with initial meal
>>>substitutions.
>
>Background gobblycrap that I have to keep in or crybaby Kenny will bitch
>and moan and tantrum. You know, I hate having a news reader that requires
>me to not quote too much of the message relative to what I write. If I
>quote a lot, i need to write a lot. That's part of the reason why I don't
>keep all this shit, it's worthless, I'm not replying to it, and it makes
>me need to fill in space with random swill myself just to make "Pine"
>happy. Shit, I hope it's enough...
>
>
>>>RESULTS: Subjects show a number of significant behavioural
>>>improvements, for example, choice of low-fat food, flexible control of
>>>eating behaviour and coping with stress. Subjects who maintain these
>>>changes by the end of the first year have a higher probability of
>>>successful weight reduction after 3 y. CONCLUSIONS: Successful weight
>>>maintenance is associated with more pronounced improvements of health
>>>behaviours after 1 y. The likelihood of success increases with the number
>>>of behavioural patterns which are involved in the process of change.
>
>Health behaviors? Coping with stress? Ok... Not sure what you were
>trying to prove with this one, but ok...
>
>>>The Amptoons article is full of intentional misinterpretations and
>>>misrepresentations of studies, plus it relies on questionable editorials t=
>>o
>>>make its point.
>
>Actually, it made it's point just fine.

It's a great propaganda piece full of references to questionable
editorials, misrepresentations, lies, etc.


>
>>>You lose, fatboy. Do your research next time.
>
>So.... you were able to look at the medical research it cited? Then what
>are you bitching for?
>
>>You ignored this message last time.
>
>What message? You mean your copy/paste the cites, that DO prove the case,
>and then your added "problem" with the study that amount to little more
>then a pout "but I KNOW I'm right"? Sorry Kenny, you fail.

I did not post the original response. I simply pointed out that you failed
to respond. You only responded when I shamed you and even at that, you
failed to respond to some of the points made, plus you selectively snipped
again. You also attempted to twist the facts as they were presented. You
failed, as per usual.
>
>Now I need to add in empty BS lines just to make my news reader happy. I
>quoted too many lines relative to what I wrote, so now I need to add in
>more lines...
>akjgsfdg
>afhgjakfjhkafjhsdhfg
>ahdfjghsdgfhdfjhkjds
>ashafghsjdghjsdhjdgh
>ashgjafghsjdfhgjsdfhjahf
>asgnkjasgfhjasfghjklahfgkajfh
>askgjqskghsjhfgsafghkjlafh
>angfakjghajkfghjsaghjkashgjkasfgh
>asjgfjkashfgjkafjgkhafjghsf
>saghjksahgjkashfgjkasghasfgjshagjasgf
>asjghasghksjaghjsdfghjsagh
>ashgjhasjghaskjgh

You are a big fat idiot.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote:

>>>> What about those with BMI's over 30 and 40? That's not mentioned in the
>>>> article.
>>
>> And that's my fault why exactly?
>
> I never stated that it was your fault,

Then why bitch to me about it?

> but you are failing to prove how
> this applies specifically to fat people such as yourself with BMI's over
> 40.

I presented it as is. You are the one trying to make it something it's
not. Not MY fault, YOUR fault.

> You are a proven snip and run coward. We all must keep you honest.

In your dreams Kenny.

>> Sooo.... Mortality was corelated to fitness level, defined as a test on a
>> treadmill? I see references to fitness all over the place, but not one
>> mention of BMI. Let me look back up and see..
>>
>> "Physical fitness was measured by a maximal treadmill exercise test."
>>
>> Yes, fitness is the ability to exercise on a treadmill... Ok, perhaps I
>> missed all the BMI references then. Let me look back and see...
>>
>> Nope, no mention of BMI, just fitness...
>
> You have been claiming that you, with a BMI of 40+,

I never once said what my BMI was, nor my weight, nor my height. Good try
in making up pure bullshit though.

> because you can walk
> briskly for 30 minutes have the same risk of premature death as a normal
> weight person who can do the same. I'm still waiting for proof.

See elsewhere for the exact quote, as previous posted to this group by me.
I don't have the time or desire to pull it back up for you. You are
welcomed.

>> See, diets aren't effective for long term weight loss. Almost a complete
>> relapse after 3-5 years? Sounds like I'm proven correct once again.
>> Kenny, is this the point, to show me just how correct I am? I'm looking
>> above, and see no other "points" or "pseudo-points" that this article
>> tries to make.
>
> What part of "long-term follow-up data are meager" do you not understand?
> There's no proof either way, dumbass.

