Diabesity -- a new term

[Mystique]

Diabesity is the association of type 2 diabetes and obesity

according to:

Phillips P, Braddon J. Related Articles, Links The type 2
tablet. Evidence based medication for type 2 diabetes. Aust
Fam Physician. 2003 Jun;32(6):431-6. PMID: 12833770 [PubMed -
in process]

[Tcomeau]

gninatit@hotmail.com (mystique) wrote in message
news:<44ac4bc1.0307041852.23bf4747@posting.google.com>...
> Diabesity is the association of type 2 diabetes and obesity
>
> according to:
>
> Phillips P, Braddon J. Related Articles, Links The type 2
> tablet. Evidence based medication for type 2 diabetes. Aust
> Fam Physician. 2003 Jun;32(6):431-6. PMID: 12833770 [PubMed
> - in process]

I noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive term.
The word implies that it is two conditions rolled into one and
kinda implies that one is not necessarily the cause of the
other. It is simply the extreme version of the so-called
Metabolic Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.

TC

[Tom Malcol]

noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive
term. The word
> implies that it is two conditions rolled into one and kinda
> implies that one is not necessarily the cause of the other.
> It is simply the extreme version of the so-called Metabolic
> Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.

Sorry, there is only a very loose mild, correlation between
weight and diabetes. Many thin people get diabetes, and many
heavy people do not.

[M00sh]

On 5 Jul 2003 10:39:55 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

>gninatit@hotmail.com (mystique) wrote in message
>news:<44ac4bc1.0307041852.23bf4747@posting.google.com>...
>> Diabesity is the association of type 2 diabetes and obesity
>>
>> according to:
>>
>> Phillips P, Braddon J. Related Articles, Links The type 2
>> tablet. Evidence based medication for type 2 diabetes. Aust
>> Fam Physician. 2003 Jun;32(6):431-6. PMID: 12833770 [PubMed
>> - in process]
>
>I noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive term.
>The word implies that it is two conditions rolled into one
>and kinda implies that one is not necessarily the cause of
>the other. It is simply the extreme version of the so-called
>Metabolic Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.

Which is what has been known and discussed on the diabetes
groups for years. Type 2 is the result of obesity on the
genetic predisposition to have syndrome X. Of course, this
syndrome includes propensities to get fat if you eat too much.

[Eric Bohlm]

tom933@hotmail.com (Tom Malcolm) wrote in
news:1fxmoo7.13sc9y917d042yN%tom933@hotmail.com:

> Sorry, there is only a very loose mild, correlation between
> weight and diabetes. Many thin people get diabetes, and many
> heavy people do not.

That correlation is attenuated by lumping type 1 diabetes,
which is uncorrelated with weight, together with type 2, in
which heavy people are seriously overrepresented, indicating a
strong correlation. Note, though, that while the majority
(about 80%) of type 2 diabetics are obese or overweight at the
time of diagnosis, only a small proportion of obese or
overweight people will ever be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
The percentage of A who are B is *not*, in general, equal to
the percentage of B who are A (in this case, the two figures
would be close only if the percentage of the population who
were obese/overweight were close to the percentage of the
population who had type 2 diabetes; at least in the US, they
aren't even close). It's similar to the relationship between
smoking and lung cancer; most smokers will never develop lung
cancer, but those who do make up the majority of people who
develop lung cancer.

The whole picture has been muddled because it's only in the
last decade or so that it's been widely recognized that
people can develop type 1 diabetes in adulthood and type 2
diabetes in childhood or adolescence. A lot of the confusion
occurred because adults who develop type 1 diabetes generally
take a lot longer to lose their insulin production than do
children or adolescents (for middle-aged adults, it can take
several years; for children, it can be a matter of a few
days). So a lot of "normal-weight type 2s" turned out to be
adult-onset type 1s.

[Mo0$H]

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:39:27 GMT, tom933@hotmail.com (Tom
Malcolm) wrote:

> noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive term.
> The word
>> implies that it is two conditions rolled into one and kinda
>> implies that one is not necessarily the cause of the other.
>> It is simply the extreme version of the so-called Metabolic
>> Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.
>
>Sorry, there is only a very loose mild, correlation between
>weight and diabetes. Many thin people get diabetes, and many
>heavy people do not.

Type two diabetes mellitus is several diseases. The commonest
is due to a genetic predisposition to react badly to too much
food, to become obese, have high blood pressure, screwed up
blood lipids, and to have insulin resistance and eventual
frank diabetes when the pancreas packs
in.

Ninety percent of type twos are obese.

Type one is an entirely different disease with just one common
symptom, the spilling of glucose in the urine if left
untreated.

[Wuzzy]

tom933@hotmail.com (Tom Malcolm) wrote in message
news:<1fxmoo7.13sc9y917d042yN%tom933@hotmail.com>...
> noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive term.
> The word
> > implies that it is two conditions rolled into one and
> > kinda implies that one is not necessarily the cause of the
> > other. It is simply the extreme version of the so-called
> > Metabolic Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.
>
> Sorry, there is only a very loose mild, correlation between
> weight and diabetes. Many thin people get diabetes, and many
> heavy people do not.

True, there are many persons that couldn"t be classified as
obese and are insulin resistant/diabetic.. Even in OB, OB
precedes diabetes - Bg's are normally low during early IR
because of compensatory mechanisms as measured by high
c-peptide. Thats also why treatment of ppl with IR+ob but
normal bg's with drugs (or alcohol*)causes more improvements
in IR but less effect on bg's. BG's are more stabble - IR
highly variable depending mainly on ob..

*rather, its metabolites [nadh].. This issue's jacn shows that
amount of alcohol is not important - its frequency is, since
<3 times per week is not much effective.. Alcohol's
metabolites probably have a quick halflife..

[Thomas Car]

tom933@hotmail.com (Tom Malcolm) wrote in message
news:<1fxmoo7.13sc9y917d042yN%tom933@hotmail.com>...
> noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive term.
> The word
> > implies that it is two conditions rolled into one and
> > kinda implies that one is not necessarily the cause of the
> > other. It is simply the extreme version of the so-called
> > Metabolic Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.
>
> Sorry, there is only a very loose mild, correlation between
> weight and diabetes. Many thin people get diabetes, and many
> heavy people do not.

Hi, Only 1.6% of white women with BMI <20 have diabetes. 30%
with BMI over 32 have it. The numbers are 2.3 and 27.8 for
white men, and 5 vs 33 for black women, with 6.5 vs 31.9 for
black men. The percentages stay low up to about BMI 24. These
are old numbers from NHANES I. (PMID: 9802729 ) The modern
trend is towards even more diabetes at the higher weights.
Altho I've never seen a report, I would hazard a guess that
the most of the skinny people with diabetes are big eaters,
and have a poor diet. Type 2 diabetes is the most surely
controllable major disease of aging that we know of. Exercise
seems to be helpful at the higher weights.

Thomas

[Wuzzy]

>Hi, Only 1.6% of white women with BMI <20 have diabetes. 30%
>with BMI over 32 have it. The numbers are 2.3 and 27.8 for
>white men, and
5
>vs 33 for black women, with 6.5 vs 31.9 for black men. The
percentages
>stay low up to about BMI 24. These are old numbers from
>NHANES I. (PMID: 9802729 ) The modern trend is towards even
>more diabetes at
the
>higher weights. Altho I've never seen a report, I would
>hazard a
guess
>that the most of the skinny people with diabetes are big
>eaters, and have a poor diet. Type 2 diabetes is the most
>surely controllable major disease of aging that we know of.
>Exercise seems to be helpful at the higher weights.
>
>Thomas

Yes it is frustrating when ppl underestimate the extremely
large % prediction power of obesity on diabetes risk.. Most of
the non-ob ppl that have diabetes tend to have high muscle or
liver lipids or high levels of FFA - transient FFA changes (by
injection or hi-dose Niacin) also cause pseudo-diabetic
state.. I know of only one study that tested the theory and
they found FFA had greater predictive power than TAG on IR..
They should do more studies on this since the major source of
TAG is FFA, though chronic elevated insulin will also increase
TAG's lipo_protein_ transcription in the ER. (acutely it
inhibits TAG by lowering FFA). The exercise probably largely
by clearing lipid from insulin sensitive organs like liver and
muscle, not by increasing GLUT4 translocation, though it does
this too..

[Mmo0$H]

On 5 Jul 2003 21:37:25 -0700, tcarter2@elp.rr.com (Thomas
Carter) wrote:

>tom933@hotmail.com (Tom Malcolm) wrote in message
>news:<1fxmoo7.13sc9y917d042yN%tom933@hotmail.com>...
>> noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive term.
>> The word
>> > implies that it is two conditions rolled into one and
>> > kinda implies that one is not necessarily the cause of
>> > the other. It is simply the extreme version of the
>> > so-called Metabolic Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.
>>
>> Sorry, there is only a very loose mild, correlation between
>> weight and diabetes. Many thin people get diabetes, and
>> many heavy people do not.
>
>Hi, Only 1.6% of white women with BMI <20 have diabetes. 30%
>with BMI over 32 have it. The numbers are 2.3 and 27.8 for
>white men, and 5 vs 33 for black women, with 6.5 vs 31.9 for
>black men. The percentages stay low up to about BMI 24. These
>are old numbers from NHANES I. (PMID: 9802729 ) The modern
>trend is towards even more diabetes at the higher weights.
>Altho I've never seen a report, I would hazard a guess that
>the most of the skinny people with diabetes are big eaters,
>and have a poor diet. Type 2 diabetes is the most surely
>controllable major disease of aging that we know of. Exercise
>seems to be helpful at the higher weights.

So what about the percentage of type 2 with obesity? Ninety?
Of course some "type 2" is caused by other than the usual
common "metabolic syndrome" where obesity may not be involved.

[Tcomeau]

tom933@hotmail.com (Tom Malcolm) wrote in message
news:<1fxmoo7.13sc9y917d042yN%tom933@hotmail.com>...
> noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive term.
> The word
> > implies that it is two conditions rolled into one and
> > kinda implies that one is not necessarily the cause of the
> > other. It is simply the extreme version of the so-called
> > Metabolic Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.
>
> Sorry, there is only a very loose mild, correlation between
> weight and diabetes. Many thin people get diabetes, and many
> heavy people do not.

Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 is almost always correlated to
obesity and vice versa. The term "diabesity" has been used in
reference to type 2, not type 1.

TC

[Tcomeau]

M00SH <noll@noll.noll> wrote in message
news:<tmvegv0dha95asspg36tfc5cu2o1a1v1nn@4ax.com>...
> On 5 Jul 2003 10:39:55 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> (tcomeau) wrote:
>
> >gninatit@hotmail.com (mystique) wrote in message
> >news:<44ac4bc1.0307041852.23bf4747@posting.google.com>...
> >> Diabesity is the association of type 2 diabetes and
> >> obesity
> >>
> >> according to:
> >>
> >> Phillips P, Braddon J. Related Articles, Links The type 2
> >> tablet. Evidence based medication for type 2 diabetes.
> >> Aust Fam Physician. 2003 Jun;32(6):431-6. PMID: 12833770
> >> [PubMed - in process]
> >
> >I noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive
> >term. The word implies that it is two conditions rolled
> >into one and kinda implies that one is not necessarily the
> >cause of the other. It is simply the extreme version of the
> >so-called Metabolic Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.
>
> Which is what has been known and discussed on the
> diabetes groups for years. Type 2 is the result of
> obesity on the genetic predisposition to have syndrome X.
> Of course, this syndrome includes propensities to get fat
> if you eat too much.

Metabolic Syndrome leads to type two and obesity and are the
result of excessive high-GI and refined carbs over 10 or so
years. Don't you understand this by now?

TC

[Tcomeau]

MO0$H <nill@nill.nill> wrote in message
news:<mj5fgvsq8gat422mnoro4hlmvqrp1sgp0k@4ax.com>...
> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:39:27 GMT, tom933@hotmail.com (Tom
> Malcolm) wrote:
>
> > noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive
> > term. The word
> >> implies that it is two conditions rolled into one and
> >> kinda implies that one is not necessarily the cause of
> >> the other. It is simply the extreme version of the
> >> so-called Metabolic Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.
> >
> >Sorry, there is only a very loose mild, correlation between
> >weight and diabetes. Many thin people get diabetes, and
> >many heavy people do not.
>
> Type two diabetes mellitus is several diseases. The
> commonest is due to a genetic predisposition to react badly
> to too much food, to become obese, have high blood pressure,
> screwed up blood lipids, and to have insulin resistance and
> eventual frank diabetes when the pancreas packs
> in.

Type two diabetes mellitus is several diseases. The commonest
is due to a genetic predisposition to react badly to too much
**REFINED CARBOHYDRATES**, to become obese, have high blood
pressure, screwed up blood lipids, and to have insulin
resistance and eventual frank diabetes when the pancreas
packs in after producing a lifetimes worth of insulin in a
few short years.

>
> Ninety percent of type twos are obese.
>

Closer to 98% which is within the third standard deviation,
which essentially means all of them.

TC

[Tom Malcol]

> Only 1.6% of white women with BMI <20 have diabetes.
> 30% with BMI over 32 have it. The numbers are 2.3 and
> 27.8 for white men, and 5 vs 33 for black women, with
> 6.5 vs 31.9 for black men. The percentages stay low up
> to about BMI 24. These are old numbers from NHANES I.
> (PMID: 9802729 ) The modern trend is towards even more
> diabetes at the higher weights. Altho I've never seen a
> report, I would hazard a guess

All I know is 99% of overweight people don't have Type 2
diabetes, and I think those who do would get it even if they
were average weight. And I know if we exercise well, stay out
of the sun, eat well, stay lean, breath clean air, think good
thoughts, take proper supplements, avoid stress - we still get
diseases and die... And there are fat slobs who smoke, drink,
never exercise, who make it past 95.

[William A.]

"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
> Metabolic Syndrome leads to type two and obesity and are the
> result of excessive high-GI and refined carbs over 10 or so
> years. Don't you understand this by now?
>
> TC

Even being overweight puts one at increased risk, as the
definition of obesity a arbitrary choice.

[Moosh:]]

On 6 Jul 2003 11:17:20 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

>M00SH <noll@noll.noll> wrote in message
>news:<tmvegv0dha95asspg36tfc5cu2o1a1v1nn@4ax.com>...
>> On 5 Jul 2003 10:39:55 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
>> (tcomeau) wrote:
>>
>> >gninatit@hotmail.com (mystique) wrote in message
>> >news:<44ac4bc1.0307041852.23bf4747@posting.google.com>...
>> >> Diabesity is the association of type 2 diabetes and
>> >> obesity
>> >>
>> >> according to:
>> >>
>> >> Phillips P, Braddon J. Related Articles, Links The type
>> >> 2 tablet. Evidence based medication for type 2 diabetes.
>> >> Aust Fam Physician. 2003 Jun;32(6):431-6. PMID: 12833770
>> >> [PubMed - in process]
>> >
>> >I noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive
>> >term. The word implies that it is two conditions rolled
>> >into one and kinda implies that one is not necessarily the
>> >cause of the other. It is simply the extreme version of
>> >the so-called Metabolic Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.
>>
>> Which is what has been known and discussed on the
>> diabetes groups for years. Type 2 is the result of
>> obesity on the genetic predisposition to have syndrome X.
>> Of course, this syndrome includes propensities to get fat
>> if you eat too much.
>
>Metabolic Syndrome leads to type two and obesity and are the
>result of excessive high-GI and refined carbs over 10 or so
>years. Don't you understand this by now?

Metabolic syndrome involves a propensity to obesity (and
subsequent
DM2) if the individual overeats, and it doesn't matter what is
eaten or where the excess calories come from. Most type
2s have had the disease for 7 - 10 years before
diagnosis.

Only *you* apparently understand (if that's the right word for
it:) what you keep pushing.

[Moosh:]]

On 6 Jul 2003 11:24:27 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

>MO0$H <nill@nill.nill> wrote in message
>news:<mj5fgvsq8gat422mnoro4hlmvqrp1sgp0k@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 21:39:27 GMT, tom933@hotmail.com (Tom
>> Malcolm) wrote:
>>
>> > noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive
>> > term. The word
>> >> implies that it is two conditions rolled into one and
>> >> kinda implies that one is not necessarily the cause of
>> >> the other. It is simply the extreme version of the
>> >> so-called Metabolic Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.
>> >
>> >Sorry, there is only a very loose mild, correlation
>> >between weight and diabetes. Many thin people get
>> >diabetes, and many heavy people do not.
>>
>> Type two diabetes mellitus is several diseases. The
>> commonest is due to a genetic predisposition to react
>> badly to too much food, to become obese, have high
>> blood pressure, screwed up blood lipids, and to have
>> insulin resistance and eventual frank diabetes when the
>> pancreas packs
>> in.
>
>Type two diabetes mellitus is several diseases. The commonest
>is due to a genetic predisposition to react badly to too much
>**REFINED CARBOHYDRATES**,

But you have NO evidence for this. Some studies show an excess
of fat and protein brings on the DM2. But is is clear that an
excess of calories leading to obesity causes it.

>to become obese, have high blood pressure, screwed up blood
>lipids, and to have insulin resistance and eventual frank
>diabetes when the pancreas packs in after producing a
>lifetimes worth of insulin in a few short years.

You must have the genetic predisposition, and overeat
(anything).

>> Ninety percent of type twos are obese.
>>
>
>Closer to 98% which is within the third standard deviation,
>which essentially means all of them.

You have left out the type twos who are not the result of
metabolic syndrome, but it's a grey area. It is clear that
obesity is the leading factor in the onset of most DM2.

If you don't overeat and get regular moderate exercise, you
will be very unlikely to develop type 2 DM.

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:16:37 GMT, tom933@hotmail.com (Tom
Malcolm) wrote:

>> Only 1.6% of white women with BMI <20 have diabetes.
>> 30% with BMI over 32 have it. The numbers are 2.3 and
>> 27.8 for white men, and 5 vs 33 for black women, with
>> 6.5 vs 31.9 for black men. The percentages stay low up
>> to about BMI 24. These are old numbers from NHANES I.
>> (PMID: 9802729 ) The modern trend is towards even more
>> diabetes at the higher weights. Altho I've never seen
>> a report, I would hazard a guess
>
>All I know is 99% of overweight people don't have Type 2
>diabetes,

I hope that is not ALL you want to know. And unfortunately,
it is wrong.

>and I think those who do would get it even if they were
>average weight.

So why don't they? Look around. Open the peepers.

>And I know if we exercise well, stay out of the sun, eat
>well, stay lean, breath clean air, think good thoughts,
>take proper supplements, avoid stress - we still get
>diseases and die...

Welcome to the cruel world of genetics :)

>And there are fat slobs who smoke, drink, never exercise, who
>make it past 95.

Yes, but statistically, not very many.

[Tom Malcol]

> >All I know is 99% of overweight people don't have Type 2
> >diabetes,
> I hope that is not ALL you want to know. And unfortunately,
> it is wrong.

The average american is overweight - that means more than 50%
of the US population of adults have BMIs greater than
24. Those with BMIs between 25 and 30 are not at a
signifigantly greater risk than those under. Granted,
taken to extremes being super fat is not good for you.
But there sure is a difference between being genetically
programmed to be fat, and sitting on the couch drinking
beer and eating pork rinds to get fat. And a fat but and
legs don't hurt as much as a beer belly. You might want
to read Eat, Drink, and Be Merry, by Dr. Dean Edell...

[Gary]

I think if you compare rates of Type-2 diabetes between those
with 25+ BMI's and those with -20 BMI's, I think you will find
a stark difference. On the other hand, probably not much
between the 24's and 25's. There is a whole range of lifestyle
diseases to which you are much less prone if you stay quite
thin but get the best possible nutrition, Dr. Edell
notwithstanding, who also doesn't think eating sugar is any
big deal. He's making very good money telling people what they
want to hear.

