Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Health, not weight

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by IcarianVX View Post
    I used to believe that. I know a LOT of people that are "thin" that have hypertension and are on meds for it and I also know several people in the same "thin" category that have type 2 diabetes. One of 'em even has type 1 because they, essentially, killed their pituitary gland with all the crap they ate, even though their BMI was normal. So it's not obesity that leads to it, it's just being alive.
    It's either the fuel that we use that causes this or it's all a crap shoot.
    After 11 months on Primal I vote for fuel. SAD hurts everyone. Many like myself are fat all their lives, then develop the metabolic disease syndrome. Others don't get fat, but die of the same things. For Example, I nearly died 10 months ago from pulmonary emboli caused by inflammation damage to my legs. People of all sizes die of this. Primal eating has not only prevented another occurence but has begun to heal 40+ years of damage in my body.
    Primal since 9/24/2010
    "Our greatest foes, and whom we must chiefly combat, are within." Miguel de Cervantes

    Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Weight Loss Tools
    MFP username: MDAPebbles67

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by IcarianVX View Post
      I used to believe that. I know a LOT of people that are "thin" that have hypertension and are on meds for it and I also know several people in the same "thin" category that have type 2 diabetes. One of 'em even has type 1 because they, essentially, killed their pituitary gland with all the crap they ate, even though their BMI was normal. So it's not obesity that leads to it, it's just being alive.
      It's either the fuel that we use that causes this or it's all a crap shoot.
      Type 1 has nothing to do with the pituitary gland. It is (usually) an autoimmune disease that leads to the destruction of the insulin producing beta cells in the pancreas. And you can't cause it through poor diet (i know a lot of people here will claim that this or that food causes autoimmunity, but while there are several hypotheses re: food and type 1 diabetes, that's all still one step above speculation.)

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Griff View Post
        I don't want to be a ripped meathead athlete who only thinks about his body fat percentage and how big his muscles are getting; I have more important things to do with my time.
        It seems to me that you assume that being "ripped" would require you to obsess about your body fat percentage and how big your muscles are. Also, you seem to imply that people with a lean body composition are somewhat less intelligent ("meathead" reference)? In sum, you seem somewhat narrow-minded when it comes to this particular topic.

        What if you could be "ripped", keeping your current level of intelligence (assumed to be above "meathead" level) and not have to think or worry about your fat percentage or muscle size? Would you still prefer to be "fat"? Why do you assume that those who are lean are all obsessive (bordering to compulsive?) and only care about their looks?

        For me, the main goal of shedding fat is not one of aesthetics, but rather of function. There are so many activities I would enjoy more with less fat on my body, so my target is to be able to do those activities without feeling that I am limited by my excess body fat.

        Note: I do distinguish between being "ripped", as a bodybuilder, or "lean", as an athlete. The bodybuilder look I have no interest in, but the athletic body composition seems far superior to me when it comes to functionality, ability to move, etc.

        Say, for example, that one enjoys to runing, trekking or rock climbing. Those things are simply easier, and thus more fun, to do when carrying less extra weight.

        Can't we just agree that being fat/thin, healthy/unhealthy and heavy/light are completely different things, and they don't necessarily correlate with each other?
        Last edited by norak; 08-16-2011, 06:37 AM.
        Norak's Primal Journal:
        2010-07-23: ~255lbs, ~40.0"
        2011-11-03: ~230lbs, ~35.5"
        2011-12-07: ~220lbs, ~34.0"

        Comment


        • #34
          I completely stopped paying attention to this thread when I saw IcarianVX's avatar. Thank you.

          Comment


          • #35
            I separate all this stuff into three categories:being fit, healthy, and in shape.

            They are all relate to each other, but are non synonymous. People can starve themselves in shape, but suffer from health problems and a lack of strength to do things. Similarly, I know plenty of people with hefty guts who can climb trees, bench 200+, run 10ks, etc. Some of them have health issues, and some don't - a case of fitness without shape.

