 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / June 2007Interesting analysis of the AHA's guidelines for women
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/heart-healthy-diets-part-two-of.html The AHA clearly has its head up its butt.  SignatureBob in CT http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/heart-healthy-diets-part-two-of.html :: The AHA clearly has its head up its butt. It may not be just the AHA....according to the conclusions drawn at this link, those of us who lose more than 10% body weight have an increased risk of CVD! sh.t! (if you believe it) > http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/heart-healthy-diets-part-two-of.html > :: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > sh.t! (if you believe it) Yeah, she has a lot of articles that say that relatively/slightly overweight people live longer than thin/underweight or the very overweight. It's hard to know what to believe. I do hold the AHA to a higher standard, though. If they believe in something, the citations they give should support that theory. If they can't find support, then the theory is incorrect until such support can be found. SignatureBob in CT :: On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:34:21 -0400, Roger Zoul :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: :: ::: Bob in CT wrote: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/heart-healthy-diets-part-two-of.html ::::: The AHA clearly has its head up its butt. ::: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: overweight people live longer than thin/underweight or the very :: overweight. It's hard to know what to believe. She seems to give support for her conclusions, and I've read similar things in other places. :: I do hold the AHA to a higher standard, though. Why? :: If they believe in :: something, the citations they give should support that theory. If :: they can't find support, then the theory is incorrect until such :: support can be found. So, you're saying they should 1st believe something and then find support (I know you don't really believe that, I'm just trying to make a point)? I think that's exactly what they are doing. The problem is they are not very successful at it. And since most will just trust them and NOT review their references, it all looks to be credible. From reading the conclusions drawn from many of the references cited, it seems that neither diet or weight is strongly connected with CVD. The real problem is probably "head/mind/emotional" stress. Who is Sandy? > :: On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:34:21 -0400, Roger Zoul > :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Why? Cause they're telling millions of people how to live in order to reduce cardiovascular disease. She's just a blogger, and I'm probably the only one reading her site besides her. ;-) > :: If they believe in > :: something, the citations they give should support that theory. If [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > support (I > know you don't really believe that, I'm just trying to make a point)? It depends on how they find the support. If they actually performed unbiased studies that then give them the support they need, I don't see anything wrong with that. What they do instead is misquote conclusions, misrepresent data/conclusions, igore studies that have the opposite conclusion, etc. > I > think that's exactly what they are doing. The problem is they are not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The real problem is probably "head/mind/emotional" stress. I agree with you there. > Who is Sandy? She's someone the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics had a link to: http://www.thincs.org/news.htm Other than that, I'm not so sure. I went looking for an email to see what she thought of the table in this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19210401/ But I could find no email address. SignatureBob in CT Her own bio is pretty impressive: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/introduction-and-why-i-created-this.html | On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:21:15 -0400, Roger Zoul | <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | | But I could find no email address. Yeah, I read it. I think I'm in love. :: Her own bio is pretty impressive: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2006/11/introduction-and-why-i-created-this.html :: Bob in CT wrote: ::: On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:21:15 -0400, Roger Zoul [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] ::: ::: But I could find no email address. > >http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/heart-healthy-diets-part-... > Yeah, she has a lot of articles that say that relatively/slightly > overweight people live longer than thin/underweight or the very > overweight. It's hard to know what to believe. Hrm. So, slightly overweight would be like 22% bodyfat for a man. I know what I felt like at 22% and I feel like I'm primed for more life at 17% than I did at 22%. Regardless of longevity, though, doesn't it come down to quality of life years. I just got back from Italy a couple weeks ago. I can assure you, and whatever fat acceptance person you wanna put forward, that I wouldn't have enjoyed the trip anywhere near as much with a 20% + bodyfat. Lotta stairs in those churches and bridges, it's very hot there in the summer, and a lot of walking as a tourist. Now, 17% isn't 5% bodyfat, so there probably is a down portion. But, I'm gonna guess that 12% is gonna feel pretty good relative to 17%. Probably as good as 17% feels relative to 23%. This sounds nitpicky, but I don't feel my experience (and of course I'm not dead yet) says different. > > >http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/heart-healthy-diets-part-... > > Yeah, she has a lot of articles that say that relatively/slightly [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > This sounds nitpicky, but I don't feel my experience (and of course > I'm not dead yet) says different. Pardon. I DO feel my experience says different. :::: On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:34:21 -0400, Roger Zoul :::: <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote: ::: ::::: Bob in CT wrote: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/heart-healthy-diets-part-... :::: Yeah, she has a lot of articles that say that relatively/slightly :::: overweight people live longer than thin/underweight or the very [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: :: Pardon. I DO feel my experience says different. Says what different? Your experience tells you nothing about how long you'll live, only about quality of life, and her references don't seem to address that. I certainly will agree that not being overweight will improve quality of life (at least it has for me), but I'm not so sure it has any bearing at all on how long you'll live. It could be that normal weight people end up creating extra stessors in their lives that many overweight people don't have and thus they miss some unneeded mind/emotional stress. Of course, it's a matter of degree, as I would imagine that one can be overweight enough that it induces a lot of mind/emotional stress in a person and that, I think, will shorten life. Think the happy budda. > I certainly will agree that not being overweight will improve quality of > life (at least it has for me), but I'm not so sure it has any bearing at all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > enough that it induces a lot of mind/emotional stress in a person and that, > I think, will shorten life. Think the happy budda. Hrm... Buddha. Santa Claus. Bruce Villanche. The world is filled with these morbidly obese jolly guys. I think it's lies told by Hollywood screenwriters, like Bruce avalanche. At any rate, I'll take 10 quality years over 12 crappy ones. Course, ask me in year 10 and I might have a difference opinion. But, since losing my 57 lbs and counting, my realage.com real age has fallen from +3 to -11.5. The only stuff left on it is to lose more weight, eat more carbs, less meat, more tomatoes, floss, and work some flexibility stuff into my weight lifting (Olympic lifters tested as the second most flexible athletes, right after gymnasts, so I dunno if I trust Dr. Oz on this). So, maybe my experience does say something about longevity too. ::: I certainly will agree that not being overweight will improve ::: quality of life (at least it has for me), but I'm not so sure it [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: these morbidly obese jolly guys. I think it's lies told by Hollywood :: screenwriters, like Bruce avalanche. It's true, but the question is what kills them, being obese or the stress caused by it. :: At any rate, I'll take 10 quality years over 12 crappy ones. Me too. However, being some amount overweight doesn't necessarily make for a crappy life. Course, :: ask me in year 10 and I might have a difference opinion. But, since :: losing my 57 lbs and counting, my realage.com real age has fallen :: from +3 to -11.5. Well..... The only stuff left on it is to lose more weight, :: eat more carbs, less meat, more tomatoes, floss, and work some :: flexibility stuff into my weight lifting (Olympic lifters tested as :: the second most flexible athletes, right after gymnasts, so I dunno :: if I trust Dr. Oz on this). So, maybe my experience does say :: something about longevity too. You think that flexibility somehow factors into longevity? Why? > :: Hrm... Buddha. Santa Claus. Bruce Villanche. The world is filled with > :: these morbidly obese jolly guys. I think it's lies told by Hollywood > :: screenwriters, like Bruce avalanche. > > It's true, but the question is what kills them, being obese or the stress > caused by it. If you can be a mellow, unstressed Buddha, maybe. But modern life with bills and whatnot tends to be more stressful. So, for me, I'm working on the best body to deal with the stress. Different folks may have different goals and that's probably where the difference in opinion comes from. > :: At any rate, I'll take 10 quality years over 12 crappy ones. > > Me too. However, being some amount overweight doesn't necessarily make for > a crappy life. So, lemme suggest that current me + 50 lbs would be leading a much lower quality life. I was more stressed. I suffered worse in the Washington DC summer (it's gross). It wasn't crappy, but it wasn't what life is now, either. > Course, > :: ask me in year 10 and I might have a difference opinion. But, since > :: losing my 57 lbs and counting, my realage.com real age has fallen > :: from +3 to -11.5. > > Well..... I forgot to add the snarky remark about them. I like it as a benchmark, not thinking I'm actually 22.X. > The only stuff left on it is to lose more weight, > :: eat more carbs, less meat, more tomatoes, floss, and work some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You think that flexibility somehow factors into longevity? Why? I don't, but the Real Age folks seem to think so. Course, that's packet of salt worthy. But why not? More flexibility probably equals less body aches, which equals less stress, which might equal longer life. :: On Jun 21, 7:25 am, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote: ::: Hollywood wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :: may have different goals and that's probably where the difference in :: opinion comes from. Certain types of stress arent harmful. For example, having bills to pay isn't such a big deal as long as you can pay them. When you worry from paycheck to paycheck about how to make ends meet, stress builds up. That's the type of stress that really works on people. Given that even normal weight people have heart attacks and strokes, regardless