What part of "almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years" do you not
understand? What, you think they relapse, then turn skinny again for no
reason? Stupid Kenny...

>> Healthy lifestyle? Shit, that's what Robin has been saying ever since
>> I've been here! Kenny, thank you! You just proved that Robin is correct
>> and the fat haters are false! I'm sure that's not what you intended to
>> do, but it is totally what you did.
>
> Robin is not promoting a healthy lifestyle, she is promoting obesity.

She is promoting taking care of yourself, do what you can to stay healthy,
and not worry about BMI or weight. Sorry, but that's healthy lifestyle.

>>>> The extract clearly states that there is a lack of adequate data.
>>
>> Yes, lack of data that diets work.
>
> It also infers that there's a lack of adequate data that diets don't work,
> dumbass.

And your proof that they DO work, dumbass? Oh yeah, there isn't any...
*insert victory dance here* Stupid Kenny...

>> If fat bashers argue that the diets
>> work, souldn't there be data that diets work? If no data exists that
>> diets work, why assume they do work? Show me proof! Oh wait, there isn't
>> any... HAHAHAHAHA.... I win again, you suck again.
>
> Only with your selective and defective reasoning.

So, you can make clames without the need to back them up, simply because
it's the popular thing to say? Talk about selective and defective
reasoning...

>>>> The Amptoons article is full of intentional misinterpretations and
>>>> misrepresentations of studies, plus it relies on questionable editorials t=
>>> o
>>>> make its point.
>>
>> Actually, it made it's point just fine.
>
> It's a great propaganda piece full of references to questionable
> editorials, misrepresentations, lies, etc.

Right... *snort* Stupid Kenny.

>>> You ignored this message last time.
>>
>> What message? You mean your copy/paste the cites, that DO prove the case,
>> and then your added "problem" with the study that amount to little more
>> then a pout "but I KNOW I'm right"? Sorry Kenny, you fail.
>
> I did not post the original response. I simply pointed out that you failed
> to respond.

In other words, WWWwwwwwhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.......

> You only responded when I shamed you and even at that, you
> failed to respond to some of the points made,

What points? I think you think a little too highly of yourself. Not
everything you type is golden, nor is it even worth a reply. But if you
want to keep deluding yourself, more power to ya.

> plus you selectively snipped
> again.

WWWwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... ..

> You also attempted to twist the facts as they were presented.

Stupid Kenny...

> You are a big fat idiot.

Is this one of those fantastic "points" of yours that I need to reply to
or you bitch about your fantasy "snip and run"?

Again, too much quoted for my news reader to send the message... More
message to fill up space...

almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, Kenny wrote:
>
>>>>>What about those with BMI's over 30 and 40? That's not mentioned in the
>>>>>article.
>>>
>>>And that's my fault why exactly?
>>
>>I never stated that it was your fault,
>
>Then why bitch to me about it?

I'm not bitching. I am stating that it does not prove your claim that your
risk of early death is the same as a normal weight person who can walk
briskly for 30 minutes. You did state that.

>
>>but you are failing to prove how
>>this applies specifically to fat people such as yourself with BMI's over
>>40.
>
>I presented it as is. You are the one trying to make it something it's
>not. Not MY fault, YOUR fault.

You are attempting to use this study as proof that your risk of early death
is the same as a normal weight person who can walk briskly for 30 minutes.
You failed miserably.

>
>>You are a proven snip and run coward. We all must keep you honest.
>
>In your dreams Kenny.

Then why do you snip parts that disprove what you claim?

>
>>>Sooo.... Mortality was corelated to fitness level, defined as a test on a
>>>treadmill? I see references to fitness all over the place, but not one
>>>mention of BMI. Let me look back up and see..
>>>
>>>"Physical fitness was measured by a maximal treadmill exercise test."
>>>
>>>Yes, fitness is the ability to exercise on a treadmill... Ok, perhaps I
>>>missed all the BMI references then. Let me look back and see...
>>>
>>>Nope, no mention of BMI, just fitness...
>>
>>You have been claiming that you, with a BMI of 40+,
>
>I never once said what my BMI was, nor my weight, nor my height. Good try
>in making up pure bullshit though.

I could be mixing you up with another fat dumbass that used to post here,
but I could've sworn that you posted your height and weight. I did find a
post where you state that 3X shirts are too small for you. Given that
fact, it's most likely that your BMI exceeds 40, making you the clinical
definition of morbidly obese. Do you deny that your BMI exceeds 40?