            In the end, for me, the order of importance is health > fitness > shape. That said, since I have #1 and #2, #3 takes very little effort and helps with things that I like to do (martial arts). If it didn't, I wouldn't care past #1.

            Comment


            • #36
              I've always believed, and I think the science will eventually show this to be generally more or less the case, that obesity is a symptom of poor eating habits, and it's those eating habits that cause these health issues. Of course food that promotes fat storage in one person may be less than in others, so yeah, I wouldn't say an obese person is necessarily unhealthy. But I think for the vast majority of the population it's difficult to get that large while adhering to a lifestyle closely resembling paleo/primal.

              But that's just my simplistic view.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Griff View Post
                For those of you who are still afraid to ditch the scale, or who are measuring your success by the number on it, here's some more reasons to stop doing that.
                People are trying to overblow a development of a triage system for a sweeping endorsement that fat people have a 20% chance of not being unhealthy. Fat in a great abundance in and of itself is unhealthy.

                While the triaging system is needed, the half baked commentary by the media is bs.
                My Fitday public journal.
                Me vs. Russian Boar, hunt is on Aug. 20th. WHAT'S MORE PRIMAL THAN THAT?!
                Recently survived Warrior Dash, New England.
                Game Developer, ex-Chef, long time Fatbody.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I have a guy friend who has battled weight issues for a while. He's also strongly against the 'typical' view of males, from what I gather at least. I don't now Griff outside of his posts here of course, but I believe he may feel the same way my guy friend does. Though he (my friend) has never flat-out stated it, I strongly believe that he would rather remain fat (calling a spade a spade here) than to even LOOK like a "regular guy" because it would change people's perceptions of him, and I assume he thinks it would do so negatively.

                  I also think this because he actually lost quite a lot of weight a few months after I told him about primal, and he was receiving a lot of attention from women which he hardly did before. Unexplicably, he re-gained all the weight and then some. Clearly my friend was very successful following a primal/low-carb diet (we never discussed the specifics of his diet, it's possible he just did low-carb but not actually primal) but something made him go back to what he KNEW would make him re-gain weight. I know it sounds bizarre, but a part of me strongly believes he felt he was coming too close to "being one of the guys" at least looks-wise and this made him want to go back to the safe haven of receiving no unwanted attention based on your looks.

                  Of course, I could be beyond wrong.

                  The fact that Griff (surprisingly, given his long time here) believes that losing weight past 290lbs would entail slaving away at a fitness center or something like that, and uses such un-friendly language towards people that put in some time into it leads me to believe that he may also have this way of thinking. That somehow, being "fit" not just healthy, automatically makes you some kind of obsessed wanna-be athlete and that you wouldn't have time to do other things such as studying and working. We all know full-well that it's very much possible to do all your basic training in under an hour A WEEK (I'm talking basic maintenance, but ask anybody doing BBS and they'll tell you it goes well beyond that) you're talking one strength session and one conditioning/sprint session a week is all you need. So, please spare the whole "don't have time for it" or "would rather use my time on other, more important things" it's your body, take care of it, muscles aren't just for show.

                  You've already done a great deal, ain't nobody taking that away from you, and shit you don't have to do a lick of exercise if you don't feel like it, but don't put others down that care to do so.

                  My opinion on "fat can still be healthy" matters not, but we all strive for homeostasis right? I don't know of many indigenous cultures whose typical un-adulterated "paleo" diet leads them to be fat and healthy. I'm talking "American" fat and healthy, not just an extra 20-30lbs, which I would absolutely say go towards survival and "in case shit" scenarios.

                  I know you have your reasons for not wanting to ever increase carbohydrate consumption, but do you ever wonder if your leptin levels are bottomed out slowing your weight loss to a crawl? are there any safe starches for you to consume that wouldn't do damage to your blood sugars/etc? I don't know shit about that, so just asking, not telling.