Having been fat in my younger years, and relatively thin for
the past few decades, I have tried it both ways. Even if being
fat had no relation at all to increased rates of disease and
decreased longevity, I would rather eat less and be lean. To
trade off being able to eat a lot of food and/or eat bad food
for a lean, athletic body is a no-brainer, IMO.

gary austin

"Tom Malcolm" <tom933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1fy19hk.1dejjci11336r4N%tom933@hotmail.com...
> > >All I know is 99% of overweight people don't have Type 2
> > >diabetes,
> > I hope that is not ALL you want to know. And
> > unfortunately, it is wrong.
>
> The average american is overweight - that means more than
> 50% of the US population of adults have BMIs greater than
> 24. Those with BMIs between 25 and 30 are not at a
> signifigantly greater risk than those under. Granted,
> taken to extremes being super fat is not good for you.
> But there sure is a difference between being
> genetically programmed to be fat, and sitting on the
> couch drinking beer and eating pork rinds to get fat.
> And a fat but and legs don't hurt as much as a beer
> belly. You might want to read Eat, Drink, and Be Merry,
> by Dr. Dean Edell...

[Wuzzy]

no time to be numerical about it but after looking at one
euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp study and considering
the Wolever TM equations for predicting postprandial
insulin, you can guess the relative contributions to
daylong insulin levels..

[Wuzzy]

"gary"
<garynewsresponseExtractDropDelete@televisionadvertising.com>
wrote in message
news:<97VQa.89018$TJ.4639828@twister.austin.rr.com>...
> I think if you compare rates of Type-2 diabetes between
> those with 25+ BMI's and those with -20 BMI's, I think you
> will find a stark difference. On the other hand, probably
> not much between the 24's and 25's. There is a whole range
> of lifestyle diseases to which you are much less prone if
> you stay quite thin but get the best possible nutrition, Dr.
> Edell notwithstanding, who also doesn't think eating sugar
> is any big deal. He's making very good money telling people
> what they want to hear.
>
> Having been fat in my younger years, and relatively thin for
> the past few decades, I have tried it both ways. Even if
> being fat had no relation at all to increased rates of
> disease and decreased longevity, I would rather eat less and
> be lean. To trade off being able to eat a lot of food and/or
> eat bad food for a lean, athletic body is a no-brainer, IMO.
>
> gary austin

Diabetes is not dichotomous as in "yes diabetic" or "not
diabetic" - it is continuous so that depending on the amount
of weight a person has, their insulin requirements will change
to maintain normoglycemia. This is very blatant in a
euglycemia hyperinsulinemic clamp test. The studies arguing
for diabetes as dichotomous (yes now) have been studies
showing a barely-detectable (definitely not to the naked eye)
bimodal distribution in population blood glucose - This is due
to late beta-cell failure which would give you that
characteristic bimodal dist..

[Gary]

"wuzzy" <mypcos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d996c21a.0307151708.cf56fb@posting.google.com...
> no time to be numerical about it but after looking at one
> euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp study and considering the
> Wolever TM equations for predicting postprandial insulin,
> you can guess the relative contributions to daylong insulin
> levels..

OK, I give up. Can't guess. Could you translate all that for
me into a couple of plain sentences? I mean, for someone who
wouldn't know a "euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp" if he
tripped over one on the way to the bathroom? I'm really not
stupid -- I've been tested -- but I have absolutely no clue
what you're talking about!

gary

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:46:21 GMT, tom933@hotmail.com (Tom
Malcolm) wrote:

>> >All I know is 99% of overweight people don't have Type 2
>> >diabetes,
>> I hope that is not ALL you want to know. And unfortunately,
>> it is wrong.
>
>The average american is overweight - that means more than 50%
>of the US population of adults have BMIs greater than
>24. Those with BMIs between 25 and 30 are not at a
> signifigantly greater risk than those under.

For type two DM? Are you sure of that?

>Granted, taken to extremes being super fat is not good for
>you.

Not for lots of things. Strain on heart, hormonal depression,
blood lipid irregularities and so on.

>But there sure is a difference between being genetically
>programmed to be fat,

Really?

>and sitting on the couch drinking beer and eating pork rinds
>to get fat.

Depends on your genes, surely

>And a fat but and legs don't hurt as much as a beer belly.

Or is it that a tendency to put fat on in the middle is part
of the DM2 syndrome?

[Tom Malcol]

> >But there sure is a difference between being genetically
> >programmed to be fat
> Really?

Yes, really. It is so amazing, doctors and people don't fault
men for being bald, nor women for having tiny or huge breasts,
or for being born the wrong color - but man oh man - if you
are born to fat parents (and fat grandparents) and you have
been fat all your life - but it's not beer belly fat - it's
the kind on your butt and legs and chest - along with a
super-wide frame - my skeleton weighs more than average - so
does me. I have a BMI of 29 so I can't get normal health care
coverage. My grandparents are still alive at 94 on one side,
died off at 91 and 92 on the other side. All fat all their
lives up till their 80s. My blood pressure is 110/70, my
resting pulse rate is 60, my cholesteral is VERY good. I have
zero plaque or calcification on my heart, yet because I have a
BMI of 29, I am to be rediculed and laughed at by the medical
community. NO, I won't - I choose to be happy at my size. Why,
yes, I could get my BMI to 24 if I spent 2 years running on a
treadmill over the next 10-20 years - I might even live 2
years longer - too bad the net gain is zero as those years
were on the treadmill. I eat healthy, but hey if I do
everything right - get my BMI down, I might live a year
longer! So, I spend 10-50 years worrying, working, denying
myself the food an life I want - so I can spend more time in
diapers at a nursing care home? Quality is as important as
quantity - A fatty who is happy might not live as long as a
miserable skinny person, but hey - maybe thats ok - it's their
life. Finally, there are many cases of blood pressure, bad
cholesteral, and disease amoung the skinny and fit.

[Pbeyer]

Tom Malcolm wrote:

> > >But there sure is a difference between being genetically
> > >programmed to be fat
> > Really?
>
> Yes, really. It is so amazing, doctors and people don't
> fault men for being bald, nor women for having tiny or huge
> breasts, or for being born the wrong color - but man oh man
> - if you are born to fat parents (and fat grandparents) and
> you have been fat all your life - but it's not beer belly
> fat - it's the kind on your butt and legs and chest - along
> with a super-wide frame - my skeleton weighs more than
> average - so does me. I have a BMI of 29 so I can't get
> normal health care coverage. My grandparents are still alive
> at 94 on one side, died off at 91 and 92 on the other side.
> All fat all their lives up till their 80s. My blood pressure
> is 110/70, my resting pulse rate is 60, my cholesteral is
> VERY good. I have zero plaque or calcification on my heart,
> yet because I have a BMI of 29, I am to be rediculed and
> laughed at by the medical community. NO, I won't - I choose
> to be happy at my size. Why, yes, I could get my BMI to 24
> if I spent 2 years running on a treadmill over the next
> 10-20 years - I might even live 2 years longer - too bad the
> net gain is zero as those years were on the treadmill. I eat
> healthy, but hey if I do everything right - get my BMI down,
> I might live a year longer! So, I spend 10-50 years
> worrying, working, denying myself the food an life I want -
> so I can spend more time in diapers at a nursing care home?
> Quality is as important as quantity - A fatty who is happy
> might not live as long as a miserable skinny person, but hey
> - maybe thats ok - it's their life. Finally, there are many
> cases of blood pressure, bad cholesteral, and disease amoung
> the skinny and fit.

There certainly are folks who don't fit based on BMI alone--
If you haven't already you can have fat mass measured by a
number of methods to help prove your cause. pete

[Mack]

> Why, yes, I could get my BMI to 24 if I spent 2 years
> running on a treadmill over the next 10-20 years -

You wouldn't have to do that. All you would have to do is eat
less. Eat highly nutritious food but not much of it. If you
restrict your calories enough, you actually get more benefit
if you don't exercise -- at least that's what the animal
studies show.

>So, I spend 10-50 years worrying, working, denying myself the
>food an life I want

Look how obsessed with food you are! "The life you want" is
all about food. What is that if not just a very bad habit? You
can only imagine eating less food in connection with some kind
of incredibly stressful diet regimen. Can you not even imagine
just eating a small amount of food and feeling good about
that? Being under LESS stress than you would be if you were
worrying about what all that eating was doing to you?

> - so I can spend more time in diapers at a nursing
> care home?

Well, one of the points of eating less is to lower your chance
of suffering from a lingering final illness. You are much more
likely to spend years "in diapers" eating the way you do than
you would be if you ate less.

Sounds to me as though you have built up this giant imaginary
scenario in order to justify overeating. Smokers have similar
scenarios in their heads. And heroin addicts.

mack austin

"pbeyer" <pbeyer@xspamkumc.edu> wrote in message
news:3F16F5C6.58859988@xspamkumc.edu...
>
>
> Tom Malcolm wrote:
>
> > > >But there sure is a difference between being
> > > >genetically programmed to be fat
> > > Really?
> >
> > Yes, really. It is so amazing, doctors and people don't
> > fault men for being bald, nor women for having tiny or
> > huge breasts, or for being born the wrong color - but man
> > oh man - if you are born to fat parents (and fat
> > grandparents) and you have been fat all your life - but
> > it's not beer belly fat - it's the kind on your butt and
> > legs and chest - along with a super-wide frame - my
> > skeleton weighs more than average - so does me. I have a
> > BMI of 29 so I can't get normal health care coverage. My
> > grandparents are still alive at 94 on one side, died off
> > at 91 and 92 on the other side. All fat all their lives up
> > till their 80s. My blood pressure is 110/70, my resting
> > pulse rate is 60, my cholesteral is VERY good. I have zero
> > plaque or calcification on my heart, yet because I have a
> > BMI of 29, I am to be rediculed and laughed at by the
> > medical community. NO, I won't - I choose to be happy at
> > my size. Why, yes, I could get my BMI to 24 if I spent 2
> > years running on a treadmill over the next 10-20 years - I
> > might even live 2 years longer - too bad the net gain is
> > zero as those years were on the treadmill. I eat healthy,
> > but hey if I do everything right - get my BMI down, I
> > might live a year longer! So, I spend 10-50 years
> > worrying, working, denying myself the food an life I want
> > - so I can spend more time in diapers at a nursing care
> > home? Quality is as important as quantity - A fatty who is
> > happy might not live as long as a miserable skinny person,
> > but hey - maybe thats ok - it's their life. Finally, there
> > are many cases of blood pressure, bad cholesteral, and
> > disease amoung the skinny and fit.
>
> There certainly are folks who don't fit based on BMI alone--
> If you haven't already you can have fat mass measured by a
> number of methods to help prove your cause. pete

[R.L. McCar]

Mack wrote:
>
> > Why, yes, I could get my BMI to 24 if I spent 2 years
> > running on a treadmill over the next 10-20 years -
>
> You wouldn't have to do that. All you would have to do is
> eat less. Eat highly nutritious food but not much of it. If
> you restrict your calories enough, you actually get more
> benefit if you don't exercise -- at least that's what the
> animal studies show.
>
> >So, I spend 10-50 years worrying, working, denying myself
> >the food an life I want
>
> Look how obsessed with food you are! "The life you want"
> is all about food. What is that if not just a very bad
> habit? You can only imagine eating less food in connection
> with some kind of incredibly stressful diet regimen. Can
> you not even imagine just eating a small amount of food
> and feeling good about that? Being under LESS stress than
> you would be if you were worrying about what all that
> eating was doing to you?
>
> > - so I can spend more time in diapers at a nursing care
> > home?
>
> Well, one of the points of eating less is to lower your
> chance of suffering from a lingering final illness. You are
> much more likely to spend years "in diapers" eating the way
> you do than you would be if you ate less.
>
> Sounds to me as though you have built up this giant
> imaginary scenario in order to justify overeating. Smokers
> have similar scenarios in their heads. And heroin addicts.
>
> mack austin
>
> "pbeyer" <pbeyer@xspamkumc.edu> wrote in message
> news:3F16F5C6.58859988@xspamkumc.edu...
> >
> >
> > Tom Malcolm wrote:
> >
> > > > >But there sure is a difference between being
> > > > >genetically programmed to be fat
> > > > Really?
> > >
> > > Yes, really. It is so amazing, doctors and people don't
> > > fault men for being bald, nor women for having tiny or
> > > huge breasts, or for being born the wrong color - but
> > > man oh man - if you are born to fat parents (and fat
> > > grandparents) and you have been fat all your life - but
> > > it's not beer belly fat - it's the kind on your butt and
> > > legs and chest - along with a super-wide frame - my
> > > skeleton weighs more than average - so does me. I have a
> > > BMI of 29 so I can't get normal health care coverage. My
> > > grandparents are still alive at 94 on one side, died off
> > > at 91 and 92 on the other side. All fat all their lives
> > > up till their 80s. My blood pressure is 110/70, my
> > > resting pulse rate is 60, my cholesteral is VERY good. I
> > > have zero plaque or calcification on my heart, yet
> > > because I have a BMI of 29, I am to be rediculed and
> > > laughed at by the medical community. NO, I won't - I
> > > choose to be happy at my size. Why, yes, I could get my
> > > BMI to 24 if I spent 2 years running on a treadmill over
> > > the next 10-20 years - I might even live 2 years longer
> > > - too bad the net gain is zero as those years were on
> > > the treadmill. I eat healthy, but hey if I do everything
> > > right - get my BMI down, I might live a year longer! So,
> > > I spend 10-50 years worrying, working, denying myself
> > > the food an life I want - so I can spend more time in
> > > diapers at a nursing care home? Quality is as important
> > > as quantity - A fatty who is happy might not live as
> > > long as a miserable skinny person, but hey - maybe thats
> > > ok - it's their life. Finally, there are many cases of
> > > blood pressure, bad cholesteral, and disease amoung the
> > > skinny and fit.
> >
> > There certainly are folks who don't fit based on BMI
> > alone-- If you haven't already you can have fat mass
> > measured by a number of methods to help prove your
> > cause. pete
> >
> > Theire IS some truth to "genetics...but MOST obesity is a
> > result of carelessness, low esteem, Massive Trauma, bad
> > diets due to money problems > > and a dozen other
> > traumatic problems. Ignorance is the biggest of all!
> > Laziness comes in a close second! LAck of self control is
> > a result of all > > problems.Not everyone can be "perfect"
> > and so it goes.. Sad but true! > >>>>B-0b1

[R.L. McCar]

pbeyer wrote:
>
> Tom Malcolm wrote:
>
> > > >But there sure is a difference between being
> > > >genetically programmed to be fat
> > > Really?
> >
> > Yes, really. It is so amazing, doctors and people don't
> > fault men for being bald, nor women for having tiny or
> > huge breasts, or for being born the wrong color - but man
> > oh man - if you are born to fat parents (and fat
> > grandparents) and you have been fat all your life - but
> > it's not beer belly fat - it's the kind on your butt and
> > legs and chest - along with a super-wide frame - my
> > skeleton weighs more than average - so does me. I have a
> > BMI of 29 so I can't get normal health care coverage. My
> > grandparents are still alive at 94 on one side, died off
> > at 91 and 92 on the other side. All fat all their lives up
> > till their 80s. My blood pressure is 110/70, my resting
> > pulse rate is 60, my cholesteral is VERY good. I have zero
> > plaque or calcification on my heart, yet because I have a
> > BMI of 29, I am to be rediculed and laughed at by the
> > medical community. NO, I won't - I choose to be happy at
> > my size. Why, yes, I could get my BMI to 24 if I spent 2
> > years running on a treadmill over the next 10-20 years - I
> > might even live 2 years longer - too bad the net gain is
> > zero as those years were on the treadmill. I eat healthy,
> > but hey if I do everything right - get my BMI down, I
> > might live a year longer! So, I spend 10-50 years
> > worrying, working, denying myself the food an life I want
> > - so I can spend more time in diapers at a nursing care
> > home? Quality is as important as quantity - A fatty who is
> > happy might not live as long as a miserable skinny person,
> > but hey - maybe thats ok - it's their life. Finally, there
> > are many cases of blood pressure, bad cholesteral, and
> > disease amoung the skinny and fit.
>
> There certainly are folks who don't fit based on BMI alone--
> If you haven't already you can have fat mass measured by a
> number of methods to help prove your cause. pete

>>After an herbal retrofit in 1992, from a screwed up body
>>and heart,
etc..At 71, I'm about 30 physically and my blood and other
enzymes are the same. My pressurs are less than 100 over 70
and my enzymes are IN RANGE! Up till 1991..the opposite was
true...but AFTER 10 yrs of my own herbal regimines..look and
feel 28. Quite a "turn-around" to say the least! I even had a
stoke in the 60's due to some stupid doctors putting DYE in my
veins. Some residuals there but minimal. Since then I've
steered clear of Allopathics and have managed a NEW existence
based on KOSHER principles. The V_A is the only allopathic
group I allow to touch me! B-0b1

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Mack
<McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:

:> Why, yes, I could get my BMI to 24 if I spent 2 years
:> running on a treadmill over the next 10-20 years -

: You wouldn't have to do that. All you would have to do is
: eat less. Eat highly nutritious food but not much of it. If
: you restrict your calories enough, you actually get more
: benefit if you don't exercise -- at least that's what the
: animal studies show.

Less calories burned during exercise allows a greater
degree of CR.

Unfortunately, there hasn't been much research on getting
animals to lift weights, stretch or dance. Consequently most
of the conclusions relate to the effects of aerobic, C/V
exercise - such as running in a wheel.

There are a number of folk who seem to think that
low-duration, high intensity resistance training is suitable
for CRONies who want to avoid problems associated with losing
too much muscle mass - while I'm a keen yoga student and am a
big fan of stretching exercises, most of which can be done
without great energy expenditure.

Then there are exercises such as Tai Chi - which are
characterised by yielding motions, sensitivity, and finding
ways of getting maximum effect from the minimum effort.

I reckon there's a fair bit of scope for finding exercise
regimes that fit CR lifestyles.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Tom Malcol]

> quite thin but get the best possible nutrition, Dr. Edell
> notwithstanding, who also doesn't think eating sugar is any
> big deal. He's making very good money telling people what
> they want to hear.

Your mind is very important, a fat person who thinks I am
worthless and will get sick and die as I am fat will never
live as long and be as happy as one who accepts who they are
and makes healthy choices, and laughs at idiots who say he's
fat. I'm fat and HAPPY. I am losing weight but I will never
fit the model BMI. Dr. Edell tells the truth - please read
his book before saying he is just telling people what they
want to hear. Amazing how the world makes fun of bald, fat,
flat-chested woman, clumsy people - yet makes the most fun of
fat people. Sure we could starve and lose weight (at a risk
to our health) - just like the flat chested lady can get
implants, baldy can get a toupee. Some of us are HAPPY with
our body. In the old days one would be discriminated against
for being the wrong color, now it's the wrong shape. I am fat
and I will live as long as I want in great health. I do not
eat any fatty meats, very little meat. No butter, no
margerine, no lard, no mayo, only leaner cheeses, sprouts,
protiens and complex carbs. I was born fat, I will die fat
and HAPPY.

[Mack]

>I'm fat and HAPPY. I am losing weight but I will never fit
>the model BMI.

If you are so happy about being fat and so convinced that you
are so healthy then why are you losing weight? Seems to me as
though you would be eating your head off trying to gain even
more weight. I mean, if you are happy being fat, why wouldn't
you be even happier being incredibly fat? Maybe you could get
up to piano-size and be in ecstasy! Worth a try!

To whatever extent "the world makes fun" of fat people (and I
think you greatly exaggerate that; seems to me they get off
pretty light) it is partly because fatness is the result of
bad habits. Granted, people do inherit different appetites and
there are people with uncontrollable appetites, just as there
are people with other mental illnesses. But, for the most
part, fatness is a result of bad eating habits and the salient
word there is "habits" that, for most people, can be changed,
given the will and the effort.

>I do not eat any fatty meats, very little meat. No butter, no
>margerine, no lard, no mayo, only leaner cheeses, sprouts,
>protiens and complex carbs.

Well, it's hard to believe that you eat this incredibly
healthy diet and still you are fat. The only answer to that is
that your diet is not really so healthy as you claim or you
eat far, far too much of it. Probably both.

In any case, your prediction that

>I am fat and I will live as long as I want in great health.