>
>>because you can walk
>>briskly for 30 minutes have the same risk of premature death as a normal
>>weight person who can do the same. I'm still waiting for proof.
>
>See elsewhere for the exact quote, as previous posted to this group by me.
>I don't have the time or desire to pull it back up for you. You are welcomed.

From: The Master <tardis@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam>
Subject: Re: Obesity epidemic (TOTALLY acceptable)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:56:19 +0000
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.0804111344260.28048@sdf.lonestar.or g>

"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."

**end quote**

Prove this claim.

>
>>>See, diets aren't effective for long term weight loss. Almost a complete
>>>relapse after 3-5 years? Sounds like I'm proven correct once again.
>>>Kenny, is this the point, to show me just how correct I am? I'm looking
>>>above, and see no other "points" or "pseudo-points" that this article
>>>tries to make.
>>
>>What part of "long-term follow-up data are meager" do you not understand?
>>There's no proof either way, dumbass.
>
>What part of "almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years" do you not
>understand? What, you think they relapse, then turn skinny again for no
>reason? Stupid Kenny...

What part of "long-term follow-up data are meager" do you not understand?

>
>>>Healthy lifestyle? Shit, that's what Robin has been saying ever since
>>>I've been here! Kenny, thank you! You just proved that Robin is correct
>>>and the fat haters are false! I'm sure that's not what you intended to
>>>do, but it is totally what you did.
>>
>>Robin is not promoting a healthy lifestyle, she is promoting obesity.
>
>She is promoting taking care of yourself, do what you can to stay healthy,
>and not worry about BMI or weight. Sorry, but that's healthy lifestyle.
>
>>>>>The extract clearly states that there is a lack of adequate data.
>>>
>>>Yes, lack of data that diets work.
>>
>>It also infers that there's a lack of adequate data that diets don't work,
>>dumbass.
>
>And your proof that they DO work, dumbass? Oh yeah, there isn't any...
>*insert victory dance here* Stupid Kenny...

I never stated that diets work. The claim of the web site, which you echo,
is that the study proves diets don't work. That is a gross
misrepresentation of the study results.
>
>>>If fat bashers argue that the diets
>>>work, souldn't there be data that diets work? If no data exists that
>>>diets work, why assume they do work? Show me proof! Oh wait, there isn't
>>>any... HAHAHAHAHA.... I win again, you suck again.
>>
>>Only with your selective and defective reasoning.
>
>So, you can make clames without the need to back them up, simply because
>it's the popular thing to say? Talk about selective and defective reasoning...

I have backed up the claims that I have made. I have been pressing you to
back yours up.

>
>>>>>The Amptoons article is full of intentional misinterpretations and
>>>>>misrepresentations of studies, plus it relies on questionable editorials t=
>>>>o
>>>>>make its point.
>>>
>>>Actually, it made it's point just fine.
>>
>>It's a great propaganda piece full of references to questionable
>>editorials, misrepresentations, lies, etc.
>
>Right... snort Stupid Kenny.

You failed to address all the points in Chris' response and snipped much of
it. You fail.

>
>>>>You ignored this message last time.
>>>
>>>What message? You mean your copy/paste the cites, that DO prove the case,
>>>and then your added "problem" with the study that amount to little more
>>>then a pout "but I KNOW I'm right"? Sorry Kenny, you fail.
>>
>>I did not post the original response. I simply pointed out that you failed
>>to respond.
>
>In other words, WWWwwwwwhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.......

It's your credibility on the line here, not mine.

>
>>You only responded when I shamed you and even at that, you
>>failed to respond to some of the points made,
>
>What points? I think you think a little too highly of yourself. Not
>everything you type is golden, nor is it even worth a reply. But if you
>want to keep deluding yourself, more power to ya.


Why did you snip out much of Chris' response that poked holes in the
credibility of the information that you were presenting?

>
>>plus you selectively snipped
>>again.
>
>WWWwwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.. ...

You should be weeping. You aren't helping your cause by posting shit that
you don't understand and not fact checking.

>
>>You also attempted to twist the facts as they were presented.
>
>Stupid Kenny...
>
>>You are a big fat idiot.
>
>Is this one of those fantastic "points" of yours that I need to reply to
>or you bitch about your fantasy "snip and run"?

Why did you snip parts of Chris' response? Your edits were obviously
strategic.

>
>Again, too much quoted for my news reader to send the message... More
>message to fill up space...
>
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years
>almost a complete relapse after 3-5 years

F-