                  We all should also remember, we're looking to 'thrive' not just 'survive'. It's not imperative to want to compete or be athletic, but it's a little discouraging to just care enough to walk without running out of air. I would imagine somebody that at one point required a wheelchair constantly would want to go and conquer a 5k or something, know what I mean? I see a lot of settling for less coming from the OP. Sorry to judge like that. I don't know what it's like to have been in your shoes, but most people would want to not just go from bad to okay, they'd push for better.
                  Last edited by iniQuity; 08-16-2011, 07:47 AM.
                  I used to seriously post here, now I prefer to troll.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I think it is more important to know your health markers from blood tests than from the scale or those bullshit BF percentages.

                    If your BP is low, HDL is good, CRP is low, trigs low, and you are happy with your weight, why stress about weight?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Whatever studies say, I just do not want to be fat. Neither I want to be skinny. I undress almost daily to go to the pool, and what I want to see is a body that is fit, hale and capable. Neither the fat rolls, nor the sticking out bones strike me as an image of health.
                      My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
                      When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Isn't the crucial point here that the study controlled for diabetes, BP, and "other problems"? The problem with being fat is that it leads to these problems. When you select people from a group who are fat but by good genes or some other factor avoided developing diabetes, BP, and "other problems," of course they're going to live as long.

                        For instance, take a group of 100 fat people and 100 non-overweight people (I'll call them "skinny"). Perhaps 95% of the skinny folks will avoid developing diabetes, but perhaps 80% of the obese people WILL develop diabetes. Of the 20% obese folks who don't develop diabetes or the other problems associated with metabolic syndrome, probably all will be just fine. BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE ORIGINAL OBESE GROUP DID DEVELOP DIABETES and its attendant health issues. (Bear in mind that these numbers are just examples - I didn't pull them from a particular study.)

                        You said to someone else that they can't ignore the conclusion of the study because they don't like the conclusion. Well, I think people are misinterpreting this study for the reason in the foregoing paragraph. And my interpretation of the study (I haven't read it; I'm just going the facts in your post) is supported by the mounds of evidence demonstrating that obesity is indeed very, very bad for your health. You can't avoid that conclusion and that mountain of evidence because you don't like it.

                        Not trying to be a jerk - just want to engage in a logical analysis here. Thoughts welcome; grok on.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Griff I do agree with you to a point but modern health care can keep people a live for far longer then they would be naturally. Just because obese people and average poeple have the same life span does not mean it is the same quality of life. My MIL is obese and alive but she is unable to do much. She is tethered to an oxygen tank and takes a handful of drugs 3 times a day. We are in the process of changing this but in my mind weight loss will follow better health. It is impossible that once we get healthy that our bodies will move toward an ideal weight. I know in my N=1 experience that is exactly what is happening. YMMV but over time you will naturally shed excess fat when improving health.
                          Check out my primal blog: http://primalroar.posterous.com/

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Griff has pulled a Jimmy Moore ... I'd say it was about time. ;-)
                            MikeEnRegalia's Blog - Nutrition, Dieting, Exercise and other stuff ;-)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by davem View Post
                              People are trying to overblow a development of a triage system for a sweeping endorsement that fat people have a 20% chance of not being unhealthy. Fat in a great abundance in and of itself is unhealthy.

                              While the triaging system is needed, the half baked commentary by the media is bs.
                              Except that the doctors themselves behind the study have noted that, for whatever reason, for some people, fat does not appear to be unhealthy. I've been listening to a lot of interviews with the researchers involved, and they have noted several things. The healthiest fat people appear to be those who have been fat their whole lives, who are active and eat well (note: I don't know what this specifically involves), and who have not engaged in the yo-yo diet cycle. This likely indicates that there is some subset of the human population that is more adapted to being fatter and has a predisposition toward carrying more fat than most.

                              At no point have any of them advocated that people should just go out and get fat. They all have noted that beyond the health risks, being fat carries significant social stigma (which is regularly illustrated in this community). Dr. Sharma, who is the Edmonton doctor responsible for the EOSS, stated that doctors can discuss the patient's feelings around being fat and offer support for weight loss if that person wants to work toward losing weight for personal reasons. However, the researchers interviewed have also noted that repeated weight cycling results in ever-increasing muscle loss (as part of the standard weight loss methods) and then that weight being regained as fat, which means that those individuals become actually fatter, even if they do not become heavier, and become increasingly more at risk for health conditions. Thus, any weight loss protocols proposed for people must be sustainable, since by advocating that a patient lose weight without providing a long-term maintenance solution, the doctor actually increases the risk of long-term harm for that patient above the risk that person might face if they just stayed stable. All in all, homeostasis is often the safest proposition.