...is one that I don't think you can rationally make. None of
us can predict that we will live as long as we want, or even
another moment. Chances are, you will die earlier than you
would like primarily because you are fat.

But if eating is that important to you and eating too much is
a habit you cannot change, then, well, bon appetit!

mack austin

"Tom Malcolm" <tom933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1fyah0s.gk97ay1b6swm8N%tom933@hotmail.com...
> > quite thin but get the best possible nutrition, Dr. Edell
notwithstanding,
> > who also doesn't think eating sugar is any big deal. He's
> > making very
good
> > money telling people what they want to hear.
>
> Your mind is very important, a fat person who thinks I am
> worthless and will get sick and die as I am fat will never
> live as long and be as happy as one who accepts who they are
> and makes healthy choices, and laughs at idiots who say he's
> fat. I'm fat and HAPPY. I am losing weight but I will never
> fit the model BMI. Dr. Edell tells the truth - please read
> his book before saying he is just telling people what they
> want to hear. Amazing how the world makes fun of bald, fat,
> flat-chested woman, clumsy people - yet makes the most fun
> of fat people. Sure we could starve and lose weight (at a
> risk to our health) - just like the flat chested lady can
> get implants, baldy can get a toupee. Some of us are HAPPY
> with our body. In the old days one would be discriminated
> against for being the wrong color, now it's the wrong shape.
> I am fat and I will live as long as I want in great health.
> I do not eat any fatty meats, very little meat. No butter,
> no margerine, no lard, no mayo, only leaner cheeses,
> sprouts, protiens and complex carbs. I was born fat, I will
> die fat and HAPPY.

[Tom Malcol]

> >I'm fat and HAPPY. I am losing weight but I will never fit
> >the model BMI.
> Well, it's hard to believe that you eat this incredibly
> healthy diet and still you are fat. The only answer to that
> is that your diet is not really so healthy as you claim or
> you eat far, far too much of it. Probably both. But if
> eating is that important to you and eating too much is a
> habit you cannot change, then, well, bon appetit!

I cannot change my height. I can not change my eye color, I
cannot change my voice. I cannot change my somatype. I have
VERY thick wrists - not fat, bone. I have a VERY big rib cage,
and a VERY big skull, feet are 13 5X wide. Waist is currently
36, chest is 50. I am trying to get my waist to 34 - and
that's it, any more and I will look like a freak and feel bad.
It's not just what we eat -it is our genetic programming. I
will never be a BMI of 24 - not even if I lose so much weight
I would be sickly. Like I said, I have a blood pressure of
110/70, resting pulse of 60, strong as an ox, my BMI is too
high. No matter how fat, skinny, tall, or short we are we must
be HAPPY with ourselves to live long. I've lost 30 pounds over
the last 5 months, I will lose 10-20 more and that's all I
need - I'm a chunky happy, healthy guy - and the world should
not get so anti-fat - after age 55, there is no correlation
between obesity and lowered lifespan.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Tom Malcolm <tom933@hotmail.com> wrote:

: I'm a chunky happy, healthy guy - and the world should not
: get so anti-fat - after age 55, there is no correlation
: between obesity and lowered lifespan.

An unlikely-sounding statistic.

Being overweight shortens your lifespan more when you
are young - probably since you spend more time the
unhealthy state.

The effect might well diminish with age - since the damage has
less time to occur - but I can't see any reason to expect it
to vanish.

It may be that obesity is not actually the cause. Both obesity
and reduced lifespan may instead be being caused by an excess
of calories.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Mack]

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote

> There are a number of folk who seem to think that
> low-duration, high intensity resistance training is suitable
> for CRONies who want to avoid problems associated with
> losing too much muscle mass - while I'm a keen yoga student
> and am a big fan of stretching exercises, most of which can
> be done without great energy expenditure.

Although I've long practiced calorie restriction, one way or
the other, I have only in recent years become familiar with
CRON and begun to put those particular practices into action
(now at 19.4 BMI). I work out in the gym, as I have for the
past 25 years, a couple days a week, and run 4-5 miles at a
gentle pace, 2-3 days a week. So, that's most likely a bit
more than I'll be able to do if I get that BMI down much
further. I am not particularly "big" muscle-wise, nor am I
likely, at age 59, to become so, but I am fairly muscular, so
my fat percentage must be quite low. At this point, the
running still feels great and I must admit that, after 20
years of doing it most of the time, I am pretty much addicted
to that activity and would loathe to give it up.

So, if there does turn out to be compatibility of a
low-intensity (and all my exercise is low-intensity, believe
me) exercise regimen -- but not just stretching or tai chi or
the like -- with good CRON benefits, that will be good news
for me. As the person to whom I replied earlier is addicted to
eating too much food, I am addicted to my exercise.

This fellow who complained about how much exercise he would
have to do in order to get his weight down has no idea, I
think, of how much that would be, as he grows older, if he
chose that route to a lower weight instead of cutting down
his eating.

I am amazed at how little I have to eat to lose a pound even
every couple of weeks, at my age -- even though I work out and
run a few hours a week. The amount of food that, in my 20's
when I didn't exercise at all, would have caused me to lose
several pounds a week, would now fatten me up very quickly. As
you grow older, less and less food is required. (And sleep,
too, apparently.) To my way of thinking, changing the horrible
habit of eating so much food is THE most important first step
we have to take. (With changing the kind of food only a
half-step behind, of course.)

mack austin

[Moosh:]]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:02:32 GMT, tom933@hotmail.com (Tom
Malcolm) wrote:

>> >But there sure is a difference between being genetically
>> >programmed to be fat
>> Really?
>
>Yes, really. It is so amazing, doctors and people don't fault
>men for being bald, nor women for having tiny or huge
>breasts, or for being born the wrong color - but man oh man -
>if you are born to fat parents (and fat grandparents) and you
>have been fat all your life - but it's not beer belly fat -
>it's the kind on your butt and legs and chest - along with a
>super-wide frame - my skeleton weighs more than average - so
>does me. I have a BMI of 29 so I can't get normal health care
>coverage. My grandparents are still alive at 94 on one side,
>died off at 91 and 92 on the other side. All fat all their
>lives up till their 80s. My blood pressure is 110/70, my
>resting pulse rate is 60, my cholesteral is VERY good. I have
>zero plaque or calcification on my heart, yet because I have
>a BMI of 29, I am to be rediculed and laughed at by the
>medical community. NO, I won't - I choose to be happy at my
>size. Why, yes, I could get my BMI to 24 if I spent 2 years
>running on a treadmill over the next 10-20 years - I might
>even live 2 years longer - too bad the net gain is zero as
>those years were on the treadmill. I eat healthy, but hey if
>I do everything right - get my BMI down, I might live a year
>longer! So, I spend 10-50 years worrying, working, denying
>myself the food an life I want - so I can spend more time in
>diapers at a nursing care home? Quality is as important as
>quantity - A fatty who is happy might not live as long as a
>miserable skinny person, but hey - maybe thats ok - it's
>their life. Finally, there are many cases of blood pressure,
>bad cholesteral, and disease amoung the skinny and fit.

My "really" was meant as "tongue-in-cheek" actually, and I'm
sorry you took it the wrong way. Yes, individuals should be
taken at face value, but if you run a big insurance
corporatioon, it is easier and cheaper to draw arbitrary lines
in the sand on epidemiological lines. It's like if you live in
a crime prone postcode and have to pay higher burglary
insurance premiums even if you are a group of young men with
someone home all the time, with two big dogs, and lots of
locks, lights and security. We in Oz have universal
non-discriminatory health insurance. Something I think Hillary
Clinton tried to bring in, but got thumped by your powerful
health insurance lobby. We don't have a very effective one of
those (fingers crossed) although they have got the government
to fork out millions to queue jumpers who buy "private"
insurance with their members.

[Moosh:]]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:18:08 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Tom Malcolm <tom933@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>: I'm a chunky happy, healthy guy - and the world should not
>: get so anti-fat - after age 55, there is no correlation
>: between obesity and lowered lifespan.
>
>An unlikely-sounding statistic.

For an obsessive weight loser, I would imagine :)

>Being overweight shortens your lifespan more when you
>are young - probably since you spend more time the
>unhealthy state.

Only statistically. Look at Winston Churchill. Fat all his
life, cigar smoking, depressive piss pot. He did rather well
in the longevity stakes. I'll bet his genes had something to
do with it :)

>The effect might well diminish with age - since the damage
>has less time to occur - but I can't see any reason to expect
>it to vanish.

What damage are you referring to? What if some fat folks don't
suffer this damage? Most will, but some just don't. Genes!

>It may be that obesity is not actually the cause. Both
>obesity and reduced lifespan may instead be being caused by
>an excess of calories.

Or not. Perhaps its genetic? Read his family history.

[Moosh:]]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:42:33 GMT, "Mack"
<McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:

>>I am fat and I will live as long as I want in great health.
>
>...is one that I don't think you can rationally make.

Umm, remember the ages of his grandparents? That has much more
bearing on longevity than food intake.

> None of us can predict that we will live as long as we want,
> or even another moment. Chances are, you will die earlier
> than you would like primarily because you are fat.

That's an epidemiological finding. It only relates to
individuals in a statistical way (chance)

Smoking has NO deleterious effect on some folks. Trouble is,
we only find out when we see a smoker who lives to 105.

>But if eating is that important to you and eating too much is
>a habit you cannot change, then, well, bon appetit!

He is losing weight. Why are you claiming he is eating too
much?

[Moosh:]]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 20:42:33 GMT, "Mack"
<McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:

>Well, it's hard to believe that you eat this incredibly
>healthy diet and still you are fat. The only answer to that
>is that your diet is not really so healthy as you claim or
>you eat far, far too much of it. Probably both.

You seem to be equating "healthy diet" with losing weight.

A fat person eating a healthy, eucaloric diet will NOT
lose weight.

This person needs to eat a hypocaloric diet to lose weight,
and a slow loss will be of benefit until he reaches what his
doctor considers a healthy weight for him. Not some skinny
role model.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:18:08 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:

:>The effect might well diminish with age - since the damage
:>has less time to occur - but I can't see any reason to
:>expect it to vanish.

: What damage are you referring to? [...]

The things that tend to increase their mortality rate.

Excess fat tends to give its owners diabetes, heart attacks,
strokes, high blood pressure, cancer, gallbladder disease,
osteoarthritis; sleep apnea, dyslipidemia, respiratory
problems - and increases their levels of oxidative stress.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_home.htm
http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gid2=475
http://www.charitywire.com/charity10/00256.html
http://www.lifescan.com/care/news/dn032803-3.html
http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/circulatory-problems.htm
http://www.weight-loss-i.com/weight-lifespan-longevity.htm
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:09:37 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>: On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:18:08 GMT, Tim Tyler
>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
>:>The effect might well diminish with age - since the damage
>:>has less time to occur - but I can't see any reason to
>:>expect it to vanish.
>
>: What damage are you referring to? [...]
>
>The things that tend to increase their mortality rate.

And if they don't get these?
>
>Excess fat tends to give its owners diabetes,

Only if they have the genetic predisposition.

>heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, cancer,
>gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis; sleep apnea,
>dyslipidemia, respiratory problems - and increases their
>levels of oxidative stress.

Only on a statistical basis. There are fat folk with normal
lipids, normal blood pressure, not a trace of osteoarthritis
(BTW, my sil has this real bad, and she's been 5' of skin and
bone for all of her 63 years) Oxidative stress is clap trap
mumbo jumbo IMHO. Flavour of the month with the neo hippies :)

This guy has a fat family that lives into their 90s. He's
normotensive and normolipidemic Many of the things you
mention are 90% heredity. Lifestyle will only bring some out
earlier or later.

>http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_home.htm
>http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gid2=475
>http://www.charitywire.com/charity10/00256.html
>http://www.lifescan.com/care/news/dn032803-3.html
>http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/circulatory-problems.htm
>http://www.weight-loss-i.com/weight-lifespan-longevity.htm

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:09:37 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:

:>Excess fat tends to give its owners diabetes, [...] heart
:>attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, cancer, gallbladder
:>disease, osteoarthritis; sleep apnea, dyslipidemia,
:>respiratory problems - and increases their levels of
:>oxidative stress.

: Only on a statistical basis. [...]

Smoking cigarettes only causes lung cancer "on a
statistical basis".
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 09:15:37 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:09:37 GMT, Tim Tyler
>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
>:>Excess fat tends to give its owners diabetes, [...] heart
>:>attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, cancer, gallbladder
>:>disease, osteoarthritis; sleep apnea, dyslipidemia,
>:>respiratory problems - and increases their levels of
>:>oxidative stress.
>
>: Only on a statistical basis. [...]
>
>Smoking cigarettes only causes lung cancer "on a
>statistical basis".

Of course it does. Only a small percentage of smokers get lung
cancer. If it wasn't a statistical basis, everyone who smoked
would get it. Or no-one.

[Hua Kul]

tom933@hotmail.com (Tom Malcolm) wrote in message
news:<1fy8jgp.2mkfjj1h87rumN%tom933@hotmail.com>...

>...my skeleton weighs more than average - so does me. I have
>a BMI of 29 so I can't get normal health care coverage.... My
>blood pressure is 110/70, my resting pulse rate is 60, my
>cholesteral is VERY good. I have zero plaque or calcification
>on my heart...

This brings up an issue that has bothered me for years...BMI
gives no indication of body fat%, yet is used as though it
does correlate. Several years ago in the gym I met a fullback
for the NFL team in my city. We are of the same height and
weight so must have the same BMI. However, he was all muscle
and bone and I looked like pudgy putty-man. I'm sure his
health measurements were much better than mine at the time. I
think BMI is misleading and should not be used to make
decisions such as insurance rates. I respect the scholarship
of...Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>...and would appreciate his input
on the issue of BMI becoming such a universal indexing tool,
and whether or not I am correct that it says nothing about
body fat content.

--Hua Kul

huaREMOVEkul@hotREMOVEmail.com

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Hua Kul <gmp@adres.nl> wrote:

: This brings up an issue that has bothered me for years...BMI
: gives no indication of body fat%, yet is used as though it
: does correlate.

BMI does correlate with % body fat. That's not very
controversial.

Sure the large "beefcakes" exist - with large BMI and low body
fat - but they are hardly the rule.

Clearly BMI isn't as helpful as it could be as a measure of
fat content.

Its virtue is that it's easy to measure. You need special
scales (or similar) to measure fat content.

Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper and more
common. Then - perhaps - usage of the BMI will wane.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Mack]

> Only statistically. Look at Winston Churchill. Fat all his
> life, cigar smoking, depressive piss pot. He did rather well
> in the longevity stakes. I'll bet his genes had something to
> do with it :)

I'll bet they did, too, as they have to do with everything. No
one disputes the fact that a few outliers on the curve live to
100 after a lifetime of bad health habits. But you probably
won't, nor I.

Anecdotal evidence is weak. Anytime you look at what has
happened to one person you are decreasing your sample space to
such a degree that your evidence becomes worthless. If you
always reasoned that way, you would never drive a car because
someone you know got killed in a car accident. You would never
eat because someone you heard about choked on his breakfast.

Anyway, personally, even if my life expectancy were exactly
the same either way -- and it may be; there is always that
bus waiting right around the corner for me to step into the
street -- I would rather much rather live my life lean than
fat. Having been fat in my youth and lean in my adulthood, I
know the difference. The trade-off of giving up the typical
American diet for a lean and healthy body seems to me a
no-brainer and not nearly as difficult as the fat people --
trapped in their habits and unable to see a way out -- want
to believe.

[Mack]

> He is losing weight. Why are you claiming he is eating
> too much?

There does seem to be a contradiction between his claim that
he is losing weight and his full-throated defense of being
fat. As I pointed out in my reply to his message, if being fat
is so great, why would he want to lose weight?

In any case, his point was that he was fat and fully expected
to remain fat. If you are fat, then you eat too much. Ergo, he
eats too much. Or, at the very least, intends to resume eating
too much at some later date.

[Mack]

> You seem to be equating "healthy diet" with losing weight.
>
> A fat person eating a healthy, eucaloric diet will NOT
> lose weight.
>
> This person needs to eat a hypocaloric diet to lose weight,
> and a slow loss will be of benefit until he reaches what his
> doctor considers a healthy weight for him. Not some skinny
> role model.

I do not equate healthy diet and losing weight. I equate a
healthy diet with being at a weight that, for most people,
leaves them quite thin -- somewhat thinner than what most
Americans or even most American doctors would think is a
"healthy weight". Also, that diet needs to be extremely
nutritious, probably supplemented.

On the contrary to what you seem to be saying here, thousands
of animal and other studies over the past 65 years do, in
fact, indicate that "skinny" plus very well nourished are the
keys to long life and the best possible health.

[David Wrig]

In article <HIAGHy.GLv@bath.ac.uk>, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>In sci.life-extension Hua Kul <gmp@adres.nl> wrote:
>
>: This brings up an issue that has bothered me for
>: years...BMI gives no indication of body fat%, yet is used
>: as though it does correlate.
>
>BMI does correlate with % body fat. That's not very
>controversial.
>
>Sure the large "beefcakes" exist - with large BMI and low
>body fat - but they are hardly the rule.
>
>Clearly BMI isn't as helpful as it could be as a measure of
>fat content.
>
>Its virtue is that it's easy to measure. You need special
>scales (or similar) to measure fat content.

BMI is mostly useful as a screening tool in sedentary
populations. In fit populations, its utility is quite low. My
bodyfat is under 20%, but my BMI is 26.5. Put on enough muscle
and you can have similar results.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have
not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 21:23:45 GMT, "Mack"
<McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:

>"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote
>
>> BMI does correlate with % body fat. That's not very
>> controversial.
>>
>> Sure the large "beefcakes" exist - with large BMI and low
>> body fat - but they are hardly the rule.
>
>I have also wondered about this, since the only two numbers
>that go into BMI are height and weight. Arnold Schwarzenegger
>would have a giant BMI number even if his body fat was very
>low. And he would be healthier, everything else being equal,
>than a fat person of the same height and weight because of
>the nature of muscle vs. fat.

Likely, but certainly not necessarily so.

>BUT -- what about a person (such as myself, hence the
>interest) who is just fairly muscular from many years working
>out in the gym but not egregiously so? It would seem that
>there should be a BMI adjustment for muscularity. (Perhaps
>"wimp", "ripped" and "beefcake"?)

No The only other way I can think of would be to measure your
specific gravity. Not easy.

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Hua Kul <gmp@adres.nl> wrote:
>
>: This brings up an issue that has bothered me for
>: years...BMI gives no indication of body fat%, yet is used
>: as though it does correlate.
>
>BMI does correlate with % body fat. That's not very
>controversial.
>
>Sure the large "beefcakes" exist - with large BMI and low
>body fat - but they are hardly the rule.
>
>Clearly BMI isn't as helpful as it could be as a measure of
>fat content.
>
>Its virtue is that it's easy to measure. You need special
>scales (or similar) to measure fat content.
>
>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper and
>more common.

Do you know how this might occur?

I believe they measure fat content now by measuring specific
gravity. This is expensive and difficult.

[Moosh:]]

On 19 Jul 2003 09:29:09 -0700, gmp@adres.nl (Hua Kul) wrote:

>tom933@hotmail.com (Tom Malcolm) wrote in message
>news:<1fy8jgp.2mkfjj1h87rumN%tom933@hotmail.com>...
>
>>...my skeleton weighs more than average - so does me. I have
>>a BMI of 29 so I can't get normal health care coverage....
>>My blood pressure is 110/70, my resting pulse rate is 60, my
>>cholesteral is VERY good. I have zero plaque or
>>calcification on my heart...
>
>This brings up an issue that has bothered me for years...BMI
>gives no indication of body fat%, yet is used as though it
>does correlate.

Because it's easy -- quick and dirty. Many easy measures
are not ideal

>Several years ago in the gym I met a fullback for the NFL
>team in my city. We are of the same height and weight so must
>have the same BMI.

That's what I hinted at above.

> However, he was all muscle and bone and I looked like pudgy
> putty-man. I'm sure his health measurements were much better
> than mine at the time.