of the type of diet they consume and the amount of exercise they get, one can see that perhaps the real deciding factor at work in not weight and/or diet, but the type of stress one undergoes and how one copes with that stress. Exercise created stress would be helpful, I think. Not being so overweight that you can't move would help, too, I think. Excessive worry about being overweight is probably more harmful than the weight itself, depending of course, on the relative degrees of each. ::::: At any rate, I'll take 10 quality years over 12 crappy ones. ::: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: Washington DC summer (it's gross). It wasn't crappy, but it wasn't :: what life is now, either. I don't remember what you weigh now or what you used to weigh, but from my own experience 50 + lbs isn't nearly as bad as 150 lbs. Understandably you're happy and better off without the extra load, but it wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been. I think many of us suffer from a type of stress the world puts on us that says that being overweight will kill you. So, as a result, we worry like hell because we'll overweight. That stress might be more of a deciding factor in CVD than the weight itself. ::: Course, ::::: ask me in year 10 and I might have a difference opinion. But, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] :: less body aches, which equals less stress, which might equal longer :: life. Why not? Why is a better question in my mind. People are being tugged at from so many directions. We only have so much time. If you ask me, this notion of "more flexibility" is a bit daft. What exactly do you need more flexibility for if you're already using your body in exercise-related movements? IMO, maintaining flexibility has some value in that it can help you can keep moving, but doing strange, almost unnatural movements to enhance/improve flexibility, for its own sake, seems pointless. Of course, I'm assuming one conducts, regular, a full-body exercise rather than just sitting on the couch all the time. > :: So, lemme suggest that current me + 50 lbs would be leading a much > :: lower quality life. I was more stressed. I suffered worse in the > :: Washington DC summer (it's gross). It wasn't crappy, but it wasn't > :: what life is now, either. > I don't remember what you weigh now or what you used to weigh, but from my > own experience 50 + lbs isn't nearly as bad as 150 lbs. Understandably [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > result, we worry like hell because we'll overweight. That stress might be > more of a deciding factor in CVD than the weight itself. 265/207/192 (or 10% BF, whichever way) I was heavier than 265. I might've been 280 at one point. I wasn't really CVD'd. Had high cholesterol. Slightly elevated BP (nothing doc was worried about). 55 isn't 150. But, I didn't go that far. I cannot imagine self at 360. I suppose I can, but would have some serious issues with it. Mom is 100+ overweight I think. Mom has all kind of degenerative stress problems in lower extremities (plantar fascitis for example). Not interested. Not at all. I don't worry like hell about weight. If I were to stop losing tomorrow, I think I'd be okay with that. Given that I dumped about 20% of my bodyweight in 8-9 months, I can feel pretty good about it. It's exciting. And the stuff I can do now, also very cool. But, I'm goal oriented. I feel more stress when I'm not working to goal than when I am. So, I dunno. > :: I don't, but the Real Age folks seem to think so. Course, that's > :: packet of salt worthy. But why not? More flexibility probably equals [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'm assuming one conducts, regular, a full-body exercise rather than just > sitting on the couch all the time. Couple thoughts. People might (I know a few) enjoy standing on their heads. People might get more out of life with more flexibility. DW is healthy flexible, but I can think of a few times when a little bit of yoga might've increased both of our happinesses. Again, it's possible that the Real Age shysters have some shysty study linking flex with life. Last thing: I'm goal oriented. So, if I like working the Real Age thing down, and I don't violate anything, and I don't harm self, I don't see the harm in doing five minutes of dynamic stretching. I've read enough on static stretching to know it doesn't have a part in my workout program. FWIW, I'm not gonna start eating whole grains because the Real Age guys think it's worthwhile. "Roger Zoul" <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote in message > If you ask me, this notion of "more flexibility" is a bit daft. What > exactly do you need more flexibility for if you're already using your body [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > seems pointless. Of course, I'm assuming one conducts, regular, a > full-body exercise rather than just sitting on the couch all the time. Well, I'd like to comment on this one. I do exercise regularly, lately mostly walking or hiking, and some resistance exercise with free weights or a TotalGym. I stretch a bit, but really need to get back to doing more yoga. I've done yoga on and off most of my life. And during that period I've been active in general - running, walking, hiking, cycling, aerobics, free weights, other types of resistance exercise. I always do at least some minemal stretching. I tend to get a bit tight muscle-wise, however, if I don't include some kind of more comprehensive stretching. Yoga works for me, although there other stretching programs out there (Egoscue is pretty good, I understand). There are some major differences I notice when doing yoga regularly, versus not. One, I just seem to have a much brain-body connection. When I'm yogacized regularly, I trip, stumble, fall, bump into things MUCH less. I have no explanation for the difference, but it's real and very noticeable. This