                              Now, if people can find a sustainable solution, as paleo seems to be for some, then that weight loss might be more healthful long term. That doesn't mean that person needs to become an ultra-lean athlete to see major health improvements, and for some people, even with following all the primal laws, that ideal is undesirable or simply unattainable. And you know what? That's okay.

                              I note that some people are pretty offended by someone calling bulging muscles ugly, while many in this community seem to think it's fine to call fat folks ugly (or disgusting). Maybe we all need to consider how we talk about other people's bodies.
                              “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

                              Owly's Journal

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by npp33 View Post
                                Isn't the crucial point here that the study controlled for diabetes, BP, and "other problems"? The problem with being fat is that it leads to these problems. When you select people from a group who are fat but by good genes or some other factor avoided developing diabetes, BP, and "other problems," of course they're going to live as long.

                                For instance, take a group of 100 fat people and 100 non-overweight people (I'll call them "skinny"). Perhaps 95% of the skinny folks will avoid developing diabetes, but perhaps 80% of the obese people WILL develop diabetes. Of the 20% obese folks who don't develop diabetes or the other problems associated with metabolic syndrome, probably all will be just fine. BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE ORIGINAL OBESE GROUP DID DEVELOP DIABETES and its attendant health issues. (Bear in mind that these numbers are just examples - I didn't pull them from a particular study.)

                                You said to someone else that they can't ignore the conclusion of the study because they don't like the conclusion. Well, I think people are misinterpreting this study for the reason in the foregoing paragraph. And my interpretation of the study (I haven't read it; I'm just going the facts in your post) is supported by the mounds of evidence demonstrating that obesity is indeed very, very bad for your health. You can't avoid that conclusion and that mountain of evidence because you don't like it.

                                Not trying to be a jerk - just want to engage in a logical analysis here. Thoughts welcome; grok on.
                                Actually, the whole point of the study and the EOSS is to find a way to separate out the people who seem to be healthy being fat from the people who aren't. They were looking to specifically sort obese persons with specific levels of obesity-related health issues (EOSS stages 0-3) and see how they fared, so it included people with obesity-related illness (but excluded the sickest groups, stage 4 and 5). Some people in the study (stages 2 and 3) had higher mortality, while those no or minor obesity-related conditions at the outset fared just as well as the control group of normal-weight people over the 16 year timespan of the study. It's actually quite well designed.

                                From the paper's discussion section http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/...0.1139/h11-058
                                The finding that there were no differences in all-cause mortality risk between obese individuals in EOSS stage 0/1 and normal-weight individuals brings into question whether weight loss is beneficial for reducing health risk in this unique obese population. This is in contrast to the current U.S. obesity treatment guidelines, which suggest that obese individuals should be treated for their obesity, regardless of their overall risk profile (National Institutes of Health 1998). However, this is in line with the EOSS treatment algorithm that promotes weight management to prevent further weight gain for the first 2 stages, as opposed to weight loss that is prescribed for the more advanced stages. Interestingly, only EOSS stages 2 and 3 were associated with increased all-cause, CVD, and CHD mortality risk, compared with normal-weight adults. This algorithm represents an improvement on other risk-stratification systems, such as the metabolic syndrome or insulin sensitivity, that do not appear to differentiate mortality risk in obese populations (Kuk and Ardern 2009).
                                So this group is clearly identified as being a unique population, and the authors clearly acknowledge that preventing further weight gain is important to maintain health in these individuals. Since we already know that in the absence of other issues, homeostasis is the least risky course of action, this seems like sound medical practice to me.
                                “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

                                Owly's Journal

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X