Not necessarily. You both might be at the opposite ends of a
genetic continuum. He might be genetically programmed to fall
apart in a few years and you might be programmed to go on to
your nineties in reasonable heath.

> I think BMI is misleading and should not be used to make
> decisions such as insurance rates.

As I said above, it is quick and easy. Fairness has nothing
to do with
it. If you want "fair" see your regulator. QED

> I respect the scholarship of...Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>...and
> would appreciate his input on the issue of BMI becoming such
> a universal indexing tool, and whether or not I am correct
> that it says nothing about body fat content.

Isn't it obvious? Who can afford float tank measurements
(specific gravity) on the entire population? Cost/benefit is
not there.

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:31:05 GMT, "Mack"
<McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:

>> You seem to be equating "healthy diet" with losing weight.
>>
>> A fat person eating a healthy, eucaloric diet will NOT lose
>> weight.
>>
>> This person needs to eat a hypocaloric diet to lose weight,
>> and a slow loss will be of benefit until he reaches what
>> his doctor considers a healthy weight for him. Not some
>> skinny role model.
>
>I do not equate healthy diet and losing weight.

Well yes you do, and you go on here to demonstrate that.

> I equate a healthy diet with being at a weight that, for
> most people, leaves them quite thin --

Well you have to be at that weight already, or go on a calorie
restricted diet. You can be fat on a healthy diet. It should
be eucaloric, after all.

>somewhat thinner than what most Americans or even most
>American doctors would think is a "healthy weight".

No, I think you have some fixation about weight. Perhaps from
your childhood? A BMI up to high 20s is fine for most folks.
So long as they get moderate regular exefcise.

>Also, that diet needs to be extremely nutritious, probably
>supplemented.

No it doesn't. A varied, wholefood, eucaloric diet is all that
is needed for optimal health. (exercise as well)

>On the contrary to what you seem to be saying here, thousands
>of animal and other studies over the past 65 years do, in
>fact, indicate that "skinny" plus very well nourished are the
>keys to long life and the best possible health.

Severe calorie restriction in mice has been shown to increase
their longevity. Mice live for around three years. I believe
this cannot be extrapolated to humans.

Anyway, this man is eating hypocalorically. I fail to see what
your argument with him is.

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:22:33 GMT, "Mack"
<McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:

>> He is losing weight. Why are you claiming he is eating
>> too much?
>
>There does seem to be a contradiction between his claim
>that he is losing weight and his full-throated defense of
>being fat.

Not really. There is a great difference between "being fat"
and "gaining weight"

>As I pointed out in my reply to his message, if being fat is
>so great, why would he want to lose weight?

It's a matter of degree. He apparently thinks he is a little
too fat and is losing some, but not to ridiculous extremes for
his particular case.

>In any case, his point was that he was fat and fully expected
>to remain fat.

Yep, but not quite as fat as he is.

>If you are fat, then you eat too much.

Not at all. You can argue that you once ate too much, but he
is actulally eating less than maintenance now.

>Ergo, he eats too much.

No, once again, he eats less energy than he expends

>Or, at the very least, intends to resume eating too much at
>some later date.

How can you possibly assume that? There are degrees of
percentage of fat storage. His views are not those of yours.

[Mack]

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote

> BMI does correlate with % body fat. That's not very
> controversial.
>
> Sure the large "beefcakes" exist - with large BMI and low
> body fat - but they are hardly the rule.

I have also wondered about this, since the only two numbers
that go into BMI are height and weight. Arnold Schwarzenegger
would have a giant BMI number even if his body fat was very
low. And he would be healthier, everything else being equal,
than a fat person of the same height and weight because of the
nature of muscle vs. fat.

BUT -- what about a person (such as myself, hence the
interest) who is just fairly muscular from many years working
out in the gym but not egregiously so? It would seem that
there should be a BMI adjustment for muscularity. (Perhaps
"wimp", "ripped" and "beefcake"?)

mack austin

[Moosh:]]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 13:17:35 GMT, "Mack"
<McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:

>> Only statistically. Look at Winston Churchill. Fat all his
>> life, cigar smoking, depressive piss pot. He did rather
>> well in the longevity stakes. I'll bet his genes had
>> something to do with it :)
>
>I'll bet they did, too, as they have to do with everything.
>No one disputes the fact that a few outliers on the curve
>live to 100 after a lifetime of bad health habits. But you
>probably won't, nor I.

Granted. But we have a resident idiot who denies genetic
influences on his health.

>Anecdotal evidence is weak.

Other than to show that a phenomenon occurs.

>Anytime you look at what has happened to one person you are
>decreasing your sample space to such a degree that your
>evidence becomes worthless. If you always reasoned that way,
>you would never drive a car because someone you know got
>killed in a car accident. You would never eat because someone
>you heard about choked on his breakfast.

Well you have misinterpretted my assertion. The fact that
someone I heard of choked on his breakfast, would make me
take care for a period of time. The car example would make me
drive more carefully for a time. You see those two examples
don't say anything about likelyhood of these things
happening, just that they CAN happen. BTW, if you studied the
car travel statistics, you would probably give up driving (
like I have recently)

>Anyway, personally, even if my life expectancy were
>exactly the same either way -- and it may be; there is
>always that bus waiting right around the corner for me to
>step into the street

Goodyear poisoning :)

> -- I would rather much rather live my life lean than fat.

That's you. I would too, but that does not apply to everyone,
and neither it should

> Having been fat in my youth and lean in my adulthood, I know
> the difference. The trade-off of giving up the typical
> American diet for a lean and healthy body seems to me a
> no-brainer and not nearly as difficult as the fat people --
> trapped in their habits and unable to see a way out -- want
> to believe.

Well fatness doesn't actually agree with many folks -- they
feel unwell. So they would surely be advised to lose the
weight. But there are some people who are fine. Tolerance is a
good philosophy IMHO.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:

:>BMI does correlate with % body fat. That's not very
:>controversial.
:>
:>Sure the large "beefcakes" exist - with large BMI and low
:>body fat - but they are hardly the rule.
:>
:>Clearly BMI isn't as helpful as it could be as a measure of
:>fat content.
:>
:>Its virtue is that it's easy to measure. You need special
:>scales (or similar) to measure fat content.
:>
:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper and
:>more common.

: Do you know how this might occur?

: I believe they measure fat content now by measuring specific
: gravity. This is expensive and difficult.

Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/

They work by getting you to take your shoes off, then
passing pulses of electrical current through both feet and
both legs, and measuring the impedence at various points,
and performing calculations based on these figures and your
height and gender.

Recent versions will also measure water content, BMR - and
recommend what calorie intake would be required to maintain
the current weight.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Moosh:]]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
>:>BMI does correlate with % body fat. That's not very
>:>controversial.
>:>
>:>Sure the large "beefcakes" exist - with large BMI and low
>:>body fat - but they are hardly the rule.
>:>
>:>Clearly BMI isn't as helpful as it could be as a measure of
>:>fat content.
>:>
>:>Its virtue is that it's easy to measure. You need special
>:>scales (or similar) to measure fat content.
>:>
>:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper and
>:>more common.
>
>: Do you know how this might occur?
>
>: I believe they measure fat content now by measuring
>: specific gravity. This is expensive and difficult.
>
>Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/
>
>They work by getting you to take your shoes off, then
>passing pulses of electrical current through both feet and
>both legs, and measuring the impedence at various points,
>and performing calculations based on these figures and your
>height and gender.
>
>Recent versions will also measure water content, BMR - and
>recommend what calorie intake would be required to maintain
>the current weight.

Thanks Tim. Interesting, but I would guess not very accurate,
but a reasonable quick guide. Electrical resistance is quite a
variable thing.

The ultimate accuracy for a live patient :) is SG.

Perhaps sonography might have a method.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
:>: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
:>: wrote:

:>:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper and
:>:>more common.
:>
:>: Do you know how this might occur?
:>
:>: I believe they measure fat content now by measuring
:>: specific gravity. This is expensive and difficult.
:>
:>Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/
:>
:>They work by getting you to take your shoes off, then
:>passing pulses of electrical current through both feet and
:>both legs, and measuring the impedence at various points,
:>and performing calculations based on these figures and your
:>height and gender.
:>
:>Recent versions will also measure water content, BMR - and
:>recommend what calorie intake would be required to maintain
:>the current weight.

: Thanks Tim. Interesting, but I would guess not very
: accurate, but a reasonable quick guide. Electrical
: resistance is quite a variable thing.

They are often graduated to the nearest 0.1% fat.

However many people report that their measurment depends on
their level of hdyration - and that they get the best (or at
least most consistent) readings by measuring themselves after
they wake up.

One problem is that the calculation is based on your leg
measurements.

If you have recently been to the liposuction clinic - or
otherwise have an ususal body fat distribution on your legs -
this might not be entirely representative.

There are similar hand-held devices - that passes current
through your arms and torso - but my experience so far is that
these do not produce such consistent measurements.

For those with deep pockets, Tanita do a "Segmental Body
Composition Analyser" - which:

``prints out a complete body composition profile in seconds,
including Weight, Body Fat Percentage, Body Fat Mass, Fat Free
Mass, Estimated Muscle Mass, Total Body Water and Basal
Metabolic Rate. Through the use of 8 polar electrodes, it can
show separate body mass readings for the right arm, left arm,
trunk, right leg and left leg.'' -
http://www.tanita.co.uk/bc418ma.cfm

Sorry if I sound a bit like a salesman ;-)

FWIW, my Tanita scale isn't actually that great. It's not a
new model - seems to take a while to warm up - and doesn't
seem to be able to calculate my fat content and weigh me at
the same time - and seems to go through rechargable batteries
at an impressive rate.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Wuzzy]

Not really following the conversation just comments:

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:<tjlkhv05662kn1tlg7qabjd76dqcokjonf@4ax.com>...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler
> <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
> >In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
> >: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
> >: wrote:
>
> >:>BMI does correlate with % body fat. That's not very
> >:>controversial.
> >:>
> >:>Sure the large "beefcakes" exist - with large BMI and low
> >:>body fat - but they are hardly the rule.

Ie., it is population specific you can't mix children or very
old people or anorectics. Even if you include these people
at their normal rates, it is can measure with a
reliability of >>80%.

> >:>
> >:>Clearly BMI isn't as helpful as it could be as a measure
> >:>of fat content.
> >:>
> >:>Its virtue is that it's easy to measure. You need special
> >:>scales (or similar) to measure fat content.
> >:>
> >:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper and
> >:>more common.

They won't and don't need to. The surrogates (skinfolds and
bioelectrical) suck loads so throw those out and use BMI. The
DEXA and ohers will never be cheap maybe "cheaper" for clinics
but too expensive for individuals.

>
> >: Do you know how this might occur?
>
> >: I believe they measure fat content now by measuring
> >: specific gravity.

I think you mean body volume by underwater weighing - specific
gravity is a measure of urine water.. (bioelectrical impedance
works by estimating volume of water)..

> >: This is expensive and difficult.
> >
> >Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/
> >
> >They work by getting you to take your shoes off, then
> >passing pulses of electrical current through both feet and
> >both legs, and measuring the impedence at various points,
> >and performing calculations based on these figures and your
> >height and gender.
> >
> >Recent versions will also measure water content, BMR - and
> >recommend what calorie intake would be required to maintain
> >the current weight.
>
> Thanks Tim. Interesting, but I would guess not very
> accurate, but a reasonable quick guide. Electrical
> resistance is quite a variable thing.

It is impossible for BIA to measure body fat. What it does is
measure body water which is the inverse of current's
resistance. The body fat is estimated by "guessing" your
bodyfat using measurement of water and your weight and info
that *you* supply on your age and maybe gender. So that BIA
sucks almost as bad as skinfolds. At most it would improve
your guessing power by 10%. I wouldn't bet on using it either,
much better to use waist circumference

[Wuzzy]

another reason for using waist-circ is that that is the
relevant thing for diabetes - for instance systemic free fatty
acids *underestimates* free fatty acid load on the liver since
the central adipose tissue dumps directly into the liver..
there are other similar reasons for instance interleukin-6 is
released by adipose tissue causes the high c-reactive protein
production in obese ppl (to get an idea of the danger of
c-reactive protein - it is now being used as a marker of
endothelial dysfunction/progenitor cell# which can screw up
blood pressure and increase cardiovascular events) women are
lucky in that they they trap fat in the hip which prevents it
from being trapped next to the liver.

[Moosh:]]

On 20 Jul 2003 11:22:56 -0700, mypcos@hotmail.com
(wuzzy) wrote:

>It is impossible for BIA to measure body fat. What it does is
>measure body water which is the inverse of current's
>resistance.

Not really. It measures electrical resistance which is
dependent on so many things. Body water is not one of them

>The body fat is estimated by "guessing" your bodyfat using
>measurement of water and your weight and info that *you*
>supply on your age and maybe gender. So that BIA sucks almost
>as bad as skinfolds. At most it would improve your guessing
>power by 10%. I wouldn't bet on using it either, much better
>to use waist circumference

Yep

[Moosh:]]

On 20 Jul 2003 11:22:56 -0700, mypcos@hotmail.com
(wuzzy) wrote:

>> >: I believe they measure fat content now by measuring
>> >: specific gravity.
>
>I think you mean body volume by underwater weighing -
>specific gravity is a measure of urine water.. (bioelectrical
>impedance works by estimating volume of water)..

Nope. Specific gravity of urine is specific gravity of urine
:)

Specific gravity of the whole body is what you are describing.
The density of the whole body compared to that of water.

Underwater weighing will not give body volume, but weighing
while submerged and measuring body volume will give you
specific gravity of the whole body.

BTW, how do you do this: (bioelectrical impedance works by
estimating volume of water).. ?

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension wuzzy <mypcos@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Not really following the conversation just comments:
: "Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
: news:<tjlkhv05662kn1tlg7qabjd76dqcokjonf@4ax.com>...
:> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler
:> <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
:> >In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
:> >wrote:
:> >: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
:> >: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:

:> >:>Clearly BMI isn't as helpful as it could be as a measure
:> >:>of fat content.
:> >:>
:> >:>Its virtue is that it's easy to measure. You need
:> >:>special scales (or similar) to measure fat content.
:> >:>
:> >:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper and
:> >:>more common.

: They won't and don't need to. The surrogates (skinfolds and
: bioelectrical) suck loads so throw those out and use BMI.

I do think they will become cheaper and more accurate.
That's progress.

:> >Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/
:> >
:> >They work by getting you to take your shoes off, then
:> >passing pulses of electrical current through both feet and
:> >both legs, and measuring the impedence at various points,
:> >and performing calculations based on these figures and
:> >your height and gender.
:> >
:> >Recent versions will also measure water content, BMR - and
:> >recommend what calorie intake would be required to
:> >maintain the current weight.
:>
:> Thanks Tim. Interesting, but I would guess not very
:> accurate, but a reasonable quick guide. Electrical
:> resistance is quite a variable thing.

: It is impossible for BIA to measure body fat. What it does
: is measure body water which is the inverse of current's
: resistance. The body fat is estimated by "guessing" your
: bodyfat using measurement of water and your weight and info
: that *you* supply on your age and maybe gender. So that BIA
: sucks almost as bad as skinfolds.

I would say skin folding is also a pretty good technique.
Better - perhaps - than measuring impedence in terms of
accuracy. However it is less convenient - and it isn't what
consumers want.

: I wouldn't bet on using it either, much better to use waist
: circumference

Another metric with its own set of drawbacks.

Of course, the more independent measurments you take, the more
clues you have about the object of your study ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:24:42 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension wuzzy <mypcos@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: Not really following the conversation just comments:
>: "Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>: news:<tjlkhv05662kn1tlg7qabjd76dqcokjonf@4ax.com>...
>:> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
>:> wrote:
>:> >In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
>:> >wrote:
>:> >: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
>:> >: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
>:> >:>Clearly BMI isn't as helpful as it could be as a
>:> >:>measure of fat content.
>:> >:>
>:> >:>Its virtue is that it's easy to measure. You need
>:> >:>special scales (or similar) to measure fat content.
>:> >:>
>:> >:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper and
>:> >:>more common.
>
>: They won't and don't need to. The surrogates (skinfolds and
>: bioelectrical) suck loads so throw those out and use BMI.
>
>I do think they will become cheaper and more accurate. That's
>progress.

Not likely IMO, if the principle is limited.

>:> >Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/
>:> >
>:> >They work by getting you to take your shoes off, then
>:> >passing pulses of electrical current through both feet
>:> >and both legs, and measuring the impedence at various
>:> >points, and performing calculations based on these
>:> >figures and your height and gender.
>:> >
>:> >Recent versions will also measure water content, BMR -
>:> >and recommend what calorie intake would be required to
>:> >maintain the current weight.
>:>
>:> Thanks Tim. Interesting, but I would guess not very
>:> accurate, but a reasonable quick guide. Electrical
>:> resistance is quite a variable thing.
>
>: It is impossible for BIA to measure body fat. What it does
>: is measure body water which is the inverse of current's
>: resistance. The body fat is estimated by "guessing" your
>: bodyfat using measurement of water and your weight and info
>: that *you* supply on your age and maybe gender. So that BIA
>: sucks almost as bad as skinfolds.
>
>I would say skin folding is also a pretty good technique.
>Better - perhaps - than measuring impedence in terms of
>accuracy. However it is less convenient - and it isn't what
>consumers want.

Bugger the consumers. This is science, not marketing :)

>: I wouldn't bet on using it either, much better to use waist
>: circumference
>
>Another metric with its own set of drawbacks.

But the point is that it is cheaper and arguably more
accurate.

>Of course, the more independent measurments you take, the
>more clues you have about the object of your study ;-)

If only that were so :)

[Moosh:]]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 15:48:38 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>: On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler
>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>:>: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
>:>: wrote:
>
>:>:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper and
>:>:>more common.
>:>
>:>: Do you know how this might occur?
>:>
>:>: I believe they measure fat content now by measuring
>:>: specific gravity. This is expensive and difficult.
>:>
>:>Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/
>:>
>:>They work by getting you to take your shoes off, then
>:>passing pulses of electrical current through both feet and
>:>both legs, and measuring the impedence at various points,
>:>and performing calculations based on these figures and your
>:>height and gender.
>:>
>:>Recent versions will also measure water content, BMR - and
>:>recommend what calorie intake would be required to maintain
>:>the current weight.
>
>: Thanks Tim. Interesting, but I would guess not very
>: accurate, but a reasonable quick guide. Electrical
>: resistance is quite a variable thing.
>
>They are often graduated to the nearest 0.1% fat.

That doesn't mean a thing. You can write anything you like on
a dial. Do you know of a study comparing these measurements
with other more direct measurements?

>However many people report that their measurment depends on
>their level of hdyration - and that they get the best (or at
>least most consistent) readings by measuring themselves after
>they wake up.

I rest my case :)

>One problem is that the calculation is based on your leg
>measurements.
>
>If you have recently been to the liposuction clinic -

Not a common occurrence round these parts :)

>or otherwise have an ususal body fat distribution on your
>legs - this might not be entirely representative.

Just think how electricity is conducted along a non-homogenous
conductor. Why not travel along tubes filled with salt
solution? (blood vessels)

>There are similar hand-held devices - that passes current
>through your arms and torso - but my experience so far is
>that these do not produce such consistent measurements.

I wouldn't doubt that.

>For those with deep pockets, Tanita do a "Segmental Body
>Composition Analyser" - which:
>
>``prints out a complete body composition profile in seconds,
>including Weight, Body Fat Percentage, Body Fat Mass, Fat
>Free Mass, Estimated Muscle Mass, Total Body Water and Basal
>Metabolic Rate. Through the use of 8 polar electrodes, it can
>show separate body mass readings for the right arm, left arm,
>trunk, right leg and left leg.'' -
>http://www.tanita.co.uk/bc418ma.cfm

So they say. What is the value of knowing your left arm is
fat? As if you couldn't already tell.

>Sorry if I sound a bit like a salesman ;-)

No, I see you as suggesting something of value. I just take a
lot more convincing.

