Want to know about unintended consequences and what they can do to you and society in general? Look no further than the sudden interest in the obesity crisis. From Michele Obama’s campaign for fitness and backyard gardens to NY Mayor Bloomberg’s war against soda, the government’s major push is against fat.
And its working. According to Gallup, 81 percent of us think obesity is an “extremely serious” or “very serious” social problem. All fine and good, if you ignore that while I was in high school, it was a national crisis that all the girls were developing eating disorders based on unfair media images of women.
The sad thing is, only 67 percent of us rate cigarettes as “extremely serious” or “very serious.” I say sad, because - without getting into the nitty gritty details - using cigarettes is roughly twice as bad for you as being obese. Cigarettes raises your risk of disease 4x, while being obese only raises is 2x. And being just a little overweight actually lowers your risk of dying below 1 (where 1 = average risk) while using cigarettes only occasionally actually puts you at the same risk as an obese person.
The government not only permits cigarettes, it provides manufacturers with tax breaks. Meanwhile, it also helped promote the obesity crisis by pushing low fat, high carb diets as the food choice du jour.
Having promoted both problems, it now tamps down slightly on the most dangerous, while launching an all out war on the less dangerous problem. Most likely because it has run out of ways to shame hard-core smokers, while the social stigma against being obese allows it target them without problem.
Showing posts with label weight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weight. Show all posts
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Kinda I'm Doing Something (Take Two)
I'm sitting here, having a cup of Sencha tea, having exceeded what is expected of me from work today and having not yet gotten started on what is expected of me for tomorrow. And so I'm trolling the Internet to unwind a bit. And yes, its hot; and yes, blogging is probably not what is expected of me, regardless of my level of production.
But as I said, it's what I'm doing.
And I stumble upon a... its not really a review... more of promotional item by a journalist but we'll call it a review... about a self-published book called the "The Shack." The article itself is really well done.
A sample from the article: "The novel's subject is faith in God, but it is written as if to a reader who has little interest in religion. And although it is a Christian book, its author does not seem to follow any church." But wait, it gets better: "The Shack is to narrative form roughly what the Leatherman Multi-Tool is to pliers."
It makes me want to read the book. And I thought that the topic was cool and probably of interest to at least some of you.
So, I'm trying to kill the rest of my work day, and this got me to Part Two of the post: There is so much to do right now. My book is nearly finished. I've said that probably 100 times. But each time I say it I'm a bit closer. I'm on the final scene now, so I can't be far off. Plus, the next story is already writing scenes in my head. This writing stuff would be easier if I could take the scenes in my head and just transform them into written word, rather than, you know, actually writing them. And don't fear, because this actually does tie into The Shack, because the author of that book took two years writing his novel. So I'm in good company. The novel is self-published, yes, but its been on the best-seller list for 105 weeks.
There is just so much to do. House work, work work, yard work, dog work, car work, life work, health work, blog work, avoiding-the-annoying-census-girl work, book-writing work, book-editing work, reading work, hiding-messages work, XBox work. It can be, well, a little much.
Update: Oh, and in amongst all that other work, I'm surprising R. tonight with a steak dinner. I had kinda intended it to be a candle light dinner, but since it doesn't get dark enough for candle light, it will just have to be a surprise steak and potato and tomato dinner. That might not seem like much, but we don't eat beef or potatoes around here much anymore since we went on the the weight-loss/healthy eating path.
Speaking of which... I'm doing this Spartacus workout. Ten stations of 60 second workouts, with 15 seconds to change. Three full sets for a total of 41ish minutes. Its from the Bible. And its a killer workout that involves weights, but thanks to the stations also improves cardio performance and burns mucho calorieo. So me can eat Oreo. But instead I usually just eat Jello.
But as I said, it's what I'm doing.
And I stumble upon a... its not really a review... more of promotional item by a journalist but we'll call it a review... about a self-published book called the "The Shack." The article itself is really well done.
A sample from the article: "The novel's subject is faith in God, but it is written as if to a reader who has little interest in religion. And although it is a Christian book, its author does not seem to follow any church." But wait, it gets better: "The Shack is to narrative form roughly what the Leatherman Multi-Tool is to pliers."
