If you're overweight, why buy nice clothes?

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

As to your build, you are correct. Some men are quite effete and should be what would be painfully thin on other men.

Your insinuation that a smaller size frame equals "effete" is quite ridiculous since that alone is not adequate criteria for evaluating such a label. So I'll assume you meant it as a derogatory remark in order to rationalize your own weight to yourself-- i.e. "it is better to be overweight than effete." I don't really look effete, but you can continue to believe that if it makes you feel better.

I recently read a sociological study where they found most Western men today believe that carrying excess fat is a sign of masculinity. Yet this is quite contradictory since woman are predisposed to carry more fat than men. But in many countries (such as France) this odd view on male weight is largely not held.

In case anyone is interested, here are the Met Life tables that I mentioned previously. I'd be willing to bet most people (except those whom everyone labels as "skinny") will be above their ideal weight range when using the 1959 data. http://healthlinks.washington.edu/nu...section12.html

Originally Posted by BB1

Click to expand...

In case anyone is interested, here are the Met Life tables that I mentioned previously. I'd be willing to bet most people (except those whom everyone labels as "skinny") will be above their ideal weight range when using the 1959 data.

http://healthlinks.washington.edu/nu...section12.html

Interesting - when Met Life released revised tables in 1983, they said that the weights in the tables were not the weights that reduced incidences of illness or disease. The weights also weren't used to figure out premiums. I find that interesting.

And to whomever upthread (I think there were a few folks) pointed out that BMI ranges aren't the best indicators for much of anything, I would definitely agree. Lots of fit people have high BMIs, and lots of unfit people have low BMIs (if you happen to look great in a suit without eating well or being active, there's not much societal motivation to do either). Let's encourage individuals to look at their own health and activity levels instead. That may offend some sensibilities, however, as that may mean 'overweight' people may accept their weight, and may end up sitting on a plane next you. Such is life.

Originally Posted by db_ggmm

Click to expand...

Get a ******* clue, *****.

this is a very mature approach.

Originally Posted by MsMcGillicuddy

Click to expand...

And to whomever upthread (I think there were a few folks) pointed out that BMI ranges aren't the best indicators for much of anything, I would definitely agree. Lots of fit people have high BMIs, and lots of unfit people have low BMIs (if you happen to look great in a suit without eating well or being active, there's not much societal motivation to do either). Let's encourage individuals to look at their own health and activity levels instead. That may offend some sensibilities, however, as that may mean 'overweight' people may accept their weight, and may end up sitting on a plane next you. Such is life.

BMI is used because it indicates the likely level of stress on the necessary physiological systems. A 250lb. guy with 10% bodyfat may be thin, but when ill and requiring surgery his systems will still be under stress.

Please stop repeating the nonsense of 'BMI is worthless' -- it's worthless for aesthetics, but for some reason people have again extrapolated bodybuilding into science.

Originally Posted by CDFS

Click to expand...

I don't like to have preconceptions of people so I'll pose this as a question; Is this beneath you?

Originally Posted by db_ggmm

Click to expand...

Get a ******* clue, *****.

Originally Posted by BB1

Click to expand...

Your insinuation that a smaller size frame equals "effete" is quite ridiculous since that alone is not adequate criteria for evaluating such a label. So I'll assume you meant it as a derogatory remark in order to rationalize your own weight to yourself-- i.e. "it is better to be overweight than effete." I don't really look effete, but you can continue to believe that if it makes you feel better.

I recently read a sociological study where they found most Western men today believe that carrying excess fat is a sign of masculinity. Yet this is quite contradictory since woman are predisposed to carry more fat than men. But in many countries (such as France) this odd view on male weight is largely not held.

Originally Posted by BB1

Click to expand...

In case anyone is interested, here are the Met Life tables that I mentioned previously. I'd be willing to bet most people (except those whom everyone labels as "skinny") will be above their ideal weight range when using the 1959 data.

http://healthlinks.washington.edu/nu...section12.html



In a thread, just about dedicated to bashing fatties, look at what one sentence from me stirred up. I'd ask, "Lesson learned," but let's face it, we all know the answer to that.

It appears you underfed folk are much more "sensitive," another effete trait.

I guess us manly fatties have a thicker skin?

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

BMI is used because it indicates the likely level of stress on the necessary physiological systems. A 250lb. guy with 10% bodyfat may be thin, but when ill and requiring surgery his systems will still be under stress.

.

why? serious question.

I could understand if you said that his lower body joints are under stress no matter what, but I don't understand what you mean by that.

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Click to expand...

why? serious question.

Because organ systems don't develop concomitantly with the rest of the body. Their body has a higher requirement to maintain homeostasis than a smaller person (more hormones, more food, more digestion, etc.)

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Because organ systems don't develop concomitantly with the rest of the body. Their body has a higher requirement to maintain homeostasis than a smaller person (more hormones, more food, more digestion, etc.)