>FWIW, my Tanita scale isn't actually that great. It's not a
>new model - seems to take a while to warm up - and doesn't
>seem to be able to calculate my fat content and weigh me at
>the same time - and seems to go through rechargable batteries
>at an impressive rate.

Try Radio Shack for a power pack to save batteries.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
:>: On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
:>: wrote:
:>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
:>:>wrote:
:>:>: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
:>:>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:

:>:>:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper and
:>:>:>more common.
:>:>
:>:>: Do you know how this might occur?
:>:>
:>:>: I believe they measure fat content now by measuring
:>:>: specific gravity. This is expensive and difficult.
:>:>
:>:>Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/

[Are they accurate?]

: Just think how electricity is conducted along a
: non-homogenous conductor. Why not travel along tubes filled
: with salt solution? (blood vessels)

Body fat scales work on the principle that fat and muscle hold
different amounts of water, hence their electrical
conductivity differs.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:05:56 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>:>: On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
>:>: wrote:
>:>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
>:>:>wrote:
>:>:>: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
>:>:>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
>:>:>:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper and
>:>:>:>more common.
>:>:>
>:>:>: Do you know how this might occur?
>:>:>
>:>:>: I believe they measure fat content now by measuring
>:>:>: specific gravity. This is expensive and difficult.
>:>:>
>:>:>Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/
>
>[Are they accurate?]
>
>: Just think how electricity is conducted along a
>: non-homogenous conductor. Why not travel along tubes filled
>: with salt solution? (blood vessels)
>
>Body fat scales work on the principle that fat and muscle
>hold different amounts of water, hence their electrical
>conductivity differs.

I understand the principle, but water is a poor conductor of
electricity. Salt water is good, and there are tubes of this
running up the legs. Conductivity (resistivity) seems a poor
correlate for fat composition. Skin resistivity is a very
variable thing just to start with.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:05:56 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
:>:>: On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler
:>:>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
:>:>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
:>:>:>wrote:
:>:>:>: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
:>:>:>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:

:>:>:>:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper
:>:>:>:>and more common.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>: Do you know how this might occur?
:>:>:>
:>:>:>: I believe they measure fat content now by measuring
:>:>:>: specific gravity. This is expensive and difficult.
:>:>:>
:>:>:>Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/
:>
:>[Are they accurate?]
:>
:>: Just think how electricity is conducted along a
:>: non-homogenous conductor. Why not travel along tubes
:>: filled with salt solution? (blood vessels)
:>
:>Body fat scales work on the principle that fat and muscle
:>hold different amounts of water, hence their electrical
:>conductivity differs.

: I understand the principle, but water is a poor conductor of
: electricity. Salt water is good, and there are tubes of this
: running up the legs. [...]

I believe that's the point:

Muscle and blood are both largely composed of saline solution
with a high conductivity. By contrast fat is an insulator -
with high resistance.

The easier current passes through, the more muscle there is -
and since the machine has also measured your weight - and
knows your height, it can take a good guess at how much of you
is non-conductive fat.

Smart scales have other things they could do. Different
tissues respond differently at different frequencies. By
measuring the response to a broad spectrum, they can gain
additional clues about the body's composition.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:24:42 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
:>In sci.life-extension wuzzy <mypcos@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>: Not really following the conversation just comments:
:>: "Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
:>: news:<tjlkhv05662kn1tlg7qabjd76dqcokjonf@4ax.com>...
:>:> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
:>:> wrote:
:>:> >In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
:>:> >wrote:
:>:> >: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
:>:> >: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:

:>:> >:>Clearly BMI isn't as helpful as it could be as a
:>:> >:>measure of fat content.
:>:> >:>
:>:> >:>Its virtue is that it's easy to measure. You need
:>:> >:>special scales (or similar) to measure fat content.
:>:> >:>
:>:> >:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper
:>:> >:>and more common.
:>
:>: They won't and don't need to. The surrogates (skinfolds
:>: and bioelectrical) suck loads so throw those out and
:>: use BMI.
:>
:>I do think they will become cheaper and more accurate.
:>That's progress.

: Not likely IMO, if the principle is limited.

It seems inevitable to me. An expanding market should help.
These things are appearing in consumer catalogs these days. A
good distribution stream should boost sales - and hopefully
the product will improve faster.

:>I would say skin folding is also a pretty good technique.
:>Better - perhaps - than measuring impedence in terms of
:>accuracy. However it is less convenient - and it isn't what
:>consumers want.

: Bugger the consumers. This is science, not marketing :)

If money and convenience are not factors there's always DEXA.

:>: I wouldn't bet on using it either, much better to use
:>: waist circumference
:>
:>Another metric with its own set of drawbacks.

: But the point is that it is cheaper and arguably more
: accurate.

I doubt its very accurate. As with the calipers you probably
need to take multiple measurements at different locations -
and then apply some maths - to get a reasonable figure for the
overall percentage BF.

It's probably one of the best metrics if your goal is to get
back into those trousers that used to fit you, though ;-)

Both calipers and tape measures are inexpensive. Fat scales
aren't very expensive either, though - and their price will
doubtless continue to fall as their popularity rises.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:26:39 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:24:42 GMT, Tim Tyler
>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>:>In sci.life-extension wuzzy <mypcos@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:>: Not really following the conversation just comments:
>:>: "Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>:>: news:<tjlkhv05662kn1tlg7qabjd76dqcokjonf@4ax.com>...
>:>:> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler
>:>:> <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>:>:> >In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
>:>:> >wrote:
>:>:> >: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
>:>:> >: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
>:>:> >:>Clearly BMI isn't as helpful as it could be as a
>:>:> >:>measure of fat content.
>:>:> >:>
>:>:> >:>Its virtue is that it's easy to measure. You need
>:>:> >:>special scales (or similar) to measure fat content.
>:>:> >:>
>:>:> >:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper
>:>:> >:>and more common.
>:>
>:>: They won't and don't need to. The surrogates (skinfolds
>:>: and bioelectrical) suck loads so throw those out and
>:>: use BMI.
>:>
>:>I do think they will become cheaper and more accurate.
>:>That's progress.
>
>: Not likely IMO, if the principle is limited.
>
>It seems inevitable to me. An expanding market should help.
>These things are appearing in consumer catalogs these days. A
>good distribution stream should boost sales - and hopefully
>the product will improve faster.

OK, if you are happy, but I believe the priciple is flawed,
and not worth the bother. Unless you just like to see any
number displayed and don't let the fact that it bears little
relationship to actual fat percentages bother you.

>:>I would say skin folding is also a pretty good technique.
>:>Better - perhaps - than measuring impedence in terms of
>:>accuracy. However it is less convenient - and it isn't what
>:>consumers want.
>
>: Bugger the consumers. This is science, not marketing :)
>
>If money and convenience are not factors there's always DEXA.

What's DEXA? Money and convenience are surely only relevant
AFTER accuracy, I would have thought

>:>: I wouldn't bet on using it either, much better to use
>:>: waist circumference
>:>
>:>Another metric with its own set of drawbacks.
>
>: But the point is that it is cheaper and arguably more
>: accurate.
>
>I doubt its very accurate. As with the calipers you probably
>need to take multiple measurements at different locations -
>and then apply some maths - to get a reasonable figure for
>the overall percentage BF.
>
>It's probably one of the best metrics if your goal is to get
>back into those trousers that used to fit you, though ;-)

No, the best "metric" is the tape measure. Afterall, this
measures what must be fitted into those trousers

>Both calipers and tape measures are inexpensive. Fat scales
>aren't very expensive either, though - and their price will
>doubtless continue to fall as their popularity rises.

But what relevance is there to trouser fit?

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:05:29 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:05:56 GMT, Tim Tyler
>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>:>:>: On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler
>:>:>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>:>:>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
>:>:>:>wrote:
>:>:>:>: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
>:>:>:>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
>:>:>:>:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper
>:>:>:>:>and more common.
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>: Do you know how this might occur?
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>: I believe they measure fat content now by measuring
>:>:>:>: specific gravity. This is expensive and difficult.
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/
>:>
>:>[Are they accurate?]
>:>
>:>: Just think how electricity is conducted along a
>:>: non-homogenous conductor. Why not travel along tubes
>:>: filled with salt solution? (blood vessels)
>:>
>:>Body fat scales work on the principle that fat and muscle
>:>hold different amounts of water, hence their electrical
>:>conductivity differs.
>
>: I understand the principle, but water is a poor conductor
>: of electricity. Salt water is good, and there are tubes of
>: this running up the legs. [...]
>
>I believe that's the point:
>
>Muscle and blood are both largely composed of saline solution
>with a high conductivity. By contrast fat is an insulator -
>with high resistance.

I don't believe it is. Fat cells are just ordinary cells with
large fat globules in them. There are always other cells,
fibres and blood vessels, as well as nerve cells intermingled.

>The easier current passes through, the more muscle there is -
>and since the machine has also measured your weight - and
>knows your height, it can take a good guess at how much of
>you is non-conductive fat.

Well as cell membranes are non-conducting lipoproteins, I
wonder whether there is this sharp differentiation.

>Smart scales have other things they could do. Different
>tissues respond differently at different frequencies. By
>measuring the response to a broad spectrum, they can gain
>additional clues about the body's composition.

Broad spectrum of what? Sound?

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:

: Do you know of a study comparing these measurements with
: other more direct measurements?

Tanita calibrate their scales using DEXA. A number of studies
have examined their accuracy.

E.g.:

``Foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis: a valuable
tool for the measurement of body composition in children.''

PMID: 11410831

``Comparison of skinfold thicknesses and bioelectrical
impedance analysis with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for
the assessment of body fat in patients on long-term
haemodialysis therapy.''

PMID: 12480966

``Comparison of body composition analysis methods in clinical
routine.''

PMID: 11146331

``Comparative analysis of body composition assessment methods
in healthy adult men''

PMID: 9609055

``Validity of Six Field and Laboratory Methods for Measurement
of Body Composition in Boys.''

PMID: 12855754

``Segmental body composition assessed by bioelectrical
impedance analysis and DEXA in humans.''

PMID: 9018509

...and so on.

I used "bioelectrical impedance dexa" (no quotes) in medline
to find these.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:26:39 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
:>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:24:42 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
:>: wrote:
:>:>In sci.life-extension wuzzy <mypcos@hotmail.com> wrote:
:>:>: Not really following the conversation just comments:
:>:>: "Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
:>:>: news:<tjlkhv05662kn1tlg7qabjd76dqcokjonf@4ax.com>...
:>:>:> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler
:>:>:> <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
:>:>:> >In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
:>:>:> >wrote:
:>:>:> >: On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 20:20:22 GMT, Tim Tyler
:>:>:> >: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:

:>:>:> >:>Clearly BMI isn't as helpful as it could be as a
:>:>:> >:>measure of fat content.
:>:>:> >:>
:>:>:> >:>Its virtue is that it's easy to measure. You need
:>:>:> >:>special scales (or similar) to measure fat content.
:>:>:> >:>
:>:>:> >:>Maybe fat measurement in scales will become cheaper
:>:>:> >:>and more common.
:>:>
:>:>: They won't and don't need to. The surrogates (skinfolds
:>:>: and bioelectrical) suck loads so throw those out and use
:>:>: BMI.
:>:>
:>:>I do think they will become cheaper and more accurate.
:>:>That's progress.
:>
:>: Not likely IMO, if the principle is limited.
:>
:>It seems inevitable to me. An expanding market should
:>help. [...]

: OK, if you are happy, but I believe the priciple is flawed,
: and not worth the bother.

You are mistaken there.

Of course nobody is forcing you to use these devices.

:>:>I would say skin folding is also a pretty good technique.
:>:>Better - perhaps - than measuring impedence in terms of
:>:>accuracy. However it is less convenient - and it isn't
:>:>what consumers want.
:>
:>: Bugger the consumers. This is science, not marketing :)
:>
:>If money and convenience are not factors there's
:>always DEXA.

: What's DEXA?

``Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry".

One of the most accurate methods.

: Money and convenience are surely only relevant AFTER
: accuracy, I would have thought

It depends on what you are doing. Typically spending more
money generates diminishing returns in terms of accuracy. You
have to draw the line somewhere.

:>:>: I wouldn't bet on using it either, much better to use
:>:>: waist circumference
:>:>
:>:>Another metric with its own set of drawbacks.
:>
:>: But the point is that it is cheaper and arguably more
:>: accurate.
:>
:>I doubt its very accurate. As with the calipers you probably
:>need to take multiple measurements at different locations -
:>and then apply some maths - to get a reasonable figure for
:>the overall percentage BF.
:>
:>It's probably one of the best metrics if your goal is to get
:>back into those trousers that used to fit you, though ;-)

: No, the best "metric" is the tape measure.

"Waist circumference" was the metric I was referring to there.

:>Both calipers and tape measures are inexpensive. Fat scales
:>aren't very expensive either, though - and their price will
:>doubtless continue to fall as their popularity rises.

: But what relevance is there to trouser fit?

A reduced one.

*My* main interest in monitoring *my* body fat is to:

* Make sure it does not go too low;

* See the effect of my current diet on my fat composition;

* See the effect of my current exercise regime on my current
lean body mass.

As you can see, whether my trousers fit well is not much of a
factor for me.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:05:29 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
:>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:05:56 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
:>: wrote:
:>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
:>:>wrote:
:>:>:>: On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler
:>:>:>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:

:>:>:>:>Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/
:>:>
:>:>[Are they accurate?]
:>:>
:>:>: Just think how electricity is conducted along a
:>:>: non-homogenous conductor. Why not travel along tubes
:>:>: filled with salt solution? (blood vessels)
:>:>
:>:>Body fat scales work on the principle that fat and muscle
:>:>hold different amounts of water, hence their electrical
:>:>conductivity differs.
:>
:>: I understand the principle, but water is a poor conductor
:>: of electricity. Salt water is good, and there are tubes of
:>: this running up the legs. [...]
:>
:>I believe that's the point:
:>
:>Muscle and blood are both largely composed of saline
:>solution with a high conductivity. By contrast fat is an
:>insulator - with high resistance.

: I don't believe it is. Fat cells are just ordinary cells
: with large fat globules in them. There are always other
: cells, fibres and blood vessels, as well as nerve cells
: intermingled.

Human fat has greater resistance than human muscle. That can
be used to distinguish limbs that are largely muscle from
limbs that are mostly fat.

Sure there are confounding factors - such as skin resistance.

No doubt the practice of taking measurements from more than
two locations helps with factoring such confounding
variables out.

:>Smart scales have other things they could do. Different
:>tissues respond differently at different frequencies. By
:>measuring the response to a broad spectrum, they can gain
:>additional clues about the body's composition.

: Broad spectrum of what? Sound?

The scales under discussion use oscillating electrical fields.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Alf Christ]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 06:12:13 GMT, "Moosh:]"
<buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:

>Not really. It measures electrical resistance which is
>dependent on so many things. Body water is not one of them

Finger grip pressure (the tester determnines the resistence by
how hard he/she presses the electrodes against the skin) and
sweat on skin are the most important factors. So it is a very
inaccurate method which would give much more fat than there
really is if the tester is interested in selling slimming
products, or much less if the seller is interested to sell
products that increase fat content of body :-) (The aim of
profit determines the result of the test)

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:39:57 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>
>: Do you know of a study comparing these measurements with
>: other more direct measurements?
>
>Tanita calibrate their scales using DEXA. A number of studies
>have examined their accuracy.
>
>E.g.:
>
>``Foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis: a valuable
>tool for the measurement of body composition in children.''
>
>PMID: 11410831
>
>``Comparison of skinfold thicknesses and bioelectrical
>impedance analysis with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for
>the assessment of body fat in patients on long-term
>haemodialysis therapy.''
>
>PMID: 12480966
>
>``Comparison of body composition analysis methods in clinical
>routine.''
>
>PMID: 11146331
>
>``Comparative analysis of body composition assessment methods
>in healthy adult men''
>
>PMID: 9609055
>
>``Validity of Six Field and Laboratory Methods for
>Measurement of Body Composition in Boys.''
>
>PMID: 12855754
>
>``Segmental body composition assessed by bioelectrical
>impedance analysis and DEXA in humans.''
>
>PMID: 9018509
>
>...and so on.
>
>I used "bioelectrical impedance dexa" (no quotes) in medline
>to find these.

But they are just titles. They tell you nothing. Do you know
of comparison figures between resistance measurements and
actual fat composition? That's what you need to see if this is
a valid method.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:39:57 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:

:>: Do you know of a study comparing these measurements with
:>: other more direct measurements?
:>
:>Tanita calibrate their scales using DEXA. A number of
:>studies have examined their accuracy.
:>
:>E.g.:
:>
:>``Foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis: a valuable
:>tool for the measurement of body composition in children.''
:>
:>PMID: 11410831
:>
:>``Comparison of skinfold thicknesses and bioelectrical
:>impedance analysis with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for
:>the assessment of body fat in patients on long-term
:>haemodialysis therapy.''
:>
:>PMID: 12480966
:>
:>``Comparison of body composition analysis methods in
:>clinical routine.''
:>
:>PMID: 11146331
:>
:>``Comparative analysis of body composition assessment
:>methods in healthy adult men''
:>
:>PMID: 9609055
:>
:>``Validity of Six Field and Laboratory Methods for
:>Measurement of Body Composition in Boys.''
:>
:>PMID: 12855754
:>
:>``Segmental body composition assessed by bioelectrical
:>impedance analysis and DEXA in humans.''
:>
:>PMID: 9018509
:>
:>...and so on.
:>
:>I used "bioelectrical impedance dexa" (no quotes) in medline
:>to find these.

: But they are just titles. They tell you nothing. [...]

They are most certainly not "just titles".

The PMIDs will take you to the abstracts - and sometimes the
full texts of the articles in question - if you take them to:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:01:26 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>: OK, if you are happy, but I believe the priciple is flawed,
>: and not worth the bother.
>
>You are mistaken there.

As I said, so long as you're happy :)

>Of course nobody is forcing you to use these devices.

I should hope not :)

>:>:>I would say skin folding is also a pretty good technique.
>:>:>Better - perhaps - than measuring impedence in terms of
>:>:>accuracy. However it is less convenient - and it isn't
>:>:>what consumers want.
>:>
>:>: Bugger the consumers. This is science, not marketing :)
>:>
>:>If money and convenience are not factors there's
>:>always DEXA.
>
>: What's DEXA?
>
>``Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry".

Thanks.

>One of the most accurate methods.

Quite likely, but the specific gravity can't be beaten in the
end, so I understand. Probably cheaper, too.

>: Money and convenience are surely only relevant AFTER
>: accuracy, I would have thought
>
>It depends on what you are doing. Typically spending more
>money generates diminishing returns in terms of accuracy. You
>have to draw the line somewhere.

Of course. But if a technology is working on a flawed
principle, it won't likely go anywhere down the accuracy road
with any amount of money. Like the soil moisture meter that
depends on resistance measurements. For more expensive meters,
they use a more accurate technology, they don't build a
flasher resistance meter.

>:>:>: I wouldn't bet on using it either, much better to use
>:>:>: waist circumference
>:>:>
>:>:>Another metric with its own set of drawbacks.
>:>
>:>: But the point is that it is cheaper and arguably more
>:>: accurate.
>:>
>:>I doubt its very accurate. As with the calipers you
>:>probably need to take multiple measurements at different
>:>locations - and then apply some maths - to get a reasonable
>:>figure for the overall percentage BF.
>:>
>:>It's probably one of the best metrics if your goal is to
>:>get back into those trousers that used to fit you,
>:>though ;-)
>
>: No, the best "metric" is the tape measure.
>
>"Waist circumference" was the metric I was referring to
>there.

OK, sorry, I thought you were still talking about body fat
proportion. BTW, why do you want to know this? Isn't it a
rather useless metric?

>:>Both calipers and tape measures are inexpensive. Fat scales
>:>aren't very expensive either, though - and their price will
>:>doubtless continue to fall as their popularity rises.
>
>: But what relevance is there to trouser fit?
>
>A reduced one.

OK.

>*My* main interest in monitoring *my* body fat is to:
>
>* Make sure it does not go too low;

How could it possibly do that? Wouldn't you feel hungry and
eat? You would notice yourself fading away, surely.