It makes me want to read the book. And I thought that the topic was cool and probably of interest to at least some of you.
So, I'm trying to kill the rest of my work day, and this got me to Part Two of the post: There is so much to do right now. My book is nearly finished. I've said that probably 100 times. But each time I say it I'm a bit closer. I'm on the final scene now, so I can't be far off. Plus, the next story is already writing scenes in my head. This writing stuff would be easier if I could take the scenes in my head and just transform them into written word, rather than, you know, actually writing them. And don't fear, because this actually does tie into The Shack, because the author of that book took two years writing his novel. So I'm in good company. The novel is self-published, yes, but its been on the best-seller list for 105 weeks.
There is just so much to do. House work, work work, yard work, dog work, car work, life work, health work, blog work, avoiding-the-annoying-census-girl work, book-writing work, book-editing work, reading work, hiding-messages work, XBox work. It can be, well, a little much.
Update: Oh, and in amongst all that other work, I'm surprising R. tonight with a steak dinner. I had kinda intended it to be a candle light dinner, but since it doesn't get dark enough for candle light, it will just have to be a surprise steak and potato and tomato dinner. That might not seem like much, but we don't eat beef or potatoes around here much anymore since we went on the the weight-loss/healthy eating path.
Speaking of which... I'm doing this Spartacus workout. Ten stations of 60 second workouts, with 15 seconds to change. Three full sets for a total of 41ish minutes. Its from the Bible. And its a killer workout that involves weights, but thanks to the stations also improves cardio performance and burns mucho calorieo. So me can eat Oreo. But instead I usually just eat Jello.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Food choice, schmood schmoich, apparently
Reason.com has an interesting article of the White House's recent anti-obesity initiative and a peak at the newly redesigned food pyramid, along with the usual anti-government seasoning.
I've got some thoughts at my other blog.
I try not to cross post too often, but part of this blog's 1000 & 1 things is health & fitness. So I thought I would expand upon my other post.
So here goes: Don't even get me started on the food pyramid. It was a staple in schools and on food containers while I was growing up. Nice orderly progresssion from grains/carbs at the bottom (base), progressing up through fruits and veggies and meat and finally ending up in the smallest, topmost portion with fats and sugars. It was very nice.
And pretty much completely wrong.
Turns out, the carbs and grains that made the base of the pyramid really shouldn't form the base, because outside of a few whole grains and vegetables, carbs shouldn't be the base of your diet. Why not? They are mostly empty calories, and worse yet, they are relatively calorie dense and don't fill you up like, say fats and protiens. And lets just forget that the smallest part of the old pyramid makes a demon out of "fats," despite that saturated fats are probably one of the more healthy things you can eat.
So you see, the pyramid was pretty much entirely ass backwards or upside down, take your pick.
To make matters worse, based partly on that pyramid and party on advocacy from decades earlier, companies started abandoning fat at all costs. The result - trans fats and low-fat foods with high calorie counts. Both have since been discovered to be evils in the battle of the bulge.
Oh, and I forgot the best part of this little cross-over article: it gives me a place to crow about the fact that I'm down from 230ish pounds to 220 pounds. Almost all of it fat, as far as I can tell. And while on vacation R. and I worked out and I took a "fitness test" offered by one of the treadmills. It rated by VO2 Max as "above average."
Here I come, 210.
I've got some thoughts at my other blog.
I try not to cross post too often, but part of this blog's 1000 & 1 things is health & fitness. So I thought I would expand upon my other post.
So here goes: Don't even get me started on the food pyramid. It was a staple in schools and on food containers while I was growing up. Nice orderly progresssion from grains/carbs at the bottom (base), progressing up through fruits and veggies and meat and finally ending up in the smallest, topmost portion with fats and sugars. It was very nice.
And pretty much completely wrong.
