 |
 | 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 / General Topics / November 2003Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?
This post is inspired in part by Dr Roy Walford's 120 year diet book. It advocates, based on Roy Walford's and others' exeriments with mammals, that being underweight prolongs life and improves health. He did these experiments at UCLA, where he works. He calls it a fancy name "calorie restriction". The diet that he advocates is high in what he considers valuable nutrients, but low in calories. I am 176 lbs, which makes me within the top of the normal weight interval. However, based on some ideal weight tables, for a small boned person such as myself, the ideal weight for me would be more like 160 lbs. And that makes sense, given that I still have a decent amount of fat. Being relatively fit (according to military standards), I do not feel that having much more muscle would be of benefit to me. To the caliper purists. I agree that I need to measure my body fat and go by bodyfat instead of pounds and BMI. I suspect strongly though (based on the mirror test) that the answer from a bodyfat percentage standpoint would be the same, that I have more fat than ideal. The question is, given all this, would losing 16 more lbs to reach my ideal weight make me better off, health wise. Also, if the answer is yes, would it be a good idea to lose this weight extremely slowly, such as 1 lb a month. Since I have "normal" weight, I do not feel that I should be in a big hurry. Any thoughts on it will be appreciated. i 223/176/180 In alt.support.diet Ignoramus14934 <ignoramus14934@nospam.14934.invalid> wrote: > I am 176 lbs, which makes me within the top of the normal weight > interval. 176 pounds of what? > And that makes sense, given that I still have a decent > amount of fat. Being relatively fit (according to military standards), > I do not feel that having much more muscle would be of benefit to me. I don't care if you have more muscle, but if you have too much fat then you either need to lose fat or gain muscle to bring the proportions into balance. > The question is, given all this, would losing 16 more lbs to reach my > ideal weight make me better off, health wise. I think the question is fundamentally flawed as you're basing the "ideal" weight on insurance tables not the ideal proportion of LBM and fat. No, I don't think losing 16 pounds where 8 are muscle and 8 are fat would be a good idea. Yes, I think losing 16 pounds of fat could be a good idea but I think you'll have trouble doing that without losing some LBM along the way, and that will change the target overall weight. > Also, if the answer is yes, would it be a good idea to lose this > weight extremely slowly, such as 1 lb a month. Since I have "normal" > weight, I do not feel that I should be in a big hurry. I don't think there's any hurry. What's your running pace these days? Wendy > In alt.support.diet Ignoramus14934 <ignoramus14934@nospam.14934.invalid> wrote: >> I am 176 lbs, which makes me within the top of the normal weight >> interval. > > 176 pounds of what? 95% water... >> And that makes sense, given that I still have a decent >> amount of fat. Being relatively fit (according to military standards), [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you either need to lose fat or gain muscle to bring the proportions into > balance. I agree. My feeling is that I need to lose fat rather than gain muscle. >> The question is, given all this, would losing 16 more lbs to reach my >> ideal weight make me better off, health wise. > > I think the question is fundamentally flawed as you're basing the > "ideal" weight on insurance tables not the ideal proportion of LBM and > fat. Surprise, I agree. Let's scratch my original question and talk in terms of reaching the ideal BF%. > What's your running pace these days? Lately my wife has been working late hours, so in the evening I stay home with the kid an dI have not run for 10 days. I measured exactly one mile and plan to run it soon. I am generally a slow walker and runner. i >I am 176 lbs, which makes me within the top of the normal weight >interval. However, based on some ideal weight tables, for a small >boned person such as myself, the ideal weight for me would be more >like 160 lbs. And that makes sense, given that I still have a decent >amount of fat. Being relatively fit (according to military standards), >I do not feel that having much more muscle would be of benefit to me. First of all - why the heck are you cross posting to sci.med... especially since you KNOW this instills the trolls to visit here. Are you trolling for trolls? As for the rest - how tall are you? My BF is 5'11" and 160lbs and looks good. At 170 he looks heavy. Health or not - someone similar can be say - 190 and more healthy than you, likewise someone could be 160 and less healthy. THat is why BMI is not necessarily a good judge of "health". It just means you are less likely to face certain health issues. It doesn't mean you are immune to them. > First of all - why the heck are you cross posting to sci.med... > especially since you KNOW this instills the trolls to visit here. > Are you trolling for trolls? <slaps side of head> Oops! I forgot to trim the headers! Sorry, group! Wendy >>I am 176 lbs, which makes me within the top of the normal weight >>interval. However, based on some ideal weight tables, for a small [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > especially since you KNOW this instills the trolls to visit here. > Are you trolling for trolls? I thought they were in the cardiology newsgroups. Sorry asbout the crosspost then. > As for the rest - how tall are you? 5'11". > My BF is 5'11" and 160lbs and looks good. At 170 he looks heavy. Exactly. > Health or not - someone similar can be say - 190 and more healthy than > you, likewise someone could be 160 and less healthy. THat is why BMI > is not necessarily a good judge of "health". It just means you are > less likely to face certain health issues. It doesn't mean you are > immune to them. Again, I agree. I am looking for a better chance of staying healthy, not for a miracle cure. And I think that it is possible that reaching ideal weight would improve my chances. If you meant that weight is not as good measure of fitness as BF% is, then let me rephrase my question. Is it better to have ideal BF% than something that is normal but hihger than ideal. Or there is not much difference and I should get a life? i >If you meant that weight is not as good measure of fitness as BF% is, >then let me rephrase my question. Is it better to have ideal BF% than >something that is normal but hihger than ideal. Or there is not much >difference and I should get a life? Personally - I'm also under the current mind set that bodyfat is also a crude measuring tool that has its own set of falisies. Once again, too little bodyfat can have medical reprocussions of its own. "health" is also a relative term. There are genetic problems that can cause your health to deteriorate, not matter what weight or shape you are in. These are inherited and you can't do squat to prevent them. You either get them or not. There's things like STD's that can also deteriorate your health, and it doesn't matter your weight or shape. There are so many factors involved. Ideal "weight" or "BF%" might mean you are at less of a risk for health related problems such as diabetes, clogged arteries and similar heart conditions, as well as joint/bone problems. But it also doesn't mean you are immune. Those above health problems can still happen to people within the "ideal" ranges. Some of that is also hereditary and genetic. And, what is your definition of "health"? Is health about those medical conditions? Is health about your fitness level? Is health about just overall feeling good. I can personally say that I haven't had a full blown cold or sickness in over 6 yrs. Does that mean I'm healthy? Well, consider this - 7 yrs ago I had 2 malignant melanoma's removed in the course of 5 months time. Does that mean I'm not healthy? I've never broken a bone or so much as sprained a joint - does that mean I'm healthy? My knees ache from arthritis or something and I get muscle pains in my back... does that mean I'm not healthy? I can squat 100lbs, but can't lift 20lbs over my head w/out struggle because of the weak back/shoulders. I've also got more cavities filled in than teeth... I'm healthy enough to run an 8min mile, but not healthy enough to give blood, even though I've got a very common and needed blood type. I'm also not healthy enough to be a donor to certain body parts. (bone marrow, etc) I've got a family history of breast, and prostate cancer and numerous female reproductive as well as thyroid disorders, yet I haven't suffered from anything yet, and I'm the only female in 4 (documented) generations that has my reproductive system fully in tack past the age of 27 (and I'm not 32). I've beat the odds so far on all that. Do I feel good - Hell yes. Do I look good - I think so. Do I look healthy - yes. Do I feel healthy - yes. Am I healthy - that's subjective. Were's my weight - its currently in the "upper level" of normal. My body fat - well depending on how you measure it - its anywhere from the upper level of normal to below normal. Can I turn heads when I walk down the road - yes. Will I wear a 2 piece bathing suit - in private yes, in public - I cover my bottom area. Do I obsess over any of this. NO... and the only reason I posted this was in response to your post. This is not "obsessing". >>If you meant that weight is not as good measure of fitness as BF% is, >>then let me rephrase my question. Is it better to have ideal BF% than [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > Do I obsess over any of this. NO... and the only reason I posted > this was in response to your post. This is not "obsessing". Thanks. All good thoughts. Health is relative and a little uncertain and all we can do is change ur chances of things happening. If I waste my whole life on unimportant health issues, it will be a waste as well. So I was trying to understand if it iw worth spending any more effort on extra fat loss or just leave my weight as is and just continue exercising. As for you, you appear to be in a fairly decent mental shape as well. I am curious why do you think you did not have any colds lately. i >Thanks. All good thoughts. Health is relative and a little uncertain >and all we can do is change ur chances of things happening. If I waste >my whole life on unimportant health issues, it will be a waste as >well. So I was trying to understand if it iw worth spending any more >effort on extra fat loss or just leave my weight as is and just >continue exercising. Personally, although I'll occasoinally post about the frustrations with a quick gain or whatnot - the reality in "real life" outside of this little group - I do not obsess about my weight. I do watch my weight, I do watch to make sure I don't let go and over eat. But I do indulge when I want, and cut back when I need to. Its all in an effort to maintain. I will experiment w/ weight loss and muscle gain cycles, when I'm dedicated, or do as I've done more recently and not worried about things. >As for you, you appear to be in a fairly decent mental shape as well. I like to think I am - but I'm sure that is debatable at times. :) >I am curious why do you think you did not have any colds lately. I attribute my lack of colds to. 1. A more healthy eating habits. Not indulging in junk food, fried fast foods, etc on a regular basis. 2. Physical exercise, resulting in better sleep habits 3. Healthy relationships and a healthy job. I do have a very busy and active lifestyle that contains its fair amount of stress. I don't take vitamins - as I hate pills, and never remember to take them on a regular basis. Although I do get vitamins occasionally when I have protein shakes or bars - as generally one serving of those will contain at least 25% of many recommended vits/mins. But those aren't daily occurances. I've also got hair and nails that grow very fast and are healthy. My nails are natural (all mine) and long, dispite working on computers (inside and lots of typing). >>I am curious why do you think you did not have any colds lately. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and active lifestyle that contains its fair amount of stress. > (inside and lots of typing). That's interesting. Come to think of it, I did not have a cold since I started dieting 5+ months ago, either. Too short time to say for sure though. Also I did get a flu shot a couple of weeks ago. But quite possibly living a more healthy life means fewer colds. i >>>I am curious why do you think you did not have any colds lately. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >though. Also I did get a flu shot a couple of weeks ago. But quite >possibly living a more healthy life means fewer colds. Flu shots won't keep colds away. Over the years I've had occasions when I felt like a cold was coming on, but it never truely materialized into a full blown cold. Its been nice - I have to admit that. And becuase of it, I don't miss work from being sick either - means I have more vacation time available for the "mental health" days I like to take. >>>>I am curious why do you think you did not have any colds lately. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > work from being sick either - means I have more vacation time > available for the "mental health" days I like to take. I never skip work because of a cold. What's the point? This way or another I will end up sitting on my a.s all day. I can as well get paid for it. i >I never skip work because of a cold. What's the point? This way or >another I will end up sitting on my a.s all day. I can as well get >paid for it. > >i Yes - but you pass your cold onto all the other employees in the office. Oh - that's something I forgot to mention. Another reason for my lack of colds. My office is in a secluded area of the building (although it is right next to the kitchen). I do tend to spend alot of time in my office w/ little contact with others. And because its the server room, I have my own AC unit that pumps in air from a unique source. So, I have my own air in my office. Its not like the open areas of cubicles where if one gets a cold, they all get it. >>I never skip work because of a cold. What's the point? This way or >>another I will end up sitting on my a.s all day. I can as well get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes - but you pass your cold onto all the other employees in the > office. I figure that by the time I am sick, I already passed my cold on others. Plus I often catch it at work anyway. Everyone rides same trains etc. And I try to stay away from people when I have a cold. > Oh - that's something I forgot to mention. Another reason for my > lack of colds. My office is in a secluded area of the building [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > source. So, I have my own air in my office. Its not like the open > areas of cubicles where if one gets a cold, they all get it. Makes sense too. You drive to work, right? No public transportation. i >I figure that by the time I am sick, I already passed my cold on >others. True. But I'd always heard that if you have a fever, you are contageous. I've also found that if I stay home and rest right away when I don't feel well, then I give my body the chance to find/create the antibodies to fight off the bug. THen I heal faster. Otherwise, if I continue to work, the body isn't focusing on the antibodies, because it still having to keep up with my usual requirements. >Plus I often catch it at work anyway. Everyone rides same trains >etc. And I try to stay away from people when I have a cold. > >Makes sense too. You drive to work, right? No public transportation. Yes, I drive to work - 30 - 45min commute each way. > >I never skip work because of a cold. What's the point? This way or > >another I will end up sitting on my a.s all day. I can as well get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes - but you pass your cold onto all the other employees in the > office. Yes!!!! I absolutely hate it when a fellow worker is sick and does not take time off. grrrrr... Martha Since you don't LC, why post this here? :: This post is inspired in part by Dr Roy Walford's 120 year diet book. :: It advocates, based on Roy Walford's and others' exeriments with :: mammals, that being underweight prolongs life and improves health. He :: did these experiments at UCLA, where he works. He calls it a fancy :: name "calorie restriction". The diet that he advocates is high in :: what he considers valuable nutrients, but low in calories. Then why does he refer to it as being underweight? It if prolongs life and improves health, the that is ideal weight, imo. :: I am 176 lbs, which makes me within the top of the normal weight :: interval. However, based on some ideal weight tables, for a small [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] :: standards), I do not feel that having much more muscle would be of :: benefit to me. Good for you. :: To the caliper purists. I agree that I need to measure my body fat :: and go by bodyfat instead of pounds and BMI. I suspect strongly :: though (based on the mirror test) that the answer from a bodyfat :: percentage standpoint would be the same, that I have more fat than :: ideal. What does Dr. Roy say? :: The question is, given all this, would losing 16 more lbs to reach my :: ideal weight make me better off, health wise. Dr. Roy says it will, right? Why ask here? Do you think there are some here who have been following calorie restriction and have reached 120 years in age? :: Also, if the answer is yes, would it be a good idea to lose this :: weight extremely slowly, such as 1 lb a month. Since I have "normal" :: weight, I do not feel that I should be in a big hurry. Well, given that you're looking to be 120 years old one day, you ought to have plenty of time. :: Any thoughts on it will be appreciated. :: :: i Once upon a time, our fellow Roger Zoul rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >Dr. Roy says it will, right? Why ask here? Do you think there are some >here who have been following calorie restriction and have reached 120 years >in age? Anybody expecting to live past the age of 120 belongs on the funny farm, IMHO. :) -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today. http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life. > > Dr. Roy says it will, right? Why ask here? Do you think there are some > > here who have been following calorie restriction and have reached 120 years > > in age? > > Anybody expecting to live past the age of 120 belongs on the funny > farm, IMHO. :) Chuckle. Possible vs likely, right. Every so often the newspapers report the death of someone well over 120. The reports that I recall have come from all over the world. So it would seem that at any one time there are probably one or more people in the world over 120. Thus it is *possible* to live past 120. But the fact that their deaths are considered noteworthy by there rarity says that the *likelyhood* that any one person will survive to 120 is very low indeed. A few in several billion. Expecting to be one in a billion is indeed crazy. >> > Dr. Roy says it will, right? Why ask here? Do you think there are >> some [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > very low indeed. A few in several billion. Expecting to be one in a > billion is indeed crazy. And it's likely genetic. My grandfather was an alcoholic for many years, ate a horrible diet (by any standard), smoked unfiltered cigarettes for 30+ years, never exercised, was and remains obese, and yet is in his mid 80s. His sister and he are the only surviving kids of a 6- or 8-kid family. He's done nothing "right" yet is older than most. It makes me wonder how long he'd live if he'd exercised, ate "right," etc. Maybe not longer.  SignatureBob M in CT Remove 'x.' to reply >> > Dr. Roy says it will, right? Why ask here? Do you think there are some >> > here who have been following calorie restriction and have reached 120 years [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > very low indeed. A few in several billion. Expecting to be one in a > billion is indeed crazy. I agree. Even improving lifespan by 8-10 years would be a tremendous accomplishment, if these 10 years can be lived meaningfully. Meaning that the person is alert, mobile, etc. i Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus909 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> But the fact that their deaths are considered noteworthy by there rarity >> says that the *likelyhood* that any one person will survive to 120 is >> very low indeed. A few in several billion. Expecting to be one in a >> billion is indeed crazy. >I agree. Even improving lifespan by 8-10 years would be a tremendous >accomplishment, if these 10 years can be lived meaningfully. Meaning >that the person is alert, mobile, etc. The term is 'aging successfully.' And, Jack LaLanne at age 89 is a good role model. Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual! > Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus909 > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual! Julia Child is in her 90s. She doesn't do strenuous exercise, has eaten rich foods all of her life. A lot depends upon one's attitude. Martha Once upon a time, our fellow MH rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >Julia Child is in her 90s. She doesn't do strenuous exercise, has eaten rich >foods all of her life. A lot depends upon one's attitude. A health role model means somebody that if you try to emulate will provide you with direct health benefits. If the choice is between Julia and Jack, I would go with Jack. :) Just thought that you might want to know. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow MH > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > provide you with direct health benefits. If the choice is between > Julia and Jack, I would go with Jack. :) i wouldn't. he may be fit, but he's a nut. he lives locally, and he's on the local news once a week showing us all how to do an exercise or juice a melon or something. he's fit, but he's a nut. -Once upon a time, our fellow The Queen of Cans and Jars rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >i wouldn't. he may be fit, but he's a nut. >he lives locally, and he's on the local news once a week showing us all >how to do an exercise or juice a melon or something. he's fit, but he's >a nut. So? One amusing story about Jack is about both he and his wife once attempted to climb Mount Everest. Jack insisted on exercising every day of the climb by doing jumping jacks. To the professional mountain climbers in his mountain climbing party, Jack must have looked like some kind of a nut. But, if you are familiar with Jack's claim of starting out each day of his life with exercise his need for exercising at high attitudes was very understandable even if he ended up being carried down the mountain in a stretcher. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Old people need a reason to live, and Jack has got his exercising and health business. > -Once upon a time, our fellow The Queen of Cans and Jars > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So? i'd rather not be a nut. and i like julia child. > One amusing story about Jack is about both he and his wife once > attempted to climb Mount Everest. Jack insisted on exercising every [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Old people need a reason to live, and Jack has got his exercising and > health business. he's a nut. a very fit nut. Once upon a time, our fellow The Queen of Cans and Jars rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> Old people need a reason to live, and Jack has got his exercising and >> health business. >he's a nut. a very fit nut. He is a live nut, ... with a very high quality of life. :) Just thought that you might want to know. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow The Queen of Cans and Jars > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > He is a live nut, ... with a very high quality of life. :) So? Julia's life has been nothing but high quality. She worked for the United Nations. Moved to Paris with his husband where she learned to cook. She was one of the first to have a cooking show on TV. She is admired and emulated over the world. She gives out awards to the greatest new chefs in the country annually, and there is not one chef in the US who should not be beholden to her. I just thought that you might want to know. Martha > > > Julia Child is in her 90s. She doesn't do strenuous exercise, > > > has eaten rich foods all of her life. Actually, she's eaten *French& food all her life. You know, the French paradox. The fact that the French are extremely healthy because of the rich food they eat while Americans look at their USDA food pyramid and wonder why the French don't drop like flies. > > A health role model means somebody that if you try to emulate will > > provide you with direct health benefits. If the choice is between [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > how to do an exercise or juice a melon or something. he's fit, but he's > a nut. Let's be fair and call Julia Child a nut, too. I've seen her in a lot of TV cooking shows and she's a riot. So, a nut eating French food, or a nut juicing a melon. Such a choice. Can't go wrong between those two choices to be sure, but a melon behind door number one and roast goose with turnips behind door number too. I don't have trouble chosing Monty. Once upon a time, our fellow Doug Freyburger rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >Actually, she's eaten *French& food all her life. You know, the >French paradox. The fact that the French are extremely healthy >because of the rich food they eat while Americans look at their >USDA food pyramid and wonder why the French don't drop like flies. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! That was a good one. :) Gee, at best the French paradox is a myth. And, if it exists at all, it is due to the consumption of red wine. Hark! My private health newsgroup beckons! -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the biopsychosocial model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages, Nutrition (http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now with more documentation and sharper terminology than ever before. > Once upon a time, our fellow MH > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Just thought that you might want to know. :) I understand, but I'd take Julia. However, both are admirable in their own way. They both started bringing exercise and health (Jack), food and cooking (Julia) to the masses. They were pioneers. Martha Once upon a time, our fellow John 'the Man' rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >A health role model means somebody that if you try to emulate will >provide you with direct health benefits. If the choice is between >Julia and Jack, I would go with Jack. :) I have found another role model. :) The name is Micky Snir. See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001789302_agecalories12m.html For picture and story. He is 5' 10" tall which is my height. He weighs 173 pounds, which is my weight goal. I have another 8 pounds to go. He body builds and looks pretty good. But, he claims to be on a CR diet. Micky is obviously at the upper end of the recommend weight for his height, if he is not overweight. :) He is also on at least one CR Yahoo Group, so I need to read his posts and see what kind of word game this guy is playing with CR. Micky has avoided the gaunt appearance and weakened bones typical of many of a calorie-restricted diet. Just thought that you might want to know. :) Once upon a time, our fellow MH rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >Julia Child is in her 90s. She doesn't do strenuous exercise, has eaten rich >foods all of her life. A lot depends upon one's attitude. A health role model means somebody that if you try to emulate will provide you with direct health benefits. If the choice is between Julia and Jack, I would go with Jack. :) Personally, I don't know what Julia looks like today or what her quality of life is. But, from what I have learned from studying the subject of health and longevity; Julia Child did everything wrong. So, she is still alive in my opinion purely for genetic reasons. Thus, her personal example is totally useless as a role model, IMHO. I have pictures and video of Jack LaLanne as to what he looks like today. I also know what my mother and father looked like at a decade younger when they died. The difference in quality of life between Jack and them is quite remarkable. And, there happens to be a very rational explanation for this. Research has proven exercise, over and over again. to be a universal cure all for all that ails you. There is simply one single activity that is universally more good for you than exercise is. So, if it there is one thing that anybody can do that will dramatically increase their odds of surviving with a high quality of life. It is exercise. It is certainly not eating a lot of French pastries and cake, IMHO. :) Next in line of health benefits is eating a healthy diet. But, as Jack often says: People who eat a perfect diet, but don't exercise look absolutely terrible. :) My experiences in life has shown me that there are a lot of stupid people walking around on planet Earth. The choice is yours. And, quite frankly I am very happy with my decision. :) Just thought that you might want to know. :) -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today. http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life. > Research has proven exercise, over and over again. to be a universal > cure all for all that ails you. There is simply one single activity > that is universally more good for you than exercise is. What kind of exercise? I bet it depends on the kind of exercise. I chose an exercise routine after giving it some considerable thought, that would make me look better, live better and longer. I walk 100 minutes per day, occasionally run and do calisthenics. (pullups, rope climbing, pushups, that sort of thing). I would love some feedback on this, based on facts. > So, if it there is one thing that anybody can do that will > dramatically increase their odds of surviving with a high quality of > life. It is exercise. It is certainly not eating a lot of French > pastries and cake, IMHO. :) Absolutely. i 223/177/180 Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14327 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >What kind of exercise? Not hatha yoga that is for sure! I am talking about physical exercise which means both anaerobic and aerobic activities. There are thousands of medline research abstracts to look over. High intensity exercise in the range of 6 to 12 METS is best. And, walking while better than nothing is next to nothing, especially in the intensity department. All CR research on mice used aerobic exercise, so I am inclined to believe that anaerobic exercise is key the key to a long life for a number of reasons. First, you can not get mice and rats to lift weights. So, anaerobic exercise has never been properly tested in CR research. Ergo, some combination of anaerobic and aerobic should in my opinion prolong life. Second, anaerobic exercise builds muscle mass. The ideal body weight is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly overweight is good, too. Searching in medline under wasting disease, muscle wasting, loss of lean body mass or sarcopenia, anorexia, and cancer cachexia provides the proof. As you age, sarcopenia naturally causes you to lose muscle mass. Anaerobic exercise builds up muscle mass and hence will counter the effects of sarcopenia. And, I guess that I should mention that there is a difference between young muscle bodybuilding jocks pumping iron and elderly people working out to counter the effects of aging. Exercise is a necessity for the old, not a luxury. All forms of physical exercise strengthens your immune system. Your immune system is what keeps naturally forming cancer cells in check. And, a strong immune system will be what finishes the job started by chemo and radiation therapy should you ever come down with cancer in the future. Having a normal body weight and strong immune system is vital for surviving cancer. -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today. http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life. > Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14327 > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > walking while better than nothing is next to nothing, especially in > the intensity department. What are these METS? > is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly > overweight is good, too. Searching in medline under wasting disease, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > working out to counter the effects of aging. Exercise is a necessity > for the old, not a luxury. Agreed. I like calisthenics myself, and lifting relatively light weights (say 35-50 lbs dumbbells). > All forms of physical exercise strengthens your immune system. Your > immune system is what keeps naturally forming cancer cells in check. that is completely wrong, as far as I am aware. immune system does not fight cancer cells. cells fight mutations via intracellular mechanisms (a sort of redundancy check done to the DNA). That checking mechanism is itself encoded in the DNA. As we age and our cells are exposed to mutagens and also mutate naturally, most mutations are caught by that mechanism. Now if a mutation causes the cell checking mechanism to stop working, nothing bad will happen right away. But if further mutations to the cell cause it to start reproducing without check, then you have cancer. I read a humongous (15+ lbs) textbook on cancer so I know what I am talking about, somewhat. Having a healthy immune system is wonderful and can help you recover from cancer therapy, but, alas, it does not prevent cancer. > And, a strong immune system will be what finishes the job started by > chemo and radiation therapy should you ever come down with cancer in > the future. Having a normal body weight and strong immune system is > vital for surviving cancer. Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14327 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >that is completely wrong, as far as I am aware. >immune system does not fight cancer cells. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/7_2.htm http://www.cancer-success.com/immune_system.htm http://press2.nci.nih.gov/sciencebehind/immune/immune31.htm http://www.cancerresearch.org/immhow.html Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Yes, I do not believe in playing words games. -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today. http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/ Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life. John 'the Man' at DeMan@ffMD.com nattered about .... > High intensity exercise in the range of 6 to 12 METS is best. And, What's METS SignatureKitty =^..^= 1 oz nuts MAX .. NO MORE KITTY!!!!! 168/160/130 November Goal 155 September 17 2003 Once upon a time, our fellow Qiltkitty rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> High intensity exercise in the range of 6 to 12 METS is best. And, >What's METS METs: One "metabolic equivalent" is the amount of oxygen used by an average seated person. It is a popular measure of exercise intensity that is often found displayed on varius types of exercise machines. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7 707624&dopt=Abstract > Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14327 > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not hatha yoga that is for sure! Ignorance is a badge of honour for you isn't it. > I am talking about physical exercise > which means both anaerobic and aerobic activities. There are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > walking while better than nothing is next to nothing, especially in > the intensity department. But if you want to burn fat specifically rather than just calories, walking is a very good way to do it. > All CR research on mice used aerobic exercise, so I am inclined to > believe that anaerobic exercise is key the key to a long life for a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Second, anaerobic exercise builds muscle mass. You don't actually know what anaerobic exercise means do you? > The ideal body weight > is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly > overweight is good, too. Searching in medline under wasting disease, > muscle wasting, loss of lean body mass or sarcopenia, anorexia, and > cancer cachexia provides the proof. The only proof that provides is that a sustained catabolic state is bad for health, it says nothing about extra weight being good for health. > And, I guess that I should mention that there is a difference between > young muscle bodybuilding jocks pumping iron and elderly people > working out to counter the effects of aging. Exercise is a necessity > for the old, not a luxury. > > All forms of physical exercise strengthens your immune system. Unless you're a athlete. Intensive athletic training depresses the immune system. MattLB Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> Not hatha yoga that is for sure! >Ignorance is a badge of honour for you isn't it. Hatha yoga belongs in the attitude department. It is not classified as Western style physical exercise, even if has secondary physical effects on the human body. Just thought that you might want to know. :) >But if you want to burn fat specifically rather than just calories, >walking is a very good way to do it. I was not writing about burning calories. Just thought that you might want to know. :) >> Second, anaerobic exercise builds muscle mass. >You don't actually know what anaerobic exercise means do you? As explained in my tutorials, you don't necessarily need to know how something works in order to obtain benefit from it. :) Just thought that you might want to know. :) >> The ideal body weight >> is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly >> overweight is good, too. Searching in medline under wasting disease, >> muscle wasting, loss of lean body mass or sarcopenia, anorexia, and >> cancer cachexia provides the proof. >The only proof that provides is that a sustained catabolic state is bad >for health, it says nothing about extra weight being good for health. It shows that you are dead without it, in short order. Just thought that you might want to know. :) >> All forms of physical exercise strengthens your immune system. >Unless you're a athlete. Intensive athletic training depresses the >immune system. So, you are saying that people need to be a card carrying member of the athlete's union before they can exercise? Only the strongly pushed excessive aerobic activities like running in marathons and tri-athletic competitions depresses the immune system. You can engage in intensive physical exercise moderately. I recall that one reasonable exercise goal to achieve is 50 mets a week which can be achieve at 10 hours a week at the rate of 5 mets an hour or in 5 hours a week at the rate of 10 mets an hour. I, of course, got this figure from a recent 2002/2003 research study. Just thought that you might want to know. :) -- John Gohde, Achieving good Health is an Art, NOT a Science! Health-with-Attitude is a support group for people trying to follow a Healthy Lifestyle. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health-with-Attitude/ > Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." > Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... > >> The ideal body weight > >> is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Just thought that you might want to know. :) It looks like John got fat with middle-age spread and found a way to rationalize that it's healthy!! Just so you know that we know. :P Once upon a time, our fellow RK rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >It looks like John got fat with middle-age spread and found a way to >rationalize that it's healthy!! Actually, I am starting to look like a Greek god. Just thought that you might want to know. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow RK > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Just thought that you might want to know. :) Always remember that the Greek gods included ones like Vulcan and Bacchus. Nothing about you. I'm just saying is all. Priscilla > Once upon a time, our fellow RK > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Just thought that you might want to know. :) Here's a link to a picture of Bachus: http://www.alcoholmd.com/fam/facts/downers/P5-1_1.jpg Here's Ares, below, not immensely fat but not so buff either. In fact it looks like he's struggling to pull his pot-belly in. http://waltm.net/ares.htm Actually studies of Spanish-American war veterans confirmed your slightly-overweight-is-good hypothesis, even when those with diseases causing low weight were factored out, but only up to ages in the mid-nineties. Beyond that age, low end of the weight-range apparently correlated with longer life. > > Once upon a time, our fellow RK > > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Here's a link to a picture of Bachus: Bacchus is actually from Roman mythology. It is thought to be the Roman name for Dionysus, the Greek God. Here is a pic: http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Dionysus2.html. > http://www.alcoholmd.com/fam/facts/downers/P5-1_1.jpg > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > mid-nineties. Beyond that age, low end of the weight-range apparently > correlated with longer life. > Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > as Western style physical exercise, even if has secondary physical > effects on the human body. What has classification go to do with it? Are martial arts not exercise because they aren't Western style either? Hatha Yoga is physical Yoga, as opposed to other types of Yoga which are mental/spiritual. > >But if you want to burn fat specifically rather than just calories, > >walking is a very good way to do it. > > I was not writing about burning calories. You were talking about METS, so you were. > >> The ideal body weight > >> is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It shows that you are dead without it, in short order. Wasting diseases aren't short order, they're slow and lingering. And wasting diseases still don't give any insight into being overweight. > >> All forms of physical exercise strengthens your immune system. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So, you are saying that people need to be a card carrying member of > the athlete's union before they can exercise? No, I'm not saying that at all. You've imagined it. You said all forms of physical exercise strengthen the immune system, I said intensive athletic training does the opposite. > Only the strongly pushed excessive aerobic activities like running in > marathons and tri-athletic competitions depresses the > immune system. > > You can engage in intensive physical exercise moderately. Oxymoron. MattLB Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> >> Not hatha yoga that is for sure! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> as Western style physical exercise, even if has secondary physical >> effects on the human body. >What has classification go to do with it? Everything! Perhaps if you to study the subject? And, I am still waiting for you to tell me what the METs values for several yoga positions. :) I am waiting with bated breath. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! >You were talking about METS, so you were. Perhaps if you were to concentrate? The subject is exercise intensity: Not the best method for losing weight. >> >> The ideal body weight >> >> is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> It shows that you are dead without it, in short order. >Wasting diseases aren't short order, they're slow and lingering. And >wasting diseases still don't give any insight into being overweight. Excuse me old academic fool, but how can the ideal body weight be overweight? Kind of an oxymoron don't you think? Or is that your problem: not thinking? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! >No, I'm not saying that at all. You've imagined it. >You said all forms of physical exercise strengthen the immune system, I >said intensive athletic training does the opposite. Oh that is right. I forgot that I was talking to an A-Hole who only knows how to play word games. Please excuse me for assuming that you had some intelligence. I must have been mistaken? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! >> Only the strongly pushed excessive aerobic activities like running in >> marathons and tri-athletic competitions depresses the >> immune system. >> >> You can engage in intensive physical exercise moderately. >Oxymoron. Nope! 50 MET hours longed in one week is not excessive. Just thought that you might want to know. :) > >> Hatha yoga belongs in the attitude department. It is not classified > >> as Western style physical exercise, even if has secondary physical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Everything! Perhaps if you to study the subject? Study the subject of classification? To what end? Muscle activation is muscle activation whether it's a rowing machine or a Yoga pose. > And, I am still waiting for you to tell me what the METs values for > several yoga positions. :) Why are you waiting for something you didn't ask for? > I am waiting with bated breath. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! > > >You were talking about METS, so you were. > > Perhaps if you were to concentrate? The subject is exercise > intensity: Not the best method for losing weight. You have a choice now between troll and clueless. > >> >> The ideal body weight > >> >> is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Excuse me old academic fool, but how can the ideal body weight be > overweight? Did you forget the bit where you said "slightly overweight is good too"? > Kind of an oxymoron don't you think? Oh, you looked it up then. > >No, I'm not saying that at all. You've imagined it. > >You said all forms of physical exercise strengthen the immune system, I > >said intensive athletic training does the opposite. > > Oh that is right. Yes it is. > >> Only the strongly pushed excessive aerobic activities like running in > >> marathons and tri-athletic competitions depresses the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Nope! 50 MET hours longed in one week is not excessive. So now you think intensity is about time rather than effort do you? MattLB Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> And, I am still waiting for you to tell me what the METs values for >> several yoga positions. :) >Why are you waiting for something you didn't ask for? You must think that everybody is stupid or something. Sorry, but you are a Liar. :) http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030521095329.05629.00000059%40mb-m04.wmco nnect.com&output=gplain "Pick any form of yoga that you like, MattLB. Name a few yoga postures and their METS. Hint, I am not referring to the Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard. I will be waiting for your fool response with bated breath. :(" Just thought that you might want to know. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030521095329.05629.00000059%40mb-m04.wmco nnect.com&output=gplain Silly me, I didn't realise you'd been waiting since May for an answer I'd already given. Try and stick to the thread in hand. MattLB Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >Silly me, I didn't realise you'd been waiting since May for an answer >I'd already given. Try and stick to the thread in hand. The answers that MattLB gave me was. MattLB is stupid. MattLB is just an academic prick. MattLB doesn't know what he is talking about. MattLB didn't want to provide the METs because they were in the 1.2 to 1.3 METs range. Thanks for refreshing my memory, MattLB. Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> >Wasting diseases aren't short order, they're slow and lingering. And >> >wasting diseases still don't give any insight into being overweight. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Did you forget the bit where you said "slightly overweight is good too"? I will repeat for the benefit of the intellectually challenged on these ngs. If being slightly overweight, per standard weight tables, is the ideal body weight; how can the ideal body weight be overweight when your weight is all muscle and no fat? Please tell us Matti Boy so that we may all learn from your stupidity. :) > If being slightly overweight, per standard weight tables, is the ideal > body weight Then the standard weight tables are wrong. No surprise there. Standard weight tables published by insurance companies are often siad to be around ten pounds off. Just because some yahoo wrote a number in a standard table doesn't make that table holy writ. Even if that yahoo was a PhD with several decades of study in the field. Understanding of weight changes over time. Last decade's ideal doesn't have to be this decade's ideal. When the understanding changes over time, old tables no longer give the best answer. Plain old advance of technology and science. Or plain old mistakes. Once upon a time, our fellow Doug Freyburger rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >Just because some yahoo wrote a number in a standard table doesn't make >that table holy writ. Even if that yahoo was a PhD with several decades >of study in the field. Well there it is MattLB, you have been out voted. :) > because they aren't Western style either? Hatha Yoga is physical Yoga, > as opposed to other types of Yoga which are mental/spiritual. heh .. you break out in a sweat in hatha yoga .. it's not all about deep breathing and reaching your inner self SignatureKitty =^..^= 168/156.6/130 - November Goal 155 17 September 03 Once upon a time, our fellow Qilt rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> because they aren't Western style either? Hatha Yoga is physical Yoga, >> as opposed to other types of Yoga which are mental/spiritual. >heh .. you break out in a sweat in hatha yoga .. it's not all about deep >breathing and reaching your inner self And, the METs for hatha yoga? > >> because they aren't Western style either? Hatha Yoga is physical Yoga, > >> as opposed to other types of Yoga which are mental/spiritual. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And, the METs for hatha yoga? Personally I don't care about the METs for hatha yoga .. so I'm not included to look it up .. I use it for stretching, toning and relaxation .. SignatureKitty =^..^= 168/156.6/130 - November Goal 155 17 September 03 caloric needs visit http://www.femalemuscle.com/nutrition/calculate.html Once upon a time, our fellow Qilt rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> >heh .. you break out in a sweat in hatha yoga .. it's not all about deep >> >breathing and reaching your inner self [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Personally I don't care about the METs for hatha yoga .. so I'm not >included to look it up .. I use it for stretching, toning and relaxation Personally, I think YOUR comments are so much hot air. :) I, also, know a few yoga experts who would claim that you are *not* doing yoga. And, I would be inclined to agree. If you are huffing and puffing, you certainly are not doing yoga properly. Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual! > Personally, I think YOUR comments are so much hot air. :) as you said .. "personally" > I, also, know a few yoga experts who would claim that you are *not* > doing yoga. And, I would be inclined to agree. If you are huffing > and puffing, you certainly are not doing yoga properly. I didn't say I was huffing and puffing .. did you see me say that anywhere?? You are reading facts not in evidence. What I did say, copied from my sent file is "heh .. you break out in a sweat in hatha yoga .. it's not all about deep breathing and reaching your inner self" you do dog down (phonetically spelt) for 5 - 10 minutes when you've never done it before and tell me you don't break out into a sweat. Oh and add to that recovering from back injuries. > Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual! as you said .. your "opinion" I rest my case! SignatureKitty =^..^= 168/156.6/130 - November Goal 155 17 September 03 caloric needs visit http://www.femalemuscle.com/nutrition/calculate.html Once upon a time, our fellow Qilt rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >I didn't say I was huffing and puffing .. did you see me say that >anywhere?? You are reading facts not in evidence. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"heh .. you break out in a sweat in hatha yoga .. it's not all about >deep breathing and reaching your inner self" YOU are not doing YOGA. And, YOU don't know what you are talking about. :) Just thought that you might want to know. :) Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I am off to another rewarding exercise session. Thank you for making my day and workout. :) > YOU are not doing YOGA. And, YOU don't know what you are talking > about. :) I never claimed to KNOW .. I stated what MY experience was .. (@@) <- rolling eyes. Are you a certified yoga instructor?? Have you taken the tests / courses that are required of certified yoga instructors to GET licensed to teach / train?? Please also note .. I said it wasn't ALL about ... Read before you jump on reply and hit send .. > Just thought that you might want to know. :) From what I've read so far about what you "know" .. I'm happier in my given state And this is your enlightening response from what I said .. I see no relevance ... or intelligence in your answer .. I noticed that there was NO reponse to the dog down movement .. case and point! again copied from my sent file ... "you do dog down (phonetically spelt) for 5 - 10 minutes when you've never done it before and tell me you don't break out into a sweat. Oh and add to that recovering from back injuries." More like I did not did too sort of response .. thanx for the "intellectual stimulation / conversation" ... NOT .. ~~~ previous post that YOU decided to answer from~~~ >I didn't say I was huffing and puffing .. did you see me say that >anywhere?? You are reading facts not in evidence. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"heh .. you break out in a sweat in hatha yoga .. it's not all about >deep breathing and reaching your inner self" SignatureKitty =^..^= 168/156.6/130 - November Goal 155 17 September 03 caloric needs visit http://www.femalemuscle.com/nutrition/calculate.html Once upon a time, our fellow Qilt rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >I didn't say I was huffing and puffing .. did you see me say that >anywhere?? You are reading facts not in evidence. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"heh .. you break out in a sweat in hatha yoga .. it's not all about >deep breathing and reaching your inner self" The one thing that I have noticed the most on these internet newsgroups and Lists is that there are an awful lot of very big mouth individuals spouting off at the mouth who don't have a clue as to what they are talking about simply because they are constantly using very mushy terminology. I have thoroughly researched this topic on the yoga ngs. And, you are truly an idiot. "... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN. -- Mental illness happens to be real, live and well on these ngs. Or, is it just a case of TOTALLY STUPID PEOPLE? http://www.redflagsweekly.com/regushpeople.html > >I didn't say I was huffing and puffing .. did you see me say that > >anywhere?? You are reading facts not in evidence. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I have thoroughly researched this topic on the yoga ngs. And, you are > truly an idiot. read what I wrote you neanderthal research is NOT training and creditials and a LICENSE!!! you also snipped about about the first time I did a certain move and RECOVERING from back injuries .. little bit more on THAT subject ... hmm .. might mean the muscle hasn't been used as much as it should, it's out of shape, needs to be built up .. Add to that a 5'2" woman at 168Lbs that hasn't done ANY ANY ANY physical exericse almost 4 months due to a medical grounding! Get it yet??? and it was MY MY MY MY MY MY experience! 'nuff said! now go away! SignatureKitty =^..^= 168/156.6/130 - November Goal 155 17 September 03 caloric needs visit http://www.femalemuscle.com/nutrition/calculate.html Once upon a time, our fellow Qilt rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >read what I wrote you neanderthal I am smart! I don't read what neanderthal's write. Just thought that you might want to know. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow Qilt > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." > Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... > > >I didn't say I was huffing and puffing .. did you see me say that > >anywhere?? You are reading facts not in evidence. As usual. > >What I did say, copied from my sent file is > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they are talking about simply because they are constantly using very > mushy terminology. Take a bow, John 'the Man'. > I have thoroughly researched this topic on the yoga ngs. And, you are > truly an idiot. You've shown how little you know about Yoga in the past and if you're claiming your current comments are based on thorough research, then you are the most incompetent researcher it's possible to imagine. MattLB Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >You've shown how little you know about Yoga From what I have seen, only wimps and losers like MattLB think that they are working out when they do Yoga. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Yoga is an exercise for the mind, it has benefits for your breathing and for your spine. It is about time that you stopped being a wimp, MattLB. Just thought that you might want to know. :) Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >You've shown how little you know about Yoga When you advocate doing Yoga, you are advocating alternative medicine, magic, and Quackery. MattLB does YOGA because he is a firm believer in Chi and personal auras and invisible energy floods around his body. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just thought that you might want to know. :) John 'the Man' fantasized again: > Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > When you advocate doing Yoga, you are advocating alternative medicine, > magic, and Quackery. Is this what your 'thorough' research tells you? I think it's safe to assume all your non-Yoga research is of the same standard and therefore worthless. > MattLB does YOGA because he is a firm believer in Chi and personal > auras and invisible energy floods around his body. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Energy floods? MattLB Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> auras and invisible energy floods around his body. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! > >Energy floods? You tell me Matti Boy. Tell me how your magical yoga increases your physical fitness without having to do anything other than standing on your head? Maybe that is your problem, boy? Been standing on your pointed head way too long? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >You've shown how little you know about Yoga Tells us MattLB how YOGA works it magic? Please tell us scientists how you can get the benefits of physical exercise without actually working your butt off, ... MattLB. Please tell us about this magic so that we all can have a good laugh at your expense, ... MattLB. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I am laughing at you already. Just thought that you might want to know. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Please tell us scientists So your delusions have reached as far as thinking you're a scientist now? > how you can get the benefits of physical > exercise without actually working your butt off, ... MattLB. Is your knowledge of physiology really this bad? There's no magic John, just straightforward stretching and physical exertion. There's no need to believe in chakras, auras or anything mystical to get the health benefits of Yoga postures. Like I've told you before, you need physical strength and stamina to maintain some of the postures, strength you probably won't have if your only idea of exercise involves puffing and panting. METs are about calorie consumption, not about muscle physiology. > Please tell us about this magic so that we all can have a good laugh > at your expense, ... MattLB. > > Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I am laughing at you already. Like that means anything. You're always laughing, it's a symptom of your illness. MattLB Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> >You've shown how little you know about Yoga >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >So your delusions have reached as far as thinking you're a scientist >now? For the benefit of the intellectually changed Geeks in this audience, the word 'us' is plural. I have found out how the magic of yoga works. Yoga is very effective at changing the 'perceived exertion' scores. In other words, it is *all* in Matti Boys mind. :( In *all* valid studies that test yoga against standard Western style physical exercise any improvements from Yoga were shown to be totally insignificant. :) >> how you can get the benefits of physical >> exercise without actually working your butt off, ... MattLB. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >panting. METs are about calorie consumption, not about muscle >physiology. First of all Matti Boy, METs are quantitative measure of the physical reality of exercise intensity rather than calorie consumption. Low intensity exercise burns up calories, too. Since you claim to be an expert on muscle physiology state the mechanisms by which yoga works its magic in your mind. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I repeat Dim Wit, tell us the precise physical mode of action whereby yoga improves physical strength and stamina. Next, cite the citations of research that shows that yoga was more effective at increasing physical strength and stamina than Western style exercise. The question is not whether Yoga can improve physical strength and stamina, but whether or not intense physical exercise can improve it best. :) I fully realize that advocates, in their own mind, believe that they are exercising with YOGA. Since I live in the physical realm of existence, I know that anything is better than nothing. And, yoga is certainly right next to doing nothing in my book. :) I repeat, Matti Boy, cite the citations of research that shows that yoga was more effective at increasing physical strength and stamina than Western style exercise. Time counts Matti Boy. So shows us the proof that Yoga produces faster results. Then show us evidence that METs are not a valid measure of increased physical strength and stamina. I will be waiting with bated breath. > >> Please tell us scientists > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > For the benefit of the intellectually changed Geeks in this audience, > the word 'us' is plural. Yes and inclusive in the context you used it, but you're not included in the group 'scientist'. > In *all* valid studies that test yoga against standard Western style > physical exercise any improvements from Yoga were shown to be totally > insignificant. :) Improvements in what? > >> how you can get the benefits of physical > >> exercise without actually working your butt off, ... MattLB. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > reality of exercise intensity rather than calorie consumption. Low > intensity exercise burns up calories, too. And has a lower MET score. Can you see the connection? > Since you claim to be an expert on muscle physiology state the > mechanisms by which yoga works its magic in your mind. Ha, ... Hah, > Ha! > > I repeat Dim Wit, tell us the precise physical mode of action whereby > yoga improves physical strength and stamina. Holding poses requires muscle contraction. If the pose is hard to maintain, the current strength of the muscle is obviously inadequate, so there is muscle adaptation to compensate and you get stronger. This is really not all that different to 'Western' isometric exercise. As for stamina, the deep controlled breathing improves ventilation in the lungs and increases the capacity for removal of CO2. All the stretching improves the general health and efficiency of the muscles and tendons too. > Next, cite the citations of research that shows that yoga was more > effective at increasing physical strength and stamina than Western > style exercise. You're running off on your own here. I never made any such claims, just refuted your claims that Yoga was next to useless. > The question is not whether Yoga can improve physical strength and > stamina, but whether or not intense physical exercise can improve it > best. :) Careful while you're backpedalling, you might trip over. > Then show us evidence that METs are not a valid measure of increased > physical strength and stamina. That's easy. 1 MET is equal to 1 calorie burned per kilogram of body weight per hour. It says nothing about strength or cardiovascular fitness, just how many calories are burnt by a particular exercise. The higher the MET a person can sustain the fitter they are, but it still says nothing about how strong they are. MattLB Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... A long and detailed response follows throughout this post. I unlike Matti Boy cite full citations and other third party sources to support my positions. :) As I already went through this nonsense on my Yahoo Mailing List with our Bicker, I simply copied most of my comments from previous posts. >> For the benefit of the intellectually changed Geeks in this audience, >> the word 'us' is plural. >Yes and inclusive in the context you used it, but you're not included in >the group 'scientist'. I will repeat it once again, ... 'for the benefit of the scientists in our audience.' Do you often have a problem comprehending the meaning of sentences, Matti Boy? >> In *all* valid studies that test yoga against standard Western style >> physical exercise any improvements from Yoga were shown to be totally >> insignificant. :) > >Improvements in what? Don't you know what exercise improves? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Perhaps, if you were to concentrate? Campbell JF, Stenstrom RJ, Bertrand D. Systematic changes in perceptual reactance induced by physical fitness training. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3\ 900922&dopt=Abstract Percept Mot Skills. 1985 Aug;61(1):279-84. PMID: 3900922 ABSTRACT: "Subjects completing fitness training, all of whom were initially classified as augmenters, became reducers by the end of their program. Subjects enrolled in yoga and meditation courses remained relatively stable in their perceptual tendencies." Blumenthal JA, Emery CF, Madden DJ. Cardiovascular and behavioral effects of aerobic exercise training in healthy older men and women. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2\ 768768&dopt=Abstract J Gerontol. 1989 Sep;44(5):M147-57. PMID: 2768768 ABSTRACT: "This study demonstrated that 4 months of aerobic exercise training produced an overall 11.6% improvement in peak VO2 and a 13% increase in anaerobic threshold. In contrast, the Yoga and Waiting List control groups experienced no change in cardiorespiratory fitness. Other favorable physiological changes observed among aerobic exercise participants included lower cholesterol levels, diastolic blood pressure levels, and for subjects at risk for bone fracture, a trend toward an increase in bone mineral content." I don't see any evidence here that Yoga is more effective than our Western Aerobic and Anaerobic Exercises are at improving overall physical fitness. The primary reason people exercise for health reasons is to avoid heart problems. METs are primarily associated with aerobic activities that promote heart health. These types of activities build aerobic endurance rather than strength. METs are a measure of exercise intensity, something that you are trying very much to avoid. The higher the exercise intensity the better the exercise is at avoiding death from heart conditions. Every 50 met-h/wk was associated with a 26% reduction of risk of CHD. So working out at 5 METs would take 10 hours a week, while working harder at 10 MET would let you accomplish this goal in only 5 hours of work. Who says so, a study published the prestigious JAMA says so? Many other studies during 2002 and 2003 have proven that exercise intensity counts more than exercise duration. :) Tanasescu M, Leitzmann MF, Rimm EB. Exercise type and intensity in relation to coronary heart disease in men. http://www.fchn.org/fmh/wmchh/articles/oct/exercise_type_intesity_cad_men.pdf JAMA. 2002 Oct 23-30;288(16):1994-2000. PMID: 12387651 High intensity exercise starts at 6 mets. Brisk walking stops at 4 METs. Jogging at 5 miles per hour starts at 8 METs. While running at 7 miles per hour starts at 11.5 METs. These METs figures are for a 150 pound person on a level grade. Body building exercises build muscle mass. When you body build for health reasons the primary objective is building muscle mass rather than just strength. >And has a lower MET score. Can you see the connection? I will repeat it again, my only interest in METs are that they are a quantitative measure of exercise intensity. I saw MET displays on the exercise machines at my gym. I did not know what they met. So, I researched the issue. :) The most important component of a sound exercise prescription for aerobic fitness is the level of exercise intensity. The prescribed level of intensity must be sufficient to overload your cardiovascular system, but not so severe that you over do it. Unfortunately, many adults - particularly those just starting an exercise program - have difficulty estimating the intensity of exercise needed to produce improvements in their aerobic fitness levels. In past decades, the aerobic exercise goal was set at achieving about 80 percent of your maximal heart rate. Now, the focus is on METs (metabolic equivalent tasks). Whats a MET? A MET or metabolic equivalent, is a way of expressing the rate of energy expenditure for a given physical activity. Specifically, one MET is equal to resting VO2 (volume of oxygen used) which is approximately 3.5 ml (oxygen) per kilogram (body weight) per minute. All physical activities can be classified on the basis of oxygen requirements. The amount of oxygen your body consumes is directly proportional to the energy you expend during the activity. At rest, your body consumes approximately 3.5 ml of oxygen per kilogram of body weight per minute. The resting level of oxygen consumption is referred to as l.0 MET. Thus, an eight-MET level would equal eight times the amount of oxygen you use at rest. >> Since you claim to be an expert on muscle physiology state the >> mechanisms by which yoga works its magic in your mind. Ha, ... Hah, >> Ha! >> I repeat Dim Wit, tell us the precise physical mode of action whereby >> yoga improves physical strength and stamina. >Holding poses requires muscle contraction. If the pose is hard to >maintain, the current strength of the muscle is obviously inadequate, so >there is muscle adaptation to compensate and you get stronger. This is >really not all that different to 'Western' isometric exercise. Gee, there is really a lot of muscle contraction required in the Lotus position. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! As you already have pointed out, at best only some positions require muscle contraction as a side benefit of yoga. I will repeat: http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/Y0022400.html "Yoga --Hindu discipline aimed at training the consciousness for a state of perfect spiritual insight and tranquillity." >As for >stamina, the deep controlled breathing improves ventilation in the lungs >and increases the capacity for removal of CO2. All the stretching >improves the general health and efficiency of the muscles and tendons >too. Stamina is more effectively provided, per the studies above, per Western-style aerobic activities. Just thought that you might want to know. :) Stretching is a normal part of Western-style workouts. Just thought that you might want to know. :) >> Next, cite the citations of research that shows that yoga was more >> effective at increasing physical strength and stamina than Western >> style exercise. > >You're running off on your own here. I never made any such claims, just >refuted your claims that Yoga was next to useless. Sorry to inform you, but YOGA when performed correctly is next to useless in the exercise department. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=yoga "Yoga --Hindu discipline aimed at training the consciousness for a state of perfect spiritual insight and tranquillity." http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=yoga&matchtype=exact "Yoga --any set of [yoga] exercises involving the postures, meditation, and breathing techniques of this discipline." http://www.bartleby.com/61/28/H0082825.html hatha yoga "A form of yogic exercise that emphasizes specific postures in combination with controlled breathing. It is widely practiced in the West." I made a specific health claim. I was asked to define what kind of exercise provided these kinds of health benefits. I simply answered the question. Yoga is positively not that type of exercise is any more than slow walking is. My objective was to effectively communicate what is guaranteed 100% to improve physical fitness in an efficient manner with a minimal amount of confusion. As well as in a minimal amount of time. :) A major problem with YOGA is that there are numerous forms of Yoga, all of which IMHO will only serve to confuse the average person. Next, YOGA often cannot be separated from religion. This is called Matti Boy wasting a lot of time researching yoga. I have no doubt that Yoga can be good for your health. I simply don't have any evidence that Yoga is more effective then our Western Aerobic and Anaerobic Exercises are at improving overall physical fitness. Nor, do I see the practicality of getting involved in a long study of the various forms of yoga when something as simple as walking and jogging has been conclusively proven to improve your level of fitness. >> The question is not whether Yoga can improve physical strength and >> stamina, but whether or not intense physical exercise can improve it >> best. :) >Careful while you're backpedalling, you might trip over. Sorry, but I don't recommend wimpy activities like yoga. >> Then show us evidence that METs are not a valid measure of increased >> physical strength and stamina. >That's easy. 1 MET is equal to 1 calorie burned per kilogram of body >weight per hour. It says nothing about strength or cardiovascular >fitness, just how many calories are burnt by a particular exercise. The >higher the MET a person can sustain the fitter they are, but it still >says nothing about how strong they are. And, what about stamina? Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... CORRECTION! >> >You've shown how little you know about Yoga >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >So your delusions have reached as far as thinking you're a scientist >now? For the benefit of the intellectually challenged Geeks in this audience, the word 'us' is plural. I have found out how the magic of yoga works. Yoga is very effective at changing 'perceived exertion' scores. In other words, it is *all* in Matti Boys mind. :( In *all* valid studies that test yoga against standard Western style physical exercise any improvements from Yoga were shown to be totally insignificant. :) >> how you can get the benefits of physical >> exercise without actually working your butt off, ... MattLB. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >panting. METs are about calorie consumption, not about muscle >physiology. First of all Matti Boy, METs are a quantitative measure of the physical reality of exercise intensity rather than calorie consumption. Low intensity exercise burns up calories, too. Since you claim to be an expert on muscle physiology state the mechanisms by which yoga works its magic in your mind. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I repeat Dim Wit, tell us the precise physical mode of action whereby yoga improves physical strength and stamina. Next, cite the citations of research that shows that yoga was more effective at increasing physical strength and stamina than Western style exercise. The question is not whether Yoga can improve physical strength and stamina, but whether or not intense physical exercise can improve it better. :) I fully realize that yoga advocates, in their own mind, believe that they are exercising with YOGA. Since I live in the physical realm of existence, I know that anything is better than nothing. And, yoga is certainly right next to doing nothing in my book. :) I repeat, Matti Boy, cite citations of research that shows that yoga was more effective at increasing physical strength and stamina than Western style exercise. Time counts Matti Boy! So shows us the proof that Yoga produces faster results. Then show us evidence that METs are not a valid measure of increased physical strength and stamina. I repeat again, provide the METs of any yoga position of your choice. Give us your best shot, Matti Boy! I will be waiting with bated breath. Once upon a time, our fellow John 'the Man' rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >>There's no need >>to believe in chakras, auras or anything mystical to get the health >>benefits of Yoga [postures]. Like I've told you before, you need physical >>strength and stamina to maintain [some] of the postures, Emphasis is on postures and some. :) We all know that yoga is an Eastern practice. And, we all know about Eastern thought processes. They are not remotely scientific. Just thought that you might want to know. :) Specific yoga postures are supposed to work magic in the invisible world on invisible energy flows and chi. Just thought that you might want to know. :) Finally, Matti Boy points out that only some postures require physical strength. I would maintain after conversing with a few yoga experts that anybody who requires physical strength to maintain a yoga posture is admitting to performing that yoga posture incorrectly. :) Yes boys and girls, those get a work out from yoga are neither exercising nor doing yoga correctly. :) Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual! > Once upon a time, our fellow John 'the Man' > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual! Eh, I still think it's more exercize than you'd get from sitting and watching tv. I don't do yoga, myself, but I love to stretch. I don't see why yoga couldn't be a _part_ of an excersize regimen. I remember reading an article on how we lose the fine tuning in our balancing muscles as we age, because we spend less time walking along rails and other stuff like that, which kids do all the time. I bet yoga would help with that too. And learning how to hold poses is essential in ballet, one of the reasons why ballet dancers carry themselves so well and have such good posture, so I bet that would be another benefit of yoga as well. Signature-Michelle Levin (Luna) http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14327 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> Research has proven exercise, over and over again. to be a universal >> cure all for all that ails you. There is simply one single activity >> that is universally more good for you than exercise is. >What kind of exercise? I bet it depends on the kind of exercise. This is the original post and comment that I replied to. And, the answer is YES it does depend on the kind of exercise. Research has proven Western Style Exercise, over and over again. to be a universal cure all for all that ails you. There is simply not one single activity that is more universally more good for you than Western Style Exercise. Yoga is definitely not that kind of exercise. And, all the wishful thinking in the world is not going to make it so. > Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14327 > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Yoga is definitely not that kind of exercise. And, all the wishful > thinking in the world is not going to make it so. what is western style exercise? i >> Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14327 >> rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >i Roping cattle, raising barns, etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sooner or later, all of our names wind up on a Post-It. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > On 18 Nov 2003 21:02:06 GMT, Ignoramus4244 >>> Research has proven Western Style Exercise, over and over again. to be >>> a universal cure all for all that ails you. There is simply not one >>what is western style exercise? > Roping cattle, raising barns, etc. I see. I thought that pressing buttons on a remote TV control was western style exercise. i >> On 18 Nov 2003 21:02:06 GMT, Ignoramus4244 >>>> Research has proven Western Style Exercise, over and over again. to be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >i No, looking for the remote is western style exercise. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sooner or later, all of our names wind up on a Post-It. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> On 18 Nov 2003 21:02:06 GMT, Ignoramus4244 >>>>> Research has proven Western Style Exercise, over and over again. to be [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No, looking for the remote is western style exercise. Do you think that pressing remote control buttons is aerobic or anaerobic exercise? i Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus4244 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> No, looking for the remote is western style exercise. > >Do you think that pressing remote control buttons is aerobic or >anaerobic exercise? I think that would qualify as yoga. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! > >what is western style exercise? > > > >i > > Roping cattle, raising barns, etc. LOL..... Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus4244 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> Yoga is definitely not that kind of exercise. And, all the wishful >> thinking in the world is not going to make it so. > >what is western style exercise? http://www.iyoga.com/iyisf/yoga.html "Q: How does Iyengar hatha yoga differ from western style exercise, such as calisthenics or aerobics? A: Western-style exercise tends to focus on achieving a goal, such as touching the toes ten times. Iyengar hatha yoga places much less emphasis on goals. rather, it encourages students to finely tune the manner in which they move. The extreme concentration which such close observation requires draws your attention inward, quieting and integrating mind and body." Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Actually, western style exercise is a bit more strenuous than bending over and touching your toes. :) But, if Iyengar hatha yoga places even less emphases on reaching such a hard goal then Ha, ... Hah, Ha! LOL Rolling on the floor busting my guts out laughing at people who actually think that they are exercising with yoga. Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus4244 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> Yoga is definitely not that kind of exercise. And, all the wishful >> thinking in the world is not going to make it so. > >what is western style exercise? http://www.balticsww.com/tourist/latvia/exercise.htm "A+S: (C-5) Lacplesa 60, tel. 728-9516. An excellent Western-style health club for aerobics and weight-lifting. Friendly service." Yep, ... now that is Western-style physical exercise. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus4244 > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yep, ... now that is Western-style physical exercise. :) Get it on with an UN-broken filly and get a good Bucking!! LOL! B-0b1 Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus4244 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> Yoga is definitely not that kind of exercise. And, all the wishful >> thinking in the world is not going to make it so. > >what is western style exercise? ~ Physical Exercise, Health and Fitness ~ http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/exercise.html "This healing therapy is positively not referring to hatha yoga." Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual! Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus4244 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> Yoga is definitely not that kind of exercise. And, all the wishful >> thinking in the world is not going to make it so. > >what is western style exercise? Did you hear the one about the world-wide obesity pandemic? Yeah, ... Somebody had actually sold these FatSo's on yoga being a form of physical exercise. They bought the Sizzle, but didn't get the steak! Ha, ... Hah, Ha! If you want to make money in America, simply write a book on how yoga is called physical exercise that will improve health. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! News at 11 o'clock. >This post is inspired in part by Dr Roy Walford's 120 year diet book. >It advocates, based on Roy Walford's and others' exeriments with [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >i >223/176/180 Every time I reach my 'ideal weight' I get knocked up :D HD has asked that I stay at least 10 above ... isn't that sweet of him? LOL I doubt you will have that problem though! ~Kat "Rice Krispies. East meets west" Cosmo Kramer > Every time I reach my 'ideal weight' I get knocked up :D > HD has asked that I stay at least 10 above ... isn't that sweet of him? LOL I'm racking my brain and can't figure out what the "HD" stands for in this case, assuming it's not "Horny Dude". Care to enlighten me? :-) Wendy > > Every time I reach my 'ideal weight' I get knocked up :D > > HD has asked that I stay at least 10 above ... isn't that sweet of him? LOL > > I'm racking my brain and can't figure out what the "HD" stands for in this > case, assuming it's not "Horny Dude". Care to enlighten me? :-) Is it HusbanD? >> Every time I reach my 'ideal weight' I get knocked up :D >> HD has asked that I stay at least 10 above ... isn't that sweet of him? LOL [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Wendy Slysdexic for husband darling. :-) But I like Horny dude... :) >Slysdexic for husband darling. :-) > >But I like Horny dude... :) :D I like him too! ~Kat "Rice Krispies. East meets west" Cosmo Kramer >I'm racking my brain and can't figure out what the "HD" stands for in this >case, assuming it's not "Horny Dude". Care to enlighten me? :-) > >Wendy LOL it was a typo .. DH (Dear Husband) But HD would work as well :D ~Kat "Rice Krispies. East meets west" Cosmo Kramer >>I'm racking my brain and can't figure out what the "HD" stands for in this >>case, assuming it's not "Horny Dude". Care to enlighten me? :-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >But HD would work as well :D >~Kat Well - that is why you keep getting knocked up when you get to goal weight. :) >Well - that is why you keep getting knocked up when you get to goal >weight. :) :) Last year I wanted to dress up as a door knocker for Halloween ... using my pregnant belly :) and go as "Knocked Up" but ... I was to sick :( (Some people would say I still am lol) Yes, I know how OT this is :) ~Kat "Rice Krispies. East meets west" Cosmo Kramer >>Well - that is why you keep getting knocked up when you get to goal >>weight. :) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (Some people would say I still am lol) > Yes, I know how OT this is :) You sound pretty happy jarkat... Found a good diet plan? i >You sound pretty happy jarkat... Found a good diet plan? > >i Yes, for the most part ... it still needs a bit of tweaking, but that's OK w/ me. I'm doing a mod carb, low processed foods and no sugar. My weight loss is slow, but steady. Due to other issues I have not been able to ge to the gym as often as I would like to, but I'm sure that will get back on track in the next wk. How are you? ~Kat "Rice Krispies. East meets west" Cosmo Kramer >>You sound pretty happy jarkat... Found a good diet plan? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > on track in the next wk. > How are you? I am fine, not losing weight anymore, looking for nice winter boots. Just sold a bunch of stuff on ebay. Still walk 100 minutes per day. i > "Rice Krispies. East meets west" > Cosmo Kramer >>Well - that is why you keep getting knocked up when you get to goal >>weight. :) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >(Some people would say I still am lol) >Yes, I know how OT this is :) speaking of halloween costumes - I like the one a woman at work's kid did. (now, this woman had her b@@bs done last spring). Her teenage son dressed in black pants, and a box painted grey over his head. In the facial area he cut out 2 half circles and put orange tape around the area. Above that he lettered the box in: "free mamograms here" (note, the cutouts lined up with his eyes.) Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14934 rambled on about "Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >The question is, given all this, would losing 16 more lbs to reach my >ideal weight make me better off, health wise. Heck No! Roy Walford is a moron, to say the least. He looks like a walking skeleton and wouldn't survive the first major illness that he gets, like cancer, IMHO. I am in your weight class, and I am trying to add another 25 pounds of muscle for health reasons. That would put me in the upper end of my recommended weight range, and incidently at the average weight for my height of 5' 10". The difference of course would be that it is all muscle, and not just fat. People are not rats or mice. :) -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the biopsychosocial model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages, Nutrition (http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now the unofficial FAQ for sci.med.nutrition by default. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14934 > rambled on about "Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > skeleton and wouldn't survive the first major illness that he gets, > like cancer, IMHO. I would be very interested as to why you think that his theories are bunk. Personally, I am ambivalent about them because they have been tested on animals who are pretty different from humans. A lot of things that work for mice do not work for people. > I am in your weight class, and I am trying to add another 25 pounds of > muscle for health reasons. That would put me in the upper end of my > recommended weight range, and incidently at the average weight for my > height of 5' 10". The difference of course would be that it is all > muscle, and not just fat. Sounds like you are not in my weight class. I am already in that upper end of my recommended weight range. i > People are not rats or mice. :) Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14934 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >I would be very interested as to why you think that his theories are >bunk. Personally, I am ambivalent about them because they have been >tested on animals who are pretty different from humans. A lot of >things that work for mice do not work for people. Since you are a regular to these ngs, look up my previous response to your stupid question on google newsgroups. :) -- John Gohde, Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science! The nutrition of eating a healthy diet is the foundation of the biopsychosocial model of natural health. Weighing in at 17 webpages, Nutrition (http://www.Food.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/) is now the unofficial FAQ for sci.med.nutrition by default. :) Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14934 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >I would be very interested as to why you think that his theories are >bunk. Personally, I am ambivalent about them because they have been >tested on animals who are pretty different from humans. A lot of >things that work for mice do not work for people. Since you are probably too stupid to figure out how to do that, here it is: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=n20oovkevj9qj8d5gjv5ip5jo9d6eu6q34%404ax.co m&output=gplain "The ideal body weight is at the high end of your normal body weight and even slightly overweight is good, too. Searching in medline under wasting disease, muscle wasting, loss of lean body mass or sarcopenia, anorexia, and cancer cachexia provides the proof." Cachexia happens to be one of the 3 characteristics, that defines the disease called cancer. :) And, I do mean YOU do the work. You obvious need the exercise. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! >Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14934 > rambled on about "Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >I am in your weight class, and I am trying to add another 25 pounds of >muscle for health reasons. Then publish your photo! We'll see if you look healthy or not. Maybe you are. >That would put me in the upper end of my >recommended weight range, and incidently at the average weight for my >height of 5' 10". The difference of course would be that it is all >muscle, and not just fat. > >People are not rats or mice. :) >This post is inspired in part by Dr Roy Walford's 120 year diet book. >It advocates, based on Roy Walford's and others' exeriments with >mammals, that being underweight prolongs life and improves health. He >did these experiments at UCLA, where he works. He calls it a fancy >name "calorie restriction". The diet that he advocates is high in what >he considers valuable nutrients, but low in calories. If you're a monkey and you have the luxury of a nutritionist who will carefully weigh and measure a nutritious diet with about 2/3 of your required calories, you too can live a long life like those monkeys. However, you would have had to start at this when you were born and every morsel that went into your mouth would have to be controlled. In the experiment the monkeys were more than 10 percent underweight, not normal weight. The theory is that lowering the metabolic rate by eating less results in less oxidative stress and therefore less damage to tissues. In real life this would be very difficult if not impossible to implement. Barbara Hirsch, Publisher OBESITY MEDS AND RESEARCH NEWS The latest in obesity research and weight loss drug development http://www.obesity-news.com/ >>This post is inspired in part by Dr Roy Walford's 120 year diet book. >>It advocates, based on Roy Walford's and others' exeriments with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > In real life this would be very difficult if not impossible to > implement. How about, say, eating 90% of calories instead of the suggested 60%. That would mean being a little underweight. Is there any health benefit to it as opposed to being at the higher side of the normal weight range. I know that no one knows for certain, but maybe you heard of some relevant research. It seems to be a continuum, obese people have the shortest lifespan, CR animals have the longest lifespan, maybe there is some sweet spot in the middle. i > Barbara Hirsch, Publisher > OBESITY MEDS AND RESEARCH NEWS > The latest in obesity research and weight loss drug development > http://www.obesity-news.com/ Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14934 rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >It seems to be a continuum, obese >people have the shortest lifespan, CR animals have the longest >lifespan, maybe there is some sweet spot in the middle. What drug are you on, Ignoramus? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! You surely chose a great name for yourself, Ignoramus. obese? Nobody is talking about obesity! Just thought that you might want to know. :) "... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN. > Once upon a time, our fellow Ignoramus14934 > rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >people have the shortest lifespan, CR animals have the longest > >lifespan, maybe there is some sweet spot in the middle. The sweet spot is on the bottom not in the middle! SignatureDiva ***** The Best Man for the Job May Be A Woman Once upon a time, our fellow Carol Frilegh rambled on about "Re: Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> >It seems to be a continuum, obese >> >people have the shortest lifespan, CR animals have the longest >> >lifespan, maybe there is some sweet spot in the middle. >The sweet spot is on the bottom not in the middle! One of the biggest crocks is that senior citizens are never fat. Nonsense! I remember visiting one 98 year old lady in a nursing home with my mother. That 98 year lady definitely was quite plump! My mothers last surviving sister is 82 years old and weights 170. My mother passed away, because she weighed at the end less than 90 pounds. And, these idiots are trying to lose weight now so that when they get really old they will have naturally lost another 20 or 30 pounds. And, by the time they get cancer they will lose another 50 pounds on top of that. They have to be absolutely nuts!!! :( Just thought that you might want to know. :) > In article <odijqv0r6c53kstrqr3o7nil58lvldvqal@4ax.com>, Barbara Hirsch wrote: > > If you're a monkey and you have the luxury of a nutritionist Not necessarily. It takes a modicum of intelligence and planning. One does not need to spend $1K on Nutribase or $0.1K on Walford's DWIDP to help plan meals. The pantry at http://www.nutritiondata.com is free-- add foods you like to design meals and just push a button to get the fairly complete nutrient analysis. If you study the nutrient profiles of whole foods, you can get the gist pretty quickly. The difficulty is with getting people to actually eat lots of vegetables. Most think of it as a sort of punishment, rather than a pleasure. >> who will > > carefully weigh and measure a nutritious diet Some people weigh and measure all the time. I measure only my nuts, seeds, and olive oil-- the rest is eyeballing. >>with about 2/3 of your > > required calories, you too can live a long life like those monkeys. One can benefit with a lower level of restriction. > > However, you would have had to start at this when you were born There are several papers documenting benefits of adult-onset CR, mostly in mice. >>and > > every morsel that went into your mouth would have to be controlled. There is room for the occasional cheat. > > In the experiment the monkeys were more than 10 percent underweight, > > not normal weight. This depends on one's definition of underweight and normal weight. Some researchers have lately suggested that what we think of as "normal" is actually overweight, and what some think of as "underweight" is normal. Most people and animals, if given the opportunity to ad lib, will choose to remain sedentary and will reach a steady state of overweight. This is normal. It is not necessarily healthy. > > In real life this would be very difficult if not impossible to > > implement. Mild CR is only marginally more difficult than a standard diet, because most diets don't emphasize getting at least 100% of the RDA for all micronutrients. In a well-planned CR diet, this requirement will be satisfied along with many others, such as appropriate calcium:phosphorus:magnesium and soluble:insoluble fiber ratios, etc... Moderate to severe CR is more difficult and might not be advised until the monkey studies are finished--in say, 12 years or so. Some people have the constitution for it. Most don't. > How about, say, eating 90% of calories instead of the suggested > 60%. A good idea, if and only if you can plan your meals with care. In practice this generally means more greens, less grains, enough protein from lean sources, enough EFAs and maybe a little bit more to aid absorption of the fat-soluble micronutrients, lots and lots of non-starchy vegetables, and to a lesser extent, fruits, with some legumes and sweet potato. A handful of nuts and seeds. Maybe some nonfat dairy and fish a few times a week. >That would mean being a little underweight. Exactly. N Engl J Med. 1995 Sep 14;333(11):677-85. Body weight and mortality among women. Manson JE, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Hankinson SE, Hennekens CH, Speizer FE. Channing Laboratory, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. BACKGROUND. The relation between body weight and overall mortality remains controversial despite considerable investigation. METHODS. We examined the association between body-mass index (defined as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) and both overall mortality and mortality from specific causes in a cohort of 115,195 U.S. women enrolled in the prospective Nurses' Health Study. These women were 30 to 55 years of age and free of known cardiovascular disease and cancer in 1976. During 16 years of follow-up, we documented 4726 deaths, of which 881 were from cardiovascular disease, 2586 from cancer, and 1259 from other causes. RESULTS. In analyses adjusted only for age, we observed a J-shaped relation between body-mass index and overall mortality. When women who had never smoked were examined separately, no increase in risk was observed among the leaner women, and a more direct relation between weight and mortality emerged (P for trend < 0.001). In multivariate analyses of women who had never smoked and had recently had stable weight, in which the first four years of follow-up were excluded, the relative risks of death from all causes for increasing categories of body-mass index were as follows: body-mass index < 19.0 (the reference category), relative risk = 1.0; 19.0 to 21.9, relative risk = 1.2; 22.0 to 24.9, relative risk = 1.2; 25.0 to 26.9, relative risk = 1.3; 27.0 to 28.9, relative risk = 1.6; 29.0 to 31.9, relative risk = 2.1; and > or = 32.0, relative risk = 2.2 (P for trend < 0.001). Among women with a body-mass index of 32.0 or higher who had never smoked, the relative risk of death from cardiovascular disease was 4.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.1 to 7.7), and that of death from cancer was 2.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 3.2), as compared with the risk among women with a body-mass index below 19.0. A weight gain of 10 kg (22 lb) or more since the age of 18 was associated with increased mortality in middle adulthood. CONCLUSIONS. Body weight and mortality from all causes were directly related among these middle-aged women. Lean women did not have excess mortality. The lowest mortality rate was observed among women who weighed at least 15 percent less than the U.S. average for women of similar age and among those whose weight had been stable since early adulthood. PMID: 7637744 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Thanks for your outstanding post. i >> In article <odijqv0r6c53kstrqr3o7nil58lvldvqal@4ax.com>, Barbara Hirsch wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > PMID: 7637744 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] giselle at giselle@atlantic.not nattered about .... > The pantry at http://www.nutritiondata.com is free-- > add foods you like to design meals and just push Great link .. TY SignatureKitty =^..^= 1 oz nuts MAX .. NO MORE KITTY!!!!! 168/160/130 November Goal 155 September 17 2003 Barbara Hirsch <asd@obesity-news.com> wrote or quoted: > If you're a monkey and you have the luxury of a nutritionist who will > carefully weigh and measure a nutritious diet with about 2/3 of your > required calories, you too can live a long life like those monkeys. > However, you would have had to start at this when you were born and > every morsel that went into your mouth would have to be controlled. Such a regime is certainly not necessary to reap the benefits of going on a diet. > In the experiment the monkeys were more than 10 percent underweight, > not normal weight. The theory is that lowering the metabolic rate by > eating less results in less oxidative stress and therefore less damage > to tissues. That is an unlikely theory - since it is fairly widely agreed that CR does not result in a lowered metabolic rate. Signature__________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply. In addition, one man on the "Walford" routine had these problems: 1. low sex drive 2. low bone mass 3. a wimpy, skinny body Scientists are working to provide the benefits of the routine without the starvation diet. > >This post is inspired in part by Dr Roy Walford's 120 year diet book. > >It advocates, based on Roy Walford's and others' exeriments with [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The latest in obesity research and weight loss drug development > http://www.obesity-news.com/ > This post is inspired in part by Dr Roy Walford's 120 year diet book. > It advocates, based on Roy Walford's and others' exeriments with [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > i > 223/176/180 People whose weight has fluctuated greatly have significantly reduced life expectancy. Noone knows quite why that is. But it suggests perhaps if you can manage it, it may be better to lose the weight slowly. I have seen studies that suggest even 8kg (18 lb) overweight has significant ill effects on health. So it is plausible that losing the weight would be good for you. Tim Josling > People whose weight has fluctuated greatly have significantly reduced > life expectancy. Noone knows quite why that is. But it suggests perhaps > if you can manage it, it may be better to lose the weight slowly. That's interesting, I would like to read more about it. Myself, I just lost 47 lbs in 100 days between June 1 and Sep 10. Scary stuff. i > I have seen studies that suggest even 8kg (18 lb) overweight has > significant ill effects on health. So it is plausible that losing the > weight would be good for you. > > Tim Josling >> People whose weight has fluctuated greatly have significantly reduced >> life expectancy. Noone knows quite why that is. But it suggests perhaps >> if you can manage it, it may be better to lose the weight slowly. > > That's interesting, I would like to read more about it. Myself, I just > lost 47 lbs in 100 days between June 1 and Sep 10. Scary stuff. As a second thought, this could also be correlation and not causation. Big rapid weight drops or gains may be caused by many factors. For example, smoking or stopping smoking (either way smoking reduces life expectancy even if you stop smoking), diabetes, cancer, disability, crash diets, there all kinds of UNHEALTHY ways to repidly change one's weight. That could cause that statistic that rapid weight changes "lead" to poor life expectancy. Just going on a good diet full of nutrients and a solid exercise program and dropping weight as a result may not have that same bad effect. Maybe. i > i > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> Tim Josling |
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
|
©2012 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.