>* See the effect of my current diet on my fat composition;

Pends on your excess calories or not?

>* See the effect of my current exercise regime on my current
> lean body mass.

To what end? Don't you adjust to the LBM that you require for
your daily activities? You eat to keep to a reasonable waist
measurement/weight, and leave it at that?

>As you can see, whether my trousers fit well is not much of a
>factor for me.

But I still wonder why what you say above is. What is the aim
of all this measurement?

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:28:11 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:39:57 GMT, Tim Tyler
>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>
>:>: Do you know of a study comparing these measurements with
>:>: other more direct measurements?
>:>
>:>Tanita calibrate their scales using DEXA. A number of
>:>studies have examined their accuracy.
>:>
>:>E.g.:
>:>
>:>``Foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis: a valuable
>:>tool for the measurement of body composition in children.''
>:>
>:>PMID: 11410831
>:>
>:>``Comparison of skinfold thicknesses and bioelectrical
>:>impedance analysis with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
>:>for the assessment of body fat in patients on long-term
>:>haemodialysis therapy.''
>:>
>:>PMID: 12480966
>:>
>:>``Comparison of body composition analysis methods in
>:>clinical routine.''
>:>
>:>PMID: 11146331
>:>
>:>``Comparative analysis of body composition assessment
>:>methods in healthy adult men''
>:>
>:>PMID: 9609055
>:>
>:>``Validity of Six Field and Laboratory Methods for
>:>Measurement of Body Composition in Boys.''
>:>
>:>PMID: 12855754
>:>
>:>``Segmental body composition assessed by bioelectrical
>:>impedance analysis and DEXA in humans.''
>:>
>:>PMID: 9018509
>:>
>:>...and so on.
>:>
>:>I used "bioelectrical impedance dexa" (no quotes) in
>:>medline to find these.
>
>: But they are just titles. They tell you nothing. [...]
>
>They are most certainly not "just titles".

Well they are. They give no numbers that compare resistance
measurements with actual measurements.

>The PMIDs will take you to the abstracts - and sometimes the
>full texts of the articles in question - if you take them to:
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

What would I want to do that for? I'm not interested in these
scales. I don't even use tape measures or bathroom scales. I'm
trying to help you see whether these resistance fat measurers
are at all accurate. You need a bunch of measurements of
different folk done by these resistance doo dahs and with say
specific gravity methods. Done by independent scientists.

Just one more little thought. How would these "stand on with
bare feet" doo hickeys go with a skinny-legged, beer-bellied
bar fly :)

Or a fa- legged weight lifter?

Depends more on whether the feet are sweaty or not? :)

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:49:13 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:05:29 GMT, Tim Tyler
>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>:>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 08:05:56 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
>:>: wrote:
>:>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
>:>:>wrote:
>:>:>:>: On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:13:36 GMT, Tim Tyler
>:>:>:>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
>:>:>:>:>Check Tanita's fat scales: http://www.tanita.com/
>:>:>
>:>:>[Are they accurate?]
>:>:>
>:>:>: Just think how electricity is conducted along a
>:>:>: non-homogenous conductor. Why not travel along tubes
>:>:>: filled with salt solution? (blood vessels)
>:>:>
>:>:>Body fat scales work on the principle that fat and muscle
>:>:>hold different amounts of water, hence their electrical
>:>:>conductivity differs.
>:>
>:>: I understand the principle, but water is a poor conductor
>:>: of electricity. Salt water is good, and there are tubes
>:>: of this running up the legs. [...]
>:>
>:>I believe that's the point:
>:>
>:>Muscle and blood are both largely composed of saline
>:>solution with a high conductivity. By contrast fat is an
>:>insulator - with high resistance.
>
>: I don't believe it is. Fat cells are just ordinary cells
>: with large fat globules in them. There are always other
>: cells, fibres and blood vessels, as well as nerve cells
>: intermingled.
>
>Human fat has greater resistance than human muscle. That can
>be used to distinguish limbs that are largely muscle from
>limbs that are mostly fat.
>
>Sure there are confounding factors - such as skin resistance.
>
>No doubt the practice of taking measurements from more than
>two locations helps with factoring such confounding
>variables out.

I can't see it. If skin resistance varies widely, how can you
possibly know what is due to what. It reminds me of these
moisture meters for pot plants. Totally misleading. High salt
will record much water, when the poor plant is dying of
osmotic thirst. If you want to fit ya breechs then you best
use a tape measure :)

>:>Smart scales have other things they could do. Different
>:>tissues respond differently at different frequencies. By
>:>measuring the response to a broad spectrum, they can gain
>:>additional clues about the body's composition.
>
>: Broad spectrum of what? Sound?
>
>The scales under discussion use oscillating electrical
>fields.

I wonder what that could tell you.

Impedance at different frequencies, perhaps?

I wonder again what the different impedances of sweaty or
dry feet are.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:01:26 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:

:>*My* main interest in monitoring *my* body fat is to:
:>
:>* Make sure it does not go too low;

: How could it possibly do that?

It's not a terribly common problem - but it has been known
to happen.

: Wouldn't you feel hungry and eat?

Hunger is a useful signal. However it can also be a
misleading one in the modern environment - as today's obesity
epidemic illustrates - and is easily confused by things like
high fibre diets.

My attitude is the more such signals I have available to me
the better I can see what's going on.

:>* See the effect of my current exercise regime on my current
:> lean body mass.

: To what end?

To see how my efforts to avoid losing too much muscular tissue
are progressing.

: Don't you adjust to the LBM that you require for your daily
: activities? [...]

I tend to modify my daily activities in the hope of
influencing my lean body mass. If I don't test out the
results in various ways, I have no way of knowing if what I'm
doing is working.

: What is the aim of all this measurement?

Well, I'm a big fan of biofeedback and testing.

Health monitoring is a useful means of ensuring your body is
in good working order, identifying problems at an early stage
and determining the effectiveness of measures intended to
promote good health.

In general, biofeedback is intended to facilitate the
development of conscious control of biological functions, and
help ensure an accurate body image. It is an important and
useful tool in those domains.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Anon]

Tim Tyler wrote:
> In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
> : On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:39:57 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
> : wrote:
> :>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
> :>wrote:
>
> :>: Do you know of a study comparing these measurements with
> :>: other more direct measurements?
> :>
> :>Tanita calibrate their scales using DEXA. A number of
> :>studies have examined their accuracy.

Regarding the accuracy of Tanita scales, I can step on mine
and be 18% one day and 13% the next. As would be expected, it
depends on salt intake, water intake, and exercise. You can
take about a 21 day average and get a better idea of trends,
but the measurements for me are very volatile.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension anon <anon@anon.com> wrote:

: Regarding the accuracy of Tanita scales, I can step on mine
: and be 18% one day and 13% the next. As would be expected,
: it depends on salt intake, water intake, and exercise. You
: can take about a 21 day average and get a better idea of
: trends, but the measurements for me are very volatile.

FWIW, mine are very consistent.

My scale is gradated in 1% increments and while the readings
have changed over time in about the way I would expect I don't
believe it's ever fluctuated more than one percent - i.e. my
BF currently is around 7.5% - and I've never seen it read 7%
one day and 9% the next. It even seems to work pretty well
through most of my normal socks.

I also have a "Hanson" hand-held device - but that gives
readings that are plainly all over the place.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:07:20 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:01:26 GMT, Tim Tyler
>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
>:>*My* main interest in monitoring *my* body fat is to:
>:>
>:>* Make sure it does not go too low;
>
>: How could it possibly do that?
>
>It's not a terribly common problem - but it has been known
>to happen.
>
>: Wouldn't you feel hungry and eat?
>
>Hunger is a useful signal. However it can also be a
>misleading one in the modern environment - as today's obesity
>epidemic illustrates - and is easily confused by things like
>high fibre diets.

Sticking to wholefoods will generally keep you out of trouble
when you trust your hunger.

>My attitude is the more such signals I have available to me
>the better I can see what's going on.
>
>:>* See the effect of my current exercise regime on my
>:> current lean body mass.
>
>: To what end?
>
>To see how my efforts to avoid losing too much muscular
>tissue are progressing.

How would this happen, unless you are starving yourself, or
doing nothing?

>: Don't you adjust to the LBM that you require for your daily
>: activities? [...]
>
>I tend to modify my daily activities in the hope of
>influencing my lean body mass.

Funny, that would surely be the "cart before the horse" to the
vast majority of the world.

>If I don't test out the results in various ways, I have no
>way of knowing if what I'm doing is working.

Whatever turns you on. Most find that the process is
self-regulating.

>: What is the aim of all this measurement?
>
>Well, I'm a big fan of biofeedback and testing.

Academic interest? Sounds interesting.

>Health monitoring is a useful means of ensuring your body is
>in good working order, identifying problems at an early stage
>and determining the effectiveness of measures intended to
>promote good health.

But not every day. What about once every five years and then
say 2 years at 50, and then annually at 65+

Just living is surely the easiest way to monitor your
progress.

>In general, biofeedback is intended to facilitate the
>development of conscious control of biological functions, and
>help ensure an accurate body image.

What sort of "body image"?

>It is an important and useful tool in those domains.

I thought so for tricks with blood pressure and so on, but you
can't "will away" excess calories, surely.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:07:20 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
:>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:01:26 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
:>: wrote:

:>:>*My* main interest in monitoring *my* body fat is to:
:>:>
:>:>* Make sure it does not go too low;
:>
:>: How could it possibly do that? [...] Wouldn't you feel
:>: hungry and eat?
:>
:>Hunger is a useful signal. However it can also be a
:>misleading one in the modern environment - as today's
:>obesity epidemic illustrates - and is easily confused by
:>things like high fibre diets.

: Sticking to wholefoods will generally keep you out of
: trouble when you trust your hunger.

My attitude is not to trust it at all. I listen to it
carefully - since it's still an important sense - but regard
what it says with suspicion.

Basically it's a tool from a different era. Following its
advice too closely appears to me to be maladaptive in the
modern environment.

:>My attitude is the more such signals I have available to me
:>the better I can see what's going on.
:>
:>:>* See the effect of my current exercise regime on my
:>:> current lean body mass.
:>
:>: To what end?
:>
:>To see how my efforts to avoid losing too much muscular
:>tissue are progressing.

: How would this happen, unless you are starving yourself, or
: doing nothing?

Low calorie diets.

:>: Don't you adjust to the LBM that you require for your
:>: daily activities? [...]
:>
:>I tend to modify my daily activities in the hope of
:>influencing my lean body mass.

: Funny, that would surely be the "cart before the horse" to
: the vast majority of the world.

Probably. But there's a significant fraction that performs
work outs.

:>Health monitoring is a useful means of ensuring your body is
:>in good working order, identifying problems at an early
:>stage and determining the effectiveness of measures intended
:>to promote good health.

: But not every day. What about once every five years and then
: say 2 years at 50, and then annually at 65+

It depends on what is being monitored. Some things need
examination several times a day - others can be done less
frequently.

:>In general, biofeedback is intended to facilitate the
:>development of conscious control of biological functions,
:>and help ensure an accurate body image.

: What sort of "body image"?

I was using "body image" as a synonym for "kinesthetic sense".

:>It is an important and useful tool in those domains.

: I thought so for tricks with blood pressure and so on, but
: you can't "will away" excess calories, surely.

You can certainly control calories by exercising your will.

Typically the process involves deciding not to eat so
many calories.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[George W.]

"Tom Malcolm" <tom933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1fyapur.1t5w9b1po0nteN%tom933@hotmail.com...
> I cannot change my height. I can not change my eye color, I
> cannot change my voice. I cannot change my somatype. I have
> VERY thick wrists - not fat, bone. I have a VERY big rib
> cage, and a VERY big skull, feet are 13 5X wide. Waist is
> currently 36, chest is 50. I am trying to get my waist to 34
> - and that's it, any more and I will look like a freak and
> feel bad. It's not just what we eat -it is our genetic
> programming. I will never be a BMI of 24 - not even if I
> lose so much weight I would be sickly. Like I said, I have a
> blood pressure of 110/70, resting pulse of 60, strong as an
> ox, my BMI is too high. No matter how fat, skinny, tall, or
> short we are we must be HAPPY with ourselves to live long.
> I've lost 30 pounds over the last 5 months, I will lose
> 10-20 more and that's all I need - I'm a chunky happy,
> healthy guy - and the world should not get so anti-fat -
> after age 55, there is no correlation between obesity and
> lowered lifespan.

"after age 55, there is no correlation between obesity and
lowered lifespan." What study or evidence do you have for this
astonishing claim?

George W. Cherry

[George W.]

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote in message
news:HI9Io1.1sr@bath.ac.uk...
> Excess fat tends to give its owners diabetes, heart attacks,
> strokes, high blood pressure, cancer, gallbladder disease,
> osteoarthritis; sleep apnea, dyslipidemia, respiratory
> problems - and increases their levels of oxidative stress.

And there are more, for example GERD, the acid reflux disease,
which can lead to Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinoma of
the esophagus.

George W. Cherry

>
> http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_home.htm
> http://www.healthandage.com/Home/gid2=475
> http://www.charitywire.com/charity10/00256.html
> http://www.lifescan.com/care/news/dn032803-3.html
> http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/circulatory-problems.htm
> http://www.weight-loss-i.com/weight-lifespan-longevity.htm
> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Moosh:]]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:48:47 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:07:20 GMT, Tim Tyler
>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>:>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:01:26 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
>:>: wrote:
>
>:>:>*My* main interest in monitoring *my* body fat is to:
>:>:>
>:>:>* Make sure it does not go too low;
>:>
>:>: How could it possibly do that? [...] Wouldn't you feel
>:>: hungry and eat?
>:>
>:>Hunger is a useful signal. However it can also be a
>:>misleading one in the modern environment - as today's
>:>obesity epidemic illustrates - and is easily confused by
>:>things like high fibre diets.
>
>: Sticking to wholefoods will generally keep you out of
>: trouble when you trust your hunger.
>
>My attitude is not to trust it at all. I listen to it
>carefully - since it's still an important sense - but regard
>what it says with suspicion.

Then you must eat an unnatural diet, or have a metabolic
abnormanity

>Basically it's a tool from a different era. Following its
>advice too closely appears to me to be maladaptive in the
>modern environment.

Well not if you eat a natural (balanced) diet.

>:>My attitude is the more such signals I have available to me
>:>the better I can see what's going on.
>:>
>:>:>* See the effect of my current exercise regime on my
>:>:> current lean body mass.
>:>
>:>: To what end?
>:>
>:>To see how my efforts to avoid losing too much muscular
>:>tissue are progressing.
>
>: How would this happen, unless you are starving yourself, or
>: doing nothing?
>
>Low calorie diets.

Do you need to lose weight?

>:>: Don't you adjust to the LBM that you require for your
>:>: daily activities? [...]
>:>
>:>I tend to modify my daily activities in the hope of
>:>influencing my lean body mass.
>
>: Funny, that would surely be the "cart before the horse" to
>: the vast majority of the world.
>
>Probably. But there's a significant fraction that performs
>work outs.

Only in the decadent West :)

>:>Health monitoring is a useful means of ensuring your body
>:>is in good working order, identifying problems at an early
>:>stage and determining the effectiveness of measures
>:>intended to promote good health.
>
>: But not every day. What about once every five years and
>: then say 2 years at 50, and then annually at 65+
>
>It depends on what is being monitored. Some things need
>examination several times a day - others can be done less
>frequently.

What needs examining every day? That's surely obsessive.

>:>In general, biofeedback is intended to facilitate the
>:>development of conscious control of biological functions,
>:>and help ensure an accurate body image.
>
>: What sort of "body image"?
>
>I was using "body image" as a synonym for "kinesthetic
>sense".

That comes with normal activity. Not couch potatoism :)

>:>It is an important and useful tool in those domains.
>
>: I thought so for tricks with blood pressure and so on, but
>: you can't "will away" excess calories, surely.
>
>You can certainly control calories by exercising your will.

Intake only. But why would you want to control them if you are
normal healthy weight, and eat a healthy diet and get moderate
regular exercise?

>Typically the process involves deciding not to eat so many
>calories.

If you eat a varied wholefood diet, it is rather
difficult to overdo
it.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
: On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:48:47 GMT, Tim Tyler
: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
:>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:07:20 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
:>: wrote:
:>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
:>:>wrote:
:>:>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:01:26 GMT, Tim Tyler
:>:>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:

:>:>:>*My* main interest in monitoring *my* body fat is to:
:>:>:>
:>:>:>* Make sure it does not go too low;
:>:>
:>:>: How could it possibly do that? [...] Wouldn't you feel
:>:>: hungry and eat?
:>:>
:>:>Hunger is a useful signal. However it can also be a
:>:>misleading one in the modern environment - as today's
:>:>obesity epidemic illustrates - and is easily confused by
:>:>things like high fibre diets.
:>
:>: Sticking to wholefoods will generally keep you out of
:>: trouble when you trust your hunger.
:>
:>My attitude is not to trust it at all. I listen to it
:>carefully - since it's still an important sense - but regard
:>what it says with suspicion.

: Then you must eat an unnatural diet, or have a metabolic
: abnormanity

Must I? Why?

:>:>My attitude is the more such signals I have available to
:>:>me the better I can see what's going on.
:>:>
:>:>:>* See the effect of my current exercise regime on my
:>:>:> current lean body mass.
:>:>
:>:>: To what end?
:>:>
:>:>To see how my efforts to avoid losing too much muscular
:>:>tissue are progressing.
:>
:>: How would this happen, unless you are starving yourself,
:>: or doing nothing?
:>
:>Low calorie diets.

: Do you need to lose weight?

"Need?"

My BMI is 19. Do I need to lose weight?

:>:>Health monitoring is a useful means of ensuring your body
:>:>is in good working order, identifying problems at an early
:>:>stage and determining the effectiveness of measures
:>:>intended to promote good health.
:>
:>: But not every day. What about once every five years and
:>: then say 2 years at 50, and then annually at 65+
:>
:>It depends on what is being monitored. Some things need
:>examination several times a day - others can be done less
:>frequently.

: What needs examining every day? That's surely obsessive.

Posture, breathing depth, hydration - and many other
parameters.

:>:>In general, biofeedback is intended to facilitate the
:>:>development of conscious control of biological functions,
:>:>and help ensure an accurate body image.
:>
:>: What sort of "body image"?
:>
:>I was using "body image" as a synonym for "kinesthetic
:>sense".

: That comes with normal activity. Not couch potatoism :)

"Normal activity" gives you a good body image to about the
same extent that it exercises your muscles. I.e. it results in
the realisation of a tiny fraction of your potential in those
directions.

:>:>It is an important and useful tool in those domains.
:>
:>: I thought so for tricks with blood pressure and so on, but
:>: you can't "will away" excess calories, surely.
:>
:>You can certainly control calories by exercising your will.

: Intake only.

Expenditure also.

: But why would you want to control them if you are normal
: healthy weight, and eat a healthy diet and get moderate
: regular exercise?

Eating "ad lib" apparently results in over-eating, weight gain
and sub-optimal health in an environment where food is
plentiful and cheap.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Moosh:]]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:10:09 GMT, "George W. Cherry"
<GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>
>"Tom Malcolm" <tom933@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1fyapur.1t5w9b1po0nteN%tom933@hotmail.com...
>> I cannot change my height. I can not change my eye color, I
>> cannot change my voice. I cannot change my somatype. I have
>> VERY thick wrists - not fat, bone. I have a VERY big rib
>> cage, and a VERY big skull, feet are 13 5X wide. Waist is
>> currently 36, chest is 50. I am trying to get my waist to
>> 34 - and that's it, any more and I will look like a freak
>> and feel bad. It's not just what we eat -it is our genetic
>> programming. I will never be a BMI of 24 - not even if I
>> lose so much weight I would be sickly. Like I said, I have
>> a blood pressure of 110/70, resting pulse of 60, strong as
>> an ox, my BMI is too high. No matter how fat, skinny, tall,
>> or short we are we must be HAPPY with ourselves to live
>> long. I've lost 30 pounds over the last 5 months, I will
>> lose 10-20 more and that's all I need - I'm a chunky happy,
>> healthy guy - and the world should not get so anti-fat -
>> after age 55, there is no correlation between obesity and
>> lowered lifespan.
>
>"after age 55, there is no correlation between obesity and
>lowered lifespan." What study or evidence do you have for
>this astonishing claim?