Turns out, the carbs and grains that made the base of the pyramid really shouldn't form the base, because outside of a few whole grains and vegetables, carbs shouldn't be the base of your diet. Why not? They are mostly empty calories, and worse yet, they are relatively calorie dense and don't fill you up like, say fats and protiens. And lets just forget that the smallest part of the old pyramid makes a demon out of "fats," despite that saturated fats are probably one of the more healthy things you can eat.
So you see, the pyramid was pretty much entirely ass backwards or upside down, take your pick.
To make matters worse, based partly on that pyramid and party on advocacy from decades earlier, companies started abandoning fat at all costs. The result - trans fats and low-fat foods with high calorie counts. Both have since been discovered to be evils in the battle of the bulge.
Oh, and I forgot the best part of this little cross-over article: it gives me a place to crow about the fact that I'm down from 230ish pounds to 220 pounds. Almost all of it fat, as far as I can tell. And while on vacation R. and I worked out and I took a "fitness test" offered by one of the treadmills. It rated by VO2 Max as "above average."
Here I come, 210.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
28.7!
Any guess as to what the number represents?
It's my body-fat percentage.
And its down from 30 a couple weeks ago. You see, just after Christmas R. and I bought a scale that can tell you a host of info, from weight, to BMI (boy, what a tough one), to body water percentage, to bone mass to ... body fat.
Mine started near 30, as I said. I was 230-232ish at the time. Now I'm down to 28.7 and I'm ... 230 today. So I've lost, let's say 1 percent of my body fat (about 2-plus pounds) but I'm exactly the same weight.
Which is just as the Bible said it would be. Which is exactly my plan. Lower body fat, keep same weight.
Meanwhile, 28.7 isn't great. Short term, I'd like to get to the 18-26 range. Long-term, I'm aiming for 14-17. Not far short term, probably a couple pounds, but I'd like to end up at 220-230.
It's my body-fat percentage.
And its down from 30 a couple weeks ago. You see, just after Christmas R. and I bought a scale that can tell you a host of info, from weight, to BMI (boy, what a tough one), to body water percentage, to bone mass to ... body fat.
Mine started near 30, as I said. I was 230-232ish at the time. Now I'm down to 28.7 and I'm ... 230 today. So I've lost, let's say 1 percent of my body fat (about 2-plus pounds) but I'm exactly the same weight.
Which is just as the Bible said it would be. Which is exactly my plan. Lower body fat, keep same weight.
Meanwhile, 28.7 isn't great. Short term, I'd like to get to the 18-26 range. Long-term, I'm aiming for 14-17. Not far short term, probably a couple pounds, but I'd like to end up at 220-230.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
28.6
That's my BMI. 28.6. And I was generous, giving my honestly 6-foot 2-inch/2.5 inch height an additional inch or half inch of height. I used this morning's 229 weight. Even assuming that was high, 225 pounds at 6'3 gets me 28.1.
I'm not the first to rail against BMI, nor is this even my first time. But let's put that in perspective...
BMI Categories:
Underweight = less than 18.5
Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
To get to 24.9 I have to get down to 199 pounds. Now, I'm not particularly athletic. I keep in shape and workout. Yes, I lift some weights and do pushups, and I follow a program designed to get me lean. What I don't do is extreme weight lifting. I do push ups and just recently started using weights in one or two of my exercised. And I don't participate in any type of sport. So I'm not sure I fall into this site's "overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build." I wouldn't ordinarily describe myself as muscular. Frankly, if I'm muscular, I'd hate to think what the alternative is. Though, based on convos with siblings, I guess maybe I have a distorted view. Now, luckily, the site also includes a helpful "waist measurement" component. So let's look there, shall we? Athletes and "the muscular" should have thin waists and thus offset this whole problem, right?
Hmmm.... a waist greater than 40 inches with the same BMI is at a "high" risk.
Good thing: I've been keeping my waist measurements over the last year.
Bad thing:
- 41.5 in August '08,
- 39.75 in December '08
- 41.25 in April '09
- 40.75 in May '09
So, in the last year, AT BEST, I've been at an "increased" risk for diease, and then only by a quarter inch, easily within the margin of measuring error or happenstance of having been slightly dehyrdated. The rest of the time I've been in the "high" risk category. WTF?