is probably gonna be very important, health-wise, as I age. My problems with lower back strain, achilles tendonitis, and all sorts of aches and pains - exercise-related or not - tend to go away with yoga. That's really why I started it, because I've had some lower back problems since I was a teenager. I even cured some persistent plantar fascitis with applied yoga-type stretching. The stretching is just very relaxing and pleasurable, and these feelings persist beyond the actual period of exercise. It seems to be very good for the head as well as the body. I tend to be over-committed a lot of the time, and it's easy to let the stretching/yoga drop. I've done that many times, so when I get back to it (often because my back starts hurting), I really re-recognize the gradual changes between the yogacized me and the non-stretched me. It's pretty noticeable. (And you'd think that, knowing that, I would never let my yoga practice slide. Sigh. Kinda like how lc'ers often forget how lousy too many carbs make us feel.) HG In our society plagued by obesity a significant percentage of the slender are actually ill. This would mess up the statistics. >> http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/heart-healthy-diets-part-two-of.html >> :: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > can't find support, then the theory is incorrect until such support can be > found. > Yeah, she has a lot of articles that say that relatively/slightly > overweight people live longer than thin/underweight or the very > overweight. It's hard to know what to believe. There are two interesting and contradictory sets of studies. 1) Statistics say that slightly overweight folks have a lower death rate than either lighter or heavier folks. 2) Studies of low calorie feedings say that animals fed 20% less calories tend to be thin but also tend to be more healthy and live longer. It is important to note that these studies have been conducted with wildly unrelated animals lie dogs and earthworms and it seems to apply to all animals. Why humans should buck this trend is a mystery. As Cubit mentioned currently humans who are thin because they are sick or because the are impoverished to third world levels may skew the data. Another problem is the fact that the animals in the experiments have already had their best intake levels of various micro-nutrients determined by other longevity experiments and the 20% reduction carefully kept all known micro-nutrients near those levels. The caloric reduction is through reduced carbs/fat/protein. With humans we don't know enough about the best intake levels. Humans live too long, aren't kept in cages, can't be given limited vitamin X for life just to see what it does to their lifespan. The data is still too contradictory and the conflicts aren't well understood yet. > Another problem is the fact that the animals in the > experiments have already had their best intake levels of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > too long, aren't kept in cages, can't be given limited > vitamin X for life just to see what it does to their lifespan. Creepy idea, but we have a large population sentenced to life in prison. They're in a cage. Mess with their nutrition and keep good records. It's the least they can do to repay their debts to society. > > Another problem is the fact that the animals in the > > experiments have already had their best intake levels of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > prison. They're in a cage. Mess with their nutrition and keep good > records. It's the least they can do to repay their debts to society. It's inhumane unless they volunteer. What's the incentive at that point? And there are too many variations for them to be a valid experimental group. > > Creepy idea, but we have a large population sentenced to life in > > prison. They're in a cage. Mess with their nutrition and keep good [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that point? And there are too many variations for them to be > a valid experimental group. Now, don't get me wrong. I generally don't believe in the death penalty. But, if you're going to put people to death (I believe that's inherently cruel, unusual and inhumane), why not get some use out of them. Run some long term nutritional studies on them. You can control every meal. You can control their daily activity. You can control how much sunlight they get. If you want to, you can control everything for a death row inmate. You just might save a whole lot of lives as a consequence. Again, I don't support the death penalty because it's cruel, unusual, and inhumane. But, if you're gonna have something cruel, unusual and inhumane as part of the legal structure, why draw the line at this inhumanity vs. that one. At least one could serve the greater good. Last thing: I'm not advocating vivisection (though, if you're gonna kill em, why draw a line?) or anything so Mengelesque. I'm suggesting you run long term, ethically designed, nutritional studies to learn more. Columbo point: Since most Animal Rights folks care more about animals than people, surely they can't object. "Test a convict, not a bunny." >> Creepy idea, but we have a large population sentenced to life in >> prison. They're in a cage. Mess with their nutrition and keep good >> records. It's the least they can do to repay their debts to >> society. > It's inhumane unless they volunteer. What's the incentive at > that point? And there are too many variations for them to be > a valid experimental group. I'd guess the incentives would be the same ones that get them to take jobs in prison or take classes: pay and/or good behavior points. I don't know how useful it would be, though. If you can't keep drugs out of prisons or keep them from raping each other, how tightly can you really control their meals? SignatureAaron -- 285/235/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.