Well you obviously know some correlation, so how about
sharing. Afterall, it is difficult to prove a negative.

[Tim Tyler]

In sci.life-extension George W. Cherry
<GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
: "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote in message

:> There are a number of folk who seem to think that
:> low-duration, high intensity resistance training is
:> suitable for CRONies who want to avoid problems associated
:> with losing too much muscle mass -

: What is there to the claim that immune systems need protein,
: and get this protein mainly from muscle cells: therefore,
: people with little muscle mass may have weakened immune
: systems?

I hadn't encountered this idea before.

This is from a study of AIDS patients:

``Because muscle mass is essential to supporting the immune
system, suppressing viral replication, and avoiding
opportunistic infections, it is important to track any
changes.'' - PMID 11365542.

My general impression is that those with restricted calorie
intake have excellent immune function - and an immune system
which is likely to be in good working order for longer.

PMID 1494214 CR still successfully entending lifespan in mice
in the face of continuous immune system challenges - for
example. PMID 2300596 shows improvement in the face of
viral-induced leukaemia in mice.

PMID 11527818 is one study suggesting increased susceptibility
to infection. But it in young mice - and delayed development
of the immune system seems like a possible explanation.

My main concern in this area is not so much that immune
function is likely to be compromised - but rather that there
may be reduced availability of resources for fighting
established infections.

The natural defense against certain types of fever involves
extended periods of elevated body temperatures and sweating.
If there is a prolonged battle it may make demands on bodily
resources - and there may be more danger of the battle going
badly if those resources are not easily available.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[George W.]

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote in message
news:HI9Lq0.8rE@bath.ac.uk...
> In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
> : On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:09:37 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
> : wrote:
>
> :>Excess fat tends to give its owners diabetes, [...] heart
> :>attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, cancer, gallbladder
> :>disease, osteoarthritis; sleep apnea, dyslipidemia,
> :>respiratory problems - and increases their levels of
> :>oxidative stress.
>
> : Only on a statistical basis. [...]
>
> Smoking cigarettes only causes lung cancer "on a
> statistical basis".

Good lord, Tim, you're patient.

> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[George W.]

"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote in message
> Less calories burned during exercise allows a greater
> degree of CR.
>
> Unfortunately, there hasn't been much research on getting
> animals to lift weights, stretch or dance. Consequently most
> of the conclusions relate to the effects of aerobic, C/V
> exercise - such as running in a wheel.
>
> There are a number of folk who seem to think that
> low-duration, high intensity resistance training is suitable
> for CRONies who want to avoid problems associated with
> losing too much muscle mass -

What is there to the claim that immune systems need
protein, and get this protein mainly from muscle cells:
therefore, people with little muscle mass may have weakened
immune systems?

George W. Cherry

> while I'm a keen yoga student and am a big fan of stretching
> exercises, most of which can be done without great energy
> expenditure.
>
> Then there are exercises such as Tai Chi - which are
> characterised by yielding motions, sensitivity, and finding
> ways of getting maximum effect from the minimum effort.
>
> I reckon there's a fair bit of scope for finding exercise
> regimes that fit CR lifestyles.
> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@tt1.org

[Moosh:]]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:18:03 GMT, "George W. Cherry"
<GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>
>"Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote in message
>news:HI9Lq0.8rE@bath.ac.uk...
>> In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>> : On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 08:09:37 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
>> : wrote:
>>
>> :>Excess fat tends to give its owners diabetes, [...] heart
>> :>attacks, strokes, high blood pressure, cancer,
>> :>gallbladder disease, osteoarthritis; sleep apnea,
>> :>dyslipidemia, respiratory problems - and increases their
>> :>levels of oxidative stress.
>>
>> : Only on a statistical basis. [...]
>>
>> Smoking cigarettes only causes lung cancer "on a
>> statistical basis".
>
>Good lord, Tim, you're patient.

In what way? Are you disagreeing that not all fat people
suffer the diseases mentioned? In fact many fat folk suffer
none of them, despite your obvious fat phobia :)

[Moosh:]]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:48:24 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>: On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:48:47 GMT, Tim Tyler
>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote:
>:>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:07:20 GMT, Tim Tyler <tim@tt1.org>
>:>: wrote:
>:>:>In sci.life-extension Moosh:] <buggerall@nowt.zilch>
>:>:>wrote:
>:>:>: On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:01:26 GMT, Tim Tyler
>:>:>: <tim@tt1.org> wrote:
>
>:>:>:>*My* main interest in monitoring *my* body fat is to:
>:>:>:>
>:>:>:>* Make sure it does not go too low;
>:>:>
>:>:>: How could it possibly do that? [...] Wouldn't you feel
>:>:>: hungry and eat?
>:>:>
>:>:>Hunger is a useful signal. However it can also be a
>:>:>misleading one in the modern environment - as today's
>:>:>obesity epidemic illustrates - and is easily confused by
>:>:>things like high fibre diets.
>:>
>:>: Sticking to wholefoods will generally keep you out of
>:>: trouble when you trust your hunger.
>:>
>:>My attitude is not to trust it at all. I listen to it
>:>carefully - since it's still an important sense - but
>:>regard what it says with suspicion.
>
>: Then you must eat an unnatural diet, or have a metabolic
>: abnormanity
>
>Must I? Why?

A normal person's hunger is sufficient to maintain a healthy
input. If it isn't, either you are metabolising things
abnormally, or are eating an abnormal diet. It's really just
semantics. These words mean what they mean coz we say so.

>:>:>My attitude is the more such signals I have available to
>:>:>me the better I can see what's going on.
>:>:>
>:>:>:>* See the effect of my current exercise regime on my
>:>:>:> current lean body mass.
>:>:>
>:>:>: To what end?
>:>:>
>:>:>To see how my efforts to avoid losing too much muscular
>:>:>tissue are progressing.
>:>
>:>: How would this happen, unless you are starving yourself,
>:>: or doing nothing?
>:>
>:>Low calorie diets.
>
>: Do you need to lose weight?
>
>"Need?"
>
>My BMI is 19. Do I need to lose weight?

So why are you restricting calories? An eating disorder?

>:>:>Health monitoring is a useful means of ensuring your body
>:>:>is in good working order, identifying problems at an
>:>:>early stage and determining the effectiveness of measures
>:>:>intended to promote good health.
>:>
>:>: But not every day. What about once every five years and
>:>: then say 2 years at 50, and then annually at 65+
>:>
>:>It depends on what is being monitored. Some things need
>:>examination several times a day - others can be done less
>:>frequently.
>
>: What needs examining every day? That's surely obsessive.
>
>Posture, breathing depth, hydration - and many other
>parameters.

The vast majority of humans do this on autopilot while they
get on with their daily lives.

>:>:>In general, biofeedback is intended to facilitate the
>:>:>development of conscious control of biological functions,
>:>:>and help ensure an accurate body image.
>:>
>:>: What sort of "body image"?
>:>
>:>I was using "body image" as a synonym for "kinesthetic
>:>sense".
>
>: That comes with normal activity. Not couch potatoism :)
>
>"Normal activity" gives you a good body image to about the
>same extent that it exercises your muscles. I.e. it results
>in the realisation of a tiny fraction of your potential in
>those directions.

Only if you have an abnormal daily activity. Most folk do
considerable physical exertion throughout the day, or should
do as part of their normal day.

>:>:>It is an important and useful tool in those domains.
>:>
>:>: I thought so for tricks with blood pressure and so on,
>:>: but you can't "will away" excess calories, surely.
>:>
>:>You can certainly control calories by exercising your will.
>
>: Intake only.
>
>Expenditure also.

Well for most folks, that's doing what's necessary to get
through a normal day. Only a small portion of expenditure can
be controlled, whereas all the input can.

>: But why would you want to control them if you are normal
>: healthy weight, and eat a healthy diet and get moderate
>: regular exercise?
>
>Eating "ad lib" apparently results in over-eating, weight
>gain and sub-optimal health in an environment where food is
>plentiful and cheap.

Not for the majority, but then this depends on the foodstuffs
that comprise your menu. If you choose concentrated calories
(fats oils sugars and starches) you will likely have problems,
coz food volume is one of the main satiety factors. Wholefoods
(wide variation) will likely bring no such problems.

[Mack]

> In what way? Are you disagreeing that not all fat people
> suffer the diseases mentioned? In fact many fat folk suffer
> none of them, despite your obvious fat phobia :)

The fact that "not all fat people suffer from the diseases
mentioned" is absolutely meaningless. Not all people who step
out right in front of a speeding 18-wheeler die, either, but I
wouldn't suggest you do it.

Would that more of us had a "fat phobia".

[Alf Christ]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:25:46 GMT, "George W. Cherry"
<GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>What is there to the claim that immune systems need
>protein, and get this protein mainly from muscle cells:
>therefore, people with little muscle mass may have weakened
>immune systems?

There are certain cell types in immune defence that do not
utilize glucose, but glutamine (made from amine groups of
different amino acids from proteins, like muscle, and
alfa-ketoglutarate from citric acid cycle) to function.
Also epithel cells in intestine need glutamine (from
muscles) to function.

[George W.]

"Alf Christophersen" <alf.christophersen@basalmed.uio.no>
wrote in message
news:b9a2iv0oi1748b5qp1pn7gcoc2c3bql621@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:25:46 GMT, "George W. Cherry"
> <GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >What is there to the claim that immune systems need
> >protein, and get this protein mainly from muscle cells:
> >therefore, people with little muscle mass may have weakened
> >immune systems?
>
> There are certain cell types in immune defence that do not
> utilize glucose, but glutamine (made from amine groups of
> different amino acids from proteins, like muscle, and
> alfa-ketoglutarate from citric acid cycle) to function. Also
> epithel cells in intestine need glutamine (from muscles) to
> function.

Besides that, if I fall, I want to be able to get up. : o )

George

[Alf Christ]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 01:59:26 GMT, "George W. Cherry"
<GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>Besides that, if I fall, I want to be able to get up. : o )

Have you forgotten that food contains the input you need to
produce glutamine when needed at most?? If your food contains
some proteins, and you have some basic activity as going to
work instead of driving to work (or use your bike) etc.,
muscle will get enough amino acids to build new proteins for
later use, when neeeded. Normally, the amount needed for
producing glutamine isn't that big, but when you have fever
and TNF-alpha is triggered, the need rises, and if your food
during illness don't take the about 10-doubled need for
protein and ypu lay inactive in bed in addition, your muscles
will get rather slim and you will indeed have big problems
with rising if you fall. I'm still a reconcalescent after
testing that mechanism too far in april :-( (Did lay alone in
my flat in Oslo vomiting for 4 and a halv day lot of stomach
fluids without being able to eat, nor drink any water and was
hospitalized with a very severe dehydration, just a few hours
before it had been terminal)

(For the Atkins fans, glucagon and stress hormones managed to
provide enough proteins for gluconeogenesis to yeild 20
mmol/l of blood sugar when I washospitalized, telling me the
alpha cells was very effective in mobilizing enough food for
the other immune cells who need glucose,most probably because
hugh amounts of cytokines like TNF-alpha circulating. CRP was
above 500 :-) )

[Moosh:]]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 07:51:48 GMT, Tim Tyler
<tim@tt1.org> wrote:

>In sci.life-extension George W. Cherry
><GWCherryHatesGreenEggsAndSpam@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>: "Tim Tyler" <tim@tt1.org> wrote in message
>
>:> There are a number of folk who seem to think that
>:> low-duration, high intensity resistance training is
>:> suitable for CRONies who want to avoid problems associated
>:> with losing too much muscle mass -
>
>: What is there to the claim that immune systems need
>: protein, and get this protein mainly from muscle cells:
>: therefore, people with little muscle mass may have weakened
>: immune systems?
>
>I hadn't encountered this idea before.
>
>This is from a study of AIDS patients:
>
>``Because muscle mass is essential to supporting the immune
>system, suppressing viral replication, and avoiding
>opportunistic infections, it is important to track any
>changes.'' - PMID 11365542.
>
>My general impression is that those with restricted calorie
>intake have excellent immune function - and an immune system
>which is likely to be in good working order for longer.
>
>PMID 1494214 CR still successfully entending lifespan in mice
>in the face of continuous immune system challenges - for
>example. PMID 2300596 shows improvement in the face of
>viral-induced leukaemia in mice.
>
>PMID 11527818 is one study suggesting increased
>susceptibility to infection. But it in young mice - and
>delayed development of the immune system seems like a
>possible explanation.
>
>My main concern in this area is not so much that immune
>function is likely to be compromised - but rather that there
>may be reduced availability of resources for fighting
>established infections.
>
>The natural defense against certain types of fever involves
>extended periods of elevated body temperatures and sweating.
>If there is a prolonged battle it may make demands on bodily
>resources - and there may be more danger of the battle going
>badly if those resources are not easily available.

Fever is actually a raised temperature without sweating, until
the fever "breaks" and sweating starts. The aim of the
exercise is to kill or upset the invading organism.

[Moosh:]]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:22:39 GMT, "Mack"
<McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:

>
>> In what way? Are you disagreeing that not all fat people
>> suffer the diseases mentioned? In fact many fat folk suffer
>> none of them, despite your obvious fat phobia :)
>
>The fact that "not all fat people suffer from the diseases
>mentioned" is absolutely meaningless. Not all people who step
>out right in front of a speeding 18-wheeler die, either, but
>I wouldn't suggest you do it.
>
>Would that more of us had a "fat phobia".

Well you have certainly made yours obvious.

Look, if you could put someone in a "dome of truth" and find
their entire genetic propensity, you could tell who could
smoke with immunity, or who should never touch tobacco; who
should stay thin; or who can put on some weight with immunity;
and so on. But unfortunately we can't, and so the advice for
the whole population is that suited to the minority who might
suffer from "unhealthy" lifestyles.

Your truck analogy is idiotic. What is the upside of stepping
in front of a truck? What is the likelyhood of coming out
unscathed? There is upside in some unhealthy practices, and if
we knew who they would harm, then there would be little
downside from some following them.

[Mack]

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote

> Your truck analogy is idiotic.

I think not. You miss the point. You used an anecdote, i.e.,
an extremely small sample, as evidence. Anecdotes about what
did or did not happen to some particular individual make
poor evidence because they depend on an extremely small
sample space.

The truck analogy had nothing to do with the upsides or
downsides of particular health habits but only with the use of
anecdotal evidence. An individual has poor heath habits and
lives to be 100. Another steps in front of a truck and is
uninjured. Yet, because both of these examples use a very
small sample, neither experience should be taken as
instructive for others. Seems pretty clear to me.

In any case, there is an upside to stepping in front of a
truck -- the same upside the chicken has in attempting to
cross the road. You do know why the chicken crosses the road,
do you not?

[Moosh:]]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:03:06 GMT, "Mack"
<McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:

>
>"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote
>
>> Your truck analogy is idiotic.
>
>I think not. You miss the point. You used an anecdote, i.e.,
>an extremely small sample, as evidence. Anecdotes about what
>did or did not happen to some particular individual make
>poor evidence because they depend on an extremely small
>sample space.

Depends if you are demonstrating something likely to affect
others, or just demonstrating that it happened

>The truck analogy had nothing to do with the upsides or
>downsides of particular health habits but only with the use
>of anecdotal evidence.

Huh? Eating sufficient to become overweight is NOT harmful in
some folks. Stepping in front of a truck (I assume it's
speeding and that it hits you) is ALWAYS harmful.

>An individual has poor heath habits and lives to be 100.

Proves it happens. To discover how often, we must measure a
lot of individuals. And when they do, they find that some folk
do do this. Same with smoking.

>Another steps in front of a truck and is uninjured.

How does this happen? You didn't mention that there was no
contact. You should have been more specific. Stepping in front
of a truck sounds fatal. Otherwise one would normally say
"stepping onto the road", I would have thought. I see what you
mean now. But I still don't see your point.

>Yet, because both of these examples use a very small sample,
>neither experience should be taken as instructive for others.
>Seems pretty clear to me.

Of course, but so what. They have studied overweight people,
and there is a known proportion (I can't remember it) who live
long and healthy lives (in comparison to controls).

>In any case, there is an upside to stepping in front of a
>truck -- the same upside the chicken has in attempting to
>cross the road. You do know why the chicken crosses the road,
>do you not?

Yes, but you didn't mention you were attempting to cross the
road, you mentioned stepping in front of a truck as if it were
a willful act I assumed.

[Mack]

I think you probably do, in fact, understand the nature of the
analogy and are just arguing for the sake of argument, for
your own entertainment, ad nauseum. Pointless. Or, possibly,
you truly don't understand it, in which case, argument is even
more pointless.

So, putting that aside, if you wish to be fat and hope that it
will not affect your health negatively, then, yes, that is an
option for you. An poor choice, to my way of thinking. I have
been fat (30 years ago) and I have been lean and my experience
is that lean is far better in every respect. All that I trade
off to stay lean are some bad eating habits that never brought
me more than fleeting enjoyment, anyway.

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:1dr9ivo54r5aharuejsuitnvnegfee3mnr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:03:06 GMT, "Mack"
> <McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote
> >
> >> Your truck analogy is idiotic.
> >
> >I think not. You miss the point. You used an anecdote,
> >i.e., an
extremely
> >small sample, as evidence. Anecdotes about what did or did
> >not happen to some particular individual make poor evidence
> >because they depend on an extremely small sample space.
>
> Depends if you are demonstrating something likely to affect
> others, or just demonstrating that it happened
>
> >The truck analogy had nothing to do with the upsides or
> >downsides of particular health habits but only with the use
> >of anecdotal evidence.
>
> Huh? Eating sufficient to become overweight is NOT harmful
> in some folks. Stepping in front of a truck (I assume it's
> speeding and that it hits you) is ALWAYS harmful.
>
> >An individual has poor heath habits and lives to be 100.
>
> Proves it happens. To discover how often, we must measure a
> lot of individuals. And when they do, they find that some
> folk do do this. Same with smoking.
>
> >Another steps in front of a truck and is uninjured.
>
> How does this happen? You didn't mention that there was no
> contact. You should have been more specific. Stepping in
> front of a truck sounds fatal. Otherwise one would normally
> say "stepping onto the road", I would have thought. I see
> what you mean now. But I still don't see your point.
>
> >Yet, because both of these examples use a very small
> >sample, neither experience should be taken as instructive
for
> >others. Seems pretty clear to me.
>
> Of course, but so what. They have studied overweight people,
> and there is a known proportion (I can't remember it) who
> live long and healthy lives (in comparison to controls).
>
> >In any case, there is an upside to stepping in front of a
> >truck -- the
same
> >upside the chicken has in attempting to cross the road. You
> >do know why
the
> >chicken crosses the road, do you not?
>
> Yes, but you didn't mention you were attempting to cross the
> road, you mentioned stepping in front of a truck as if it
> were a willful act I assumed.

[Moosh:]]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 13:20:30 GMT, "Mack"
<McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:

>I think you probably do, in fact, understand the nature of
>the analogy and are just arguing for the sake of argument,
>for your own entertainment, ad nauseum. Pointless. Or,
>possibly, you truly don't understand it, in which case,
>argument is even more pointless.

Backatchya. You are arguing about your silly "step in front of
a truck" analogy". If it's not clear, how can it be a good
analogy, which is merely an aid to explanation -- an
illustration?

>So, putting that aside, if you wish to be fat and hope that
>it will not affect your health negatively, then, yes, that is
>an option for you.

Not what I said. Please read it. The fact is, and you seem to
want to dispute it, that some fat folk can have a long happy
healthy life. Trouble is we don't quite know who they are yet.
Their parents and grandparetns are the best clue.

>An poor choice, to my way of thinking.

Are you saying that there are not some people who can do that
with immunity? Coz that's all I'm saying.

>I have been fat (30 years ago) and I have been lean and my
>experience is that lean is far better in every respect.