I think why is pretty on target.

Muscle does heal better than fat though. If you've ever seen a gut incision in a true bariatric patient, you won't soon forget. They sew up the muscle and the fascia, but leave the fat open to the air, to heal by secondary intention. I've seen wounds with > 12" of blubber open and you have to re-pack and change the dressing all the time. It's slow healing.

Also, I've always wondered about cancer and aging in high level athletes. The more you eat, the more free radicals you produce. So Lance Armstrong has had to deal with the free radicals of 20 normal men.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Because organ systems don't develop concomitantly with the rest of the body. Their body has a higher requirement to maintain homeostasis than a smaller person (more hormones, more food, more digestion, etc.)

ok, fair enough, but if a persons chest cavity is 30% bigger, then that would assume that his organs were also bigger and better prepared, no?

I am thinking of two men standing next to each other, each with <15% body fat, each 5 foot 8. one has 40 inch shoulders, one has 60 inch shoulders. won't the organs of the broader man be larger to fill in the larger chest cavity? won't that take up the extra work involved? I don't know, I am asking.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

I think why is pretty on target.

Muscle does heal better than fat though. If you've ever seen a gut incision in a true bariatric patient, you won't soon forget. They sew up the muscle and the fascia, but leave the fat open to the air, to heal by secondary intention. I've seen wounds with > 12" of blubber open and you have to re-pack and change the dressing all the time. It's slow healing.

Adipose tissue has less blood flow, which is likely the primary reason for this.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

Also, I've always wondered about cancer and aging in high level athletes. The more you eat, the more free radicals you produce. So Lance Armstrong has had to deal with the free radicals of 20 normal men.

Yeah, but I don't think it scales linearly since the body has mechanisms to deal with them (higher tissue turnover, etc.).

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Click to expand...

ok, fair enough, but if a persons chest cavity is 30% bigger, then that would assume that his organs were also bigger and better prepared, no?

I am thinking of two men standing next to each other, each with <15% body fat, each 5 foot 8. one has 40 inch shoulders, one has 60 inch shoulders. won't the organs of the broader man be larger to fill in the larger chest cavity? won't that take up the extra work involved? I don't know, I am asking.

No. Smooth tissue (what constitutes most organs) doesn't hypertrophy like skeletal tissue, nor is hypertrophy of skeletal tissue necessarily indicative of any increases in anything other than size itself. Specifically, the potential for the lungs to be larger in a larger-framed man doesn't mean they will be nor does it indicate any kind of 'better' aerobic potential (it's a much more complicated system involving multiple organ systems and energy pathways). Even cardiac tissue, which has the ability to grow in size with a usual concomitant increase in aerobic and anaerobic ability, will not grow to massive sizes nor is the entire organ capable of a growing in response to stresses -- only the ventricles tend to grow.

The liver can grow in size, but this is to accomodate carbohydrate and fat storage and not to increase its ability. Other organs like the stomach can stretch, but this again is not growth of the tissue itself.

And beyond the organs themselves, the lymph system, hormones, vascular systems, etc. do not function at all like the skeletal system.

Your query is kind of like saying Shaq is smarter than Steve Nash because his head is bigger. It just doesn't work like that.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Your query is kind of like saying Shaq is smarter than Steve Nash because his head is bigger. It just doesn't work like that.

I'll take your word on it, but what the **** is in there, then? I think that it is relativly common to have pretty big differences in the external diameters of chest cavities in people, even if their body fat level is relativly similar. I am just puzzled - if a person's chest is 45 inches compared to someobody whose chest is 38 inches, that is a lot of space on the inside. what is filling that cavity?

Originally Posted by globetrotter

Click to expand...

I'll take your word on it, but what the **** is in there, then? I think that it is relativly common to have pretty big differences in the external diameters of chest cavities in people, even if their body fat level is relativly similar. I am just puzzled - if a person's chest is 45 inches compared to someobody whose chest is 38 inches, that is a lot of space on the inside. what is filling that cavity?

Some people have bones that are shaped differently and their organs are in different places. Using a standarized measurement like the underarm chest measurement will produce different results on different shapes and does not necessarily indicate a greater overall thoracic volume. Also, the cavity does not need to be filled with organs and other tissues. Someone who knows more about anatomy can tell you more, but specific to this discussion the spatial aspect of tissues is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Some people have bones that are shaped differently and their organs are in different places. Using a standarized measurement like the underarm chest measurement will produce different results on different shapes and does not necessarily indicate a greater overall thoracic volume. Also, the cavity does not need to be filled with organs and other tissues. Someone who knows more about anatomy can tell you more, but specific to this discussion the spatial aspect of tissues is irrelevant.

fair enough, it just seems counter intuitive that a 250 pound person (assuming 10% body fat) will have the same organ size as a 150 pounder person, with the same level of body fat. but I don't know that that is or isn't the case. I find it interesting.