And let's look at weight during that same period....
- 223.5 lbs on August 1, 2008
- 216.5 on Dec. 31 (exact date of the waist measurement)
- ? in April 09
- 226-229 in May/June '09.
So. My weight is up 6 or so pounds from August, 15 from December. My waist is currently right in the middle of the measurements from those two months (though lower than August and higher than December).
So, since August 2008 I've gained 6 pounds, lost .75 inches off my waist, and stayed pretty solidly in the "overweight" BMI category. A mere 10 pounds (240 total lbs) and I'm "obese." That's not an "overestimate," that's ridiculous.
I gorge too much at times. Guilty.
I carry the tiniest bit of weight in my belly. Guilty.
But frankly, to get down to 199, the very max I can weigh, or even to eliminate that belly, I'd have to have a six pack or be anorexically thin. To get to a perfectly respectible 20.6 BMI I'd have to weigh 165 pounds.
It's just not feasible. So I guess I'm athletic or muscular. I guess I have to be. Not sure what that means for real weight lifters or guys who are actually athletes. But it seems to me that if an average, in shape guy can throw the system that badly, its probably not much of a system.
BMI Prime, which tries to calculate for the overally tall, since they skew the scale (since when has 6'2 been abnormally tall? Tall, yes. But, abnormally?) puts my upper acceptable weight at .... 199.25. The same as BMI.
I'm not the first to rail against BMI, nor is this even my first time. But let's put that in perspective...
BMI Categories:
Underweight = less than 18.5
Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
To get to 24.9 I have to get down to 199 pounds. Now, I'm not particularly athletic. I keep in shape and workout. Yes, I lift some weights and do pushups, and I follow a program designed to get me lean. What I don't do is extreme weight lifting. I do push ups and just recently started using weights in one or two of my exercised. And I don't participate in any type of sport. So I'm not sure I fall into this site's "overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build." I wouldn't ordinarily describe myself as muscular. Frankly, if I'm muscular, I'd hate to think what the alternative is. Though, based on convos with siblings, I guess maybe I have a distorted view. Now, luckily, the site also includes a helpful "waist measurement" component. So let's look there, shall we? Athletes and "the muscular" should have thin waists and thus offset this whole problem, right?
Hmmm.... a waist greater than 40 inches with the same BMI is at a "high" risk.
Good thing: I've been keeping my waist measurements over the last year.
Bad thing:
- 41.5 in August '08,
- 39.75 in December '08
- 41.25 in April '09
- 40.75 in May '09
So, in the last year, AT BEST, I've been at an "increased" risk for diease, and then only by a quarter inch, easily within the margin of measuring error or happenstance of having been slightly dehyrdated. The rest of the time I've been in the "high" risk category. WTF?
And let's look at weight during that same period....
- 223.5 lbs on August 1, 2008
- 216.5 on Dec. 31 (exact date of the waist measurement)
- ? in April 09
- 226-229 in May/June '09.
So. My weight is up 6 or so pounds from August, 15 from December. My waist is currently right in the middle of the measurements from those two months (though lower than August and higher than December).
So, since August 2008 I've gained 6 pounds, lost .75 inches off my waist, and stayed pretty solidly in the "overweight" BMI category. A mere 10 pounds (240 total lbs) and I'm "obese." That's not an "overestimate," that's ridiculous.
I gorge too much at times. Guilty.
I carry the tiniest bit of weight in my belly. Guilty.
But frankly, to get down to 199, the very max I can weigh, or even to eliminate that belly, I'd have to have a six pack or be anorexically thin. To get to a perfectly respectible 20.6 BMI I'd have to weigh 165 pounds.
It's just not feasible. So I guess I'm athletic or muscular. I guess I have to be. Not sure what that means for real weight lifters or guys who are actually athletes. But it seems to me that if an average, in shape guy can throw the system that badly, its probably not much of a system.
BMI Prime, which tries to calculate for the overally tall, since they skew the scale (since when has 6'2 been abnormally tall? Tall, yes. But, abnormally?) puts my upper acceptable weight at .... 199.25. The same as BMI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)