What on Earth has this to do with it. Personal choice has
nothing to do with it. I said that there are some folk who can
go through life overweight (in your estimation) , and they
will not suffer from any of the dire consequences that you
seem to think are inevitable. Some folk can't.

>All that I trade off to stay lean are some bad eating habits
>that never brought me more than fleeting enjoyment, anyway.

Huh? What bad eating habits? There are overweight folks who
can eat all their life the healthiest diet imaginable. That
has nothing to do with overweight.

>"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
>news:1dr9ivo54r5aharuejsuitnvnegfee3mnr@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:03:06 GMT, "Mack"
>> <McKinnonExtractDropDelete@advertisinghelp.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote
>> >
>> >> Your truck analogy is idiotic.
>> >
>> >I think not. You miss the point. You used an anecdote,
>> >i.e., an
>extremely
>> >small sample, as evidence. Anecdotes about what did or did
>> >not happen to some particular individual make poor
>> >evidence because they depend on an extremely small sample
>> >space.
>>
>> Depends if you are demonstrating something likely to affect
>> others, or just demonstrating that it happened
>>
>> >The truck analogy had nothing to do with the upsides or
>> >downsides of particular health habits but only with the
>> >use of anecdotal evidence.
>>
>> Huh? Eating sufficient to become overweight is NOT harmful
>> in some folks. Stepping in front of a truck (I assume it's
>> speeding and that it hits you) is ALWAYS harmful.
>>
>> >An individual has poor heath habits and lives to be 100.
>>
>> Proves it happens. To discover how often, we must measure a
>> lot of individuals. And when they do, they find that some
>> folk do do this. Same with smoking.
>>
>> >Another steps in front of a truck and is uninjured.
>>
>> How does this happen? You didn't mention that there was no
>> contact. You should have been more specific. Stepping in
>> front of a truck sounds fatal. Otherwise one would normally
>> say "stepping onto the road", I would have thought. I see
>> what you mean now. But I still don't see your point.
>>
>> >Yet, because both of these examples use a very small
>> >sample, neither experience should be taken as instructive
>for
>> >others. Seems pretty clear to me.
>>
>> Of course, but so what. They have studied overweight
>> people, and there is a known proportion (I can't remember
>> it) who live long and healthy lives (in comparison to
>> controls).
>>
>> >In any case, there is an upside to stepping in front of a
>> >truck -- the
>same
>> >upside the chicken has in attempting to cross the road.
>> >You do know why
>the
>> >chicken crosses the road, do you not?
>>
>> Yes, but you didn't mention you were attempting to cross
>> the road, you mentioned stepping in front of a truck as if
>> it were a willful act I assumed.
>

[Tcomeau]

"Moosh:]" <buggerall@nowt.zilch> wrote in message
news:<q70vgvsl2e53olc91vbucurd2bb0lf3j7b@4ax.com>...
> On 6 Jul 2003 11:17:20 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> (tcomeau) wrote:
>
> >M00SH <noll@noll.noll> wrote in message
> >news:<tmvegv0dha95asspg36tfc5cu2o1a1v1nn@4ax.com>...
> >> On 5 Jul 2003 10:39:55 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> >> (tcomeau) wrote:
> >>
> >> >gninatit@hotmail.com (mystique) wrote in message news:<-
> >> >44ac4bc1.0307041852.23bf4747@posting.google.com>...
> >> >> Diabesity is the association of type 2 diabetes and
> >> >> obesity
> >> >>
> >> >> according to:
> >> >>
> >> >> Phillips P, Braddon J. Related Articles, Links The
> >> >> type 2 tablet. Evidence based medication for type 2
> >> >> diabetes. Aust Fam Physician. 2003 Jun;32(6):431-6.
> >> >> PMID: 12833770 [PubMed - in process]
> >> >
> >> >I noticed it too. I think it is a fittingly descriptive
> >> >term. The word implies that it is two conditions rolled
> >> >into one and kinda implies that one is not necessarily
> >> >the cause of the other. It is simply the extreme version
> >> >of the so-called Metabolic Syndrome a.k.a. Syndrome X.
> >>
> >> Which is what has been known and discussed on the
> >> diabetes groups for years. Type 2 is the result of
> >> obesity on the genetic predisposition to have syndrome X.
> >> Of course, this syndrome includes propensities to get fat
> >> if you eat too much.
> >
> >Metabolic Syndrome leads to type two and obesity and are
> >the result of excessive high-GI and refined carbs over 10
> >or so years. Don't you understand this by now?
>
> Metabolic syndrome involves a propensity to obesity (and
> subsequent
> DM2) if the individual overeats, and it doesn't matter what
> is eaten or where the excess calories come from. Most
> type 2s have had the disease for 7 - 10 years before
> diagnosis.
>
> Only *you* apparently understand (if that's the right word
> for it:) what you keep pushing.

Listen up boys and girls. For those of you who are a bit slow,
and I wont mention names Moosh:

Too much refined carbs over a long period of time leads to
something called obesity. It also leads to something called
metabolic syndrome which is a precursor to Diabetes Type 2,
formerly called Adult Onset Diabetes. the name was changed
because after a huge increase in refined carbohydrates in the
last twenty years, many children developed Adult Onset
Diabetes. You see it was no longer adult onset and toi
continue calling it adult onset diabetes would hint at the
fact that doctors know shit about shit.

Too much refined carbs in the diet cause high blood sugar
levels which causes the pancreas to produce *huge* amounts of
insulin to try to get rid of the blood sugar. The excess blood
sugar gets turned to body fat. After years of excess refined
carbs in the diet, the person gets fat and the pancreas burns
out. It simply cannot produce any more insulin. A lifetimes
worth of insulin is gone in as little as 10 years. While the
pancreas is producing obscene amounts of insulin, the insulin
receptors become atrophied and resistant to insulin due to the
continual and daily onslaught of massive amounts of insulin.

It could not be any simpler.

TC

[Alf Christ]

On 2 Aug 2003 20:39:31 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

>fat and the pancreas burns out. It simply cannot produce any
>more insulin. A lifetimes worth of insulin is gone in as
>little as 10

Seems like you think insulin is a depot which could be used
for a lifetime if little is used daily and the more you use
daily, the shorter time it will be available.

Sorry pal.That's completely false. Insulin is made continually
and excreted as necessary.

But, signal substances may turn it off, if necessary, eg. if
other systems decide that blood glucose levels should stay
high, eg. from increased amounts of TNF-alpha production, a
cytokine made btw. many by immune system components, in order
to increase both glucose levels and amount of glutamine, which
both are needed. The energy is taken from glycogen and the
amino acids aspartate (to gluconeogenesis) and glutamine (to
feed lymphocytes)

Unfortunately, adipose tissue may be a heavy contributor to
TNF-alpha production, and such release may (temporarily) turn
off insuline secretion and increase glucagon release instead.

Another system increasing should be value of glucose in blood
is the sympathtic nerve system, which amongst others are
triggered by stress. So increased stress at work combined with
fatness is strong contributors to increased glucose levels :-(
(I had a stress situation this weekend and while taking the
same amount of insuline (36IE slow), never got below 10 mmol/l
against normally varying btw. 3.6 and 8 for the last weeks.
Now it varied btw. 10 and 18, just because I have stressed
about travelling for the weekend :-)

[Moosh:]]

On 2 Aug 2003 20:39:31 -0700, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted:

>Listen up boys and girls. For those of you who are a bit
>slow, and I wont mention names Moosh:
>
>Too much refined carbs over a long period of time leads to
>something called obesity.

But you fail to mention that too much of ANYTHING does the
same.

>It also leads to something called metabolic syndrome which is
>a precursor to Diabetes Type 2, formerly called Adult Onset
>Diabetes.

No, the genetic predisposition in some bring this on if they
eat too much and exercise too little and get fat.

>the name was changed because after a huge increase in refined
>carbohydrates in the last twenty years, many children
>developed Adult Onset Diabetes.

But only because they ate too many calories, of *anything*.

>You see it was no longer adult onset and toi continue calling
>it adult onset diabetes would hint at the fact that doctors
>know shit about shit.

What a stupid observation. Typical though. Many IDDM (type 1)
sufferers also were found to contract the disease later in
life. This has no connection with NIDDM (type 2)

>Too much refined carbs in the diet cause high blood sugar
>levels which causes the pancreas to produce *huge* amounts of
>insulin to try to get rid of the blood sugar.

Well only if you get fat from an excess of calories and thus
suffer from *insulin resistance*. You can eat stacks of carb
all your life and if you don't get fat and suffer insulin
resistance, you will have no pancreas problems, unless you
unfortunately contract some other unrelated pancreas disorder.

>The excess blood sugar gets turned to body fat.

Only if you eat too much, and if you eat too much fat, the
same thing occurs, only easier.

>After years of excess refined carbs in the diet, the person
>gets fat and the pancreas burns out.

You still haven't shown evidence for this, I believe. Why does
the person get fat, if they haven't been eating too many
calories for the exercise they do?

>It simply cannot produce any more insulin. A lifetimes worth
>of insulin is gone in as little as 10 years.

So how do folk who have profound insulin resistance last
longer than this? Producing many many times as much insulin in
their lifetimes.

>While the pancreas is producing obscene amounts of insulin,

From insulin resistance? This is much greater than any
normal glucose response. What about all the glucose from fat
and protein?

> the insulin receptors become atrophied and resistant to
> insulin due to the continual and daily onslaught of massive
> amounts of insulin.

Atrophied insulin receptors? Are you sure?

>It could not be any simpler.

Naively so, in fact.

[Cynthia]

> Well only if you get fat from an excess of calories and thus
> suffer from *insulin resistance*.

You mean high levels of insulin resistance. Everybody develops
some insulin resistance as they get older. Excess calories
accelerates the development of insulin resistance.

[Tcomeau]

"Cynthia" <cynthia386@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<fJydnah9W8wgcEiiRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
> > Well only if you get fat from an excess of calories and
> > thus suffer from *insulin resistance*.
>
> You mean high levels of insulin resistance. Everybody
> develops some insulin resistance as they get older. Excess
> calories accelerates the development of insulin resistance.

No. Carbohydrates and high levels of glucose in the blood
accelerates and the development of insulin resistance by
killing Beta-cells.

http://www.eje.org/eje/149/0099/1490099.pdf

"The results showed that prolonged exposure of cultured human
islets to high glucose levels increased b-cell apoptosis in a
dose-dependent manner."

apoptosis = cell death dose dependent manner = the more
glucose the more death

TC

[Tcomeau]

"Cynthia" <cynthia386@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<fJydnah9W8wgcEiiRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
> > Well only if you get fat from an excess of calories and
> > thus suffer from *insulin resistance*.
>
> You mean high levels of insulin resistance. Everybody
> develops some insulin resistance as they get older. Excess
> calories accelerates the development of insulin resistance.

Oh yeah, one more quote from

Beta-cell apoptosis in the pathogenesis of human type 2
diabetes mellitus

http://www.eje.org/eje/149/0099/1490099.pdf

**************

However, the mono-unsaturated fatty acids palmitoleic acid and
oleic acid did not affect DNA fragmentation and induced b-cell
proliferation. Moreover when co-supplemented, each of the
monounsaturated fatty acids prevented apopto-sis, prevented
impairment of b-cell proliferation and improved insulin
secretion that was caused by palmitic acid and/or
hyperglycemia.

***********

Dietary fat, in general, prevents beta-cell death. In other
words it prevents the damage that leads to insulin resistance.

TC

[Kev]

tcomeau at tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote:

> "Cynthia" <cynthia386@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<fJydnah9W8wgcEiiRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
>>> Well only if you get fat from an excess of calories and
>>> thus suffer from *insulin resistance*.
>>
>> You mean high levels of insulin resistance. Everybody
>> develops some insulin resistance as they get older. Excess
>> calories accelerates the development of insulin resistance.
>
> Oh yeah, one more quote from
>
> Beta-cell apoptosis in the pathogenesis of human type 2
> diabetes mellitus
>
> http://www.eje.org/eje/149/0099/1490099.pdf
>
> **************
>
> However, the mono-unsaturated fatty acids palmitoleic acid
> and oleic acid did not affect DNA fragmentation and induced
> b-cell proliferation. Moreover when co-supplemented, each of
> the monounsaturated fatty acids prevented apopto-sis,
> prevented impairment of b-cell proliferation and improved
> insulin secretion that was caused by palmitic acid and/or
> hyperglycemia.
>
> ***********
>
> Dietary fat, in general, prevents beta-cell death. In other
> words it prevents the damage that leads to insulin
> resistance.

In general? I think not. Specific fatty acids can help prevent
insulin resistance. Dietary fat, in general, helps cause
insulin resistance.

> TC

[Mattlb]

tcomeau wrote:

> > You mean high levels of insulin resistance. Everybody
> > develops some insulin resistance as they get older. Excess
> > calories accelerates the development of insulin
> > resistance.
>
> No. Carbohydrates and high levels of glucose in the blood
> accelerates and the development of insulin resistance by
> killing Beta-cells.
>
> http://www.eje.org/eje/149/0099/1490099.pdf
>
> "The results showed that prolonged exposure of cultured
> human islets to high glucose levels increased b-cell
> apoptosis in a dose-dependent manner."
>
> apoptosis = cell death dose dependent manner = the more
> glucose the more death

Note the first line of that paper:

"Type 2 diabetes is accompanied by chronic insulin resistance
and a progressive decline in b-cell function"

Beta cell reduction and insulin resistance are two different
phenomena, although both caused by excess glucose. Beta cell
apoptosis leads to the drop in insulin that switches someone
from being insulin resistant to insulin-dependent diabetic.

MattLB

[Tcomeau]

Kev <KevinRog@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<BBFC273D.8BBF%KevinRog@aol.com>...
> tcomeau at tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > "Cynthia" <cynthia386@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:<fJydnah9W8wgcEiiRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
> >>> Well only if you get fat from an excess of calories and
> >>> thus suffer from *insulin resistance*.
> >>
> >> You mean high levels of insulin resistance. Everybody
> >> develops some insulin resistance as they get older.
> >> Excess calories accelerates the development of insulin
> >> resistance.
> >
> > Oh yeah, one more quote from
> >
> > Beta-cell apoptosis in the pathogenesis of human type 2
> > diabetes mellitus
> >
> > http://www.eje.org/eje/149/0099/1490099.pdf
> >
> > **************
> >
> > However, the mono-unsaturated fatty acids palmitoleic acid
> > and oleic acid did not affect DNA fragmentation and
> > induced b-cell proliferation. Moreover when
> > co-supplemented, each of the monounsaturated fatty acids
> > prevented apopto-sis, prevented impairment of b-cell
> > proliferation and improved insulin secretion that was
> > caused by palmitic acid and/or hyperglycemia.
> >
> > ***********
> >
> > Dietary fat, in general, prevents beta-cell death. In
> > other words it prevents the damage that leads to insulin
> > resistance.
>
> In general? I think not. Specific fatty acids can help
> prevent insulin resistance. Dietary fat, in general, helps
> cause insulin resistance.
>

Which specific fatty acids are these that cause insulin
resistance? Those that I quoted above are shown to *prevent*
damage to and *protects* beta cells.

TC

[Jmk]

On 12/10/2003 10:13 AM, tcomeau wrote:
> Kev <KevinRog@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:<BBFC273D.8BBF%KevinRog@aol.com>...
>
>>tcomeau at tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Cynthia" <cynthia386@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:<fJydnah9W8wgcEiiRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
>>>
>>>>>Well only if you get fat from an excess of calories and
>>>>>thus suffer from *insulin resistance*.
>>>>
>>>>You mean high levels of insulin resistance. Everybody
>>>>develops some insulin resistance as they get older. Excess
>>>>calories accelerates the development of insulin
>>>>resistance.
>>>
>>>Oh yeah, one more quote from
>>>
>>>Beta-cell apoptosis in the pathogenesis of human type 2
>>>diabetes mellitus
>>>
>>>http://www.eje.org/eje/149/0099/1490099.pdf
>>>
>>>**************
>>>
>>>However, the mono-unsaturated fatty acids palmitoleic acid
>>>and oleic acid did not affect DNA fragmentation and induced
>>>b-cell proliferation. Moreover when co-supplemented, each
>>>of the monounsaturated fatty acids prevented apopto-sis,
>>>prevented impairment of b-cell proliferation and improved
>>>insulin secretion that was caused by palmitic acid and/or
>>>hyperglycemia.
>>>
>>>***********
>>>
>>>Dietary fat, in general, prevents beta-cell death. In other
>>>words it prevents the damage that leads to insulin
>>>resistance.
>>
>>In general? I think not. Specific fatty acids can help
>>prevent insulin resistance. Dietary fat, in general, helps
>>cause insulin resistance.
>>
>
>
> Which specific fatty acids are these that cause insulin
> resistance? Those that I quoted above are shown to *prevent*
> damage to and *protects* beta cells.

Free fatty acids

--
jmk in NC

[A2k]

there is a term used: the metabolic syndrome characterised by
the following elevated BGL, central adiposity, hypertension,
BMI >30. it is surprisingly common in the Western World. "jmk"
<jmknospam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:br7e8v$ius$1@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu...
>
>
> On 12/10/2003 10:13 AM, tcomeau wrote:
> > Kev <KevinRog@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<BBFC273D.8BBF%KevinRog@aol.com>...
> >
> >>tcomeau at tunderbar@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Cynthia" <cynthia386@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:<fJydnah9W8wgcEiiRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
> >>>
> >>>>>Well only if you get fat from an excess of calories and
> >>>>>thus suffer from *insulin resistance*.
> >>>>
> >>>>You mean high levels of insulin resistance. Everybody
> >>>>develops some
insulin
> >>>>resistance as they get older. Excess calories
> >>>>accelerates the
development of
> >>>>insulin resistance.
> >>>
> >>>Oh yeah, one more quote from
> >>>
> >>>Beta-cell apoptosis in the pathogenesis of human type 2
> >>>diabetes mellitus
> >>>
> >>>http://www.eje.org/eje/149/0099/1490099.pdf
> >>>
> >>>**************
> >>>
> >>>However, the mono-unsaturated fatty acids palmitoleic
> >>>acid and oleic acid did not affect DNA fragmentation and
> >>>induced b-cell proliferation. Moreover when
> >>>co-supplemented, each of the monounsaturated fatty acids
> >>>prevented apopto-sis, prevented impairment of b-cell
> >>>proliferation and improved insulin secretion that was
> >>>caused by palmitic acid and/or hyperglycemia.
> >>>
> >>>***********
> >>>
> >>>Dietary fat, in general, prevents beta-cell death. In
> >>>other words it prevents the damage that leads to insulin
> >>>resistance.
> >>
> >>In general? I think not. Specific fatty acids can help
> >>prevent insulin resistance. Dietary fat, in general, helps
> >>cause insulin resistance.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Which specific fatty acids are these that cause insulin
> > resistance? Those that I quoted above are shown to
> > *prevent* damage to and *protects* beta cells.
>
> Free fatty acids
>
> --
> jmk in NC

[Cynthia]

> > > Which specific fatty acids are these that cause insulin
> > > resistance? Those that I quoted above are shown to
> > > *prevent* damage to and *protects* beta cells.
> >
> > Free fatty acids
> >
> > --
> > jmk in NC

Are you saying that we should keep our triglyceride levels
low? Or that we should avoid eating certain types of fat?

[A2k]

I suppose you mean increase the likelihood, saturated such as
palamatic, steric etc would decrease membrane fluidity and
thus promote insulin resistance. However a saturated fat,
butyric, has been proven to be beneficial to health (it is
found in milk fat and GI microflora produce it from fibre).
"Cynthia" <cynthia386@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ab15ddc.0312131101.552df8a6@posting.google.com...
> > > > Which specific fatty acids are these that cause
> > > > insulin resistance? Those that I quoted above are
> > > > shown to *prevent* damage to and *protects* beta
> > > > cells.
> > >
> > > Free fatty acids
> > >
> > > --
> > > jmk in NC
>
> Are you saying that we should keep our triglyceride levels
> low? Or that we should avoid eating certain types of fat?