<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Q&A: When it's good to be fat ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-17T21:41:46-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Observing the fat phenomena]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79668]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Well &quot;ignorant&quot; journalist sometimes stumble upon observable phenomena without understanding the import of it, as do laymen.That is why the man presented the question, he is interested in the answer, I haven't read anything above so far that explains the obvious.  If the truth be known, every human being is unique and the many people who are overweight in our countries are really experiencing a slower metabolism for whatever the cause or reason. One explanation given in scientific literature is for instance; if a person lacks calcium in their diet because of too much acid production (due to acid forming foods and etc requiring an alkaline nuetralization process to prevent didsease.) they will require it from somewhere. Since the balanced nutrition is already lacking for whatever the cause, the miracle in obesity is that your body will slow down its entire production in order to hold on to more calcium in the bones by carrying more weight. That is a by product of an inbalance that just so happens to augument for a possible cure at some future date. (it is called a buffer system) A better way would be do weight bearing exercises or work for a living but we mostly have machines that do that. One man's food is another man's poison and being fat is not always the result of sloth;  mostly it has to do with how many fat cells you developed in your earliest years. (even prebirth affects the amount of fat cells in growing fetus) and so I do not judge. A person with a naturally abundant amount of fat stem cells will either be less productive or more productive in life depending on whether they learn about themselves and get into a livestyle that best serves their peculiar constitution. I am just a carpenter, with an amazingly resourceful mind and not unlike any of you, I have had to lose weight after some acute health problems and  although your personal pride may leave you thinking, &quot;what does he know'?  My metabolism at fiftysix appears the same as it was when I was 17. My workload is greater than most people who are 20. This morning at five thirty I was in a crossfit group. It is not uncommon for my body to endure as many as 100 chinups, 200 pushups and 300 squats at a time without stopping.The first day I began this I was on my back dizzy after two minutes of it. Today I can go for an hour.   Take courage there is a way out of obesity if you are willing to do the work. Eat and work your way to a faster metabolism is my motto. I would write a book but no one respects a layman's oppinnion, right!?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79668]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[OCR87]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 26 Sep 2012 08:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Avoiding the danger of fast weight loss.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79445]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Being on a fast weight-loss diet is extremely stressful physically and physiologically, not to mention mentally.  I decided over a year ago to lose some excess weight, but not to lose more than a pound in any month.  I exercise a lot; that's not to lose weight; it's to maintain muscle mass, as weight loss tends to consume muscle, and it's to remain fit.  At 68, I'm still a lot heathier than a lot of folks well under my age, and I'm the most robustly healthy among all of my friends.  I've lost six pounds in the past year, and I walked for about ten miles, today, up and down hills and the like.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79445]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[firstaborean]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 2012 01:19:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Skinny is not healthy]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79455]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Its been known for some time underweight is much less healthy than overweight. A 5% under is less healthy than a 30% overweight. I think this is from insurance actuarial tables.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79455]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Altotus]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:27:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[obesity]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79444]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I feel there is a problem in the analysis of obesity. We cannot just think about B.M.I. but we have to take a serious look at the persons lifestyle-physical and mental stress, eating habits and exercise-than simply over weight.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79444]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[hispeque]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:23:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Obesity Paradox]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79420]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The Obesity Paradox is a relatively recent invention. 100 years ago it was considered healthy and actually was healthy to be obese. Obesity gave a survival advantage in the diseases of the time as well as resistance to famine. This is why I was hounded by my elders to &quot;put some meat on my bones&quot;. They lived through the obesity advantage. The modern obesity paradox is most likely due to the fact that a skinny chronically ill person is worse off than their overweight counterpart. Therefore they have less &quot;reserve capacity&quot; in case of acute illness. When one looks at healthy thin people vs healthy overweight and obese people nowadays, the thin do have an advantage. This is because obesity itself is a chronic illness and leads to many other acute and chronic diseases in our modern, well fed, TB free (hope it stays that way), and information oriented society. A skinny farmer can't work the fields by hand all day. A thin construction worker who worked without safety equipment had a much greater chance of getting killed than a hefty counterpart. Today a fat desk worker is more likely to plug an artery in the heart than the skinny counterpart. In the same way a skinny diabetic who develops influenza or pneumonia stands a better chance of dying due to a lack of reserve nutrients and strength. I know that the research authors &quot;adjusted&quot; for level of illness but my intuition tells me otherwise. Medical statistical analysis is a very inexact science.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79420]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Arctic Char]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:00:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Bear Skins &amp; Stone Knives]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79416]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Maybe this is just another case of the &quot;medical profession&quot; being stuck with &quot;bear skins &amp; stone knives&quot; when it comes to difinitive knowledge on human health. I'm sure any good medical professional would admit that there is still more unknown about human medicine than that which is actually known beyond a shadow of a doubt.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79416]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jfobear1953@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:08:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I thought something similar]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79392]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My question was: OK, overweight people are more likely to SURVIVE an illness, but aren't they more likely to HAVE an illness?  So (maybe) the data doesn't mean it's OK to stay fat -- either before or after diagnosis of an illness.  You would need a study comparing the longevity of fat people who -- AFTER diagnosis of an illness -- either stayed fat or lost weight.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79392]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dmm99]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:18:50 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[read the article]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79401]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The diabetes researcher corrected for weight lost due to sickness.  And the journalist here is mainly interviewing somebody else who claims to have carefully studied the studies.  It's not the job of journalists to be critical experts.  You are confusing journalists with peer reviewers.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79401]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dmm99]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:10:26 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[To Lymon1]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79380]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think you must mean you weigh 245-250 lbs.  Otherwise your comment makes no sense.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79380]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dmm99]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 09:04:55 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[DOCTOR&quot;S WANTS??]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79391]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I am app.6 ft.1in. tall. Since my late 30's I've always held my weight between 145-150 lbs. Accordong to medical charts a person my height should weigh 180 lbs. I carry my weight well, with a 36 to 38 in. waist, I don't look fat. My cholesterol lovels are good my triglycerides are high. 2 out of 3 ain't bad. I have told my dr. and I firmly believe if I lost to 180 lbs. I would look sickly. I don't exercise much but my diet is on track &amp; that is why my cholesterol levels are good the &quot;tri's&quot;, everything you consume has a little. I try to watch the amounts listed on products\ menus, but we're bombarded with the sugars, MSG's, tri's,; monos,polys, and sat. fats. Give me/us a break already; I feel good at my weight &amp; don't want to lose, so to my dr. case closed.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79391]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Lymon1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:26:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Beware of a &quot;journilst&quot; interpreting science.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79379]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'm surprised this jouralist didn't pick up on the fact that the study she used regarding mortality weights for diabetics - has nothing to do with their weight history and how the disease became established. With the acception of a sudden fatal heart attach, weight loss is almost a universal feature in people who have long term illness (like diabetes) before they finally die. Their weight at death therefore is meaningless.While I'm very skeptical of the author's ability to weigh and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each of the studies she reviewed, I can find agreement with one of her statements - even though it's a colossal understatement,&quot;BMI is like a blunt instrument.&quot;The human body is three dimensional, not two as the BMI would have it's users believe. To think and adopt a BMI to  assess someones optimal weight and or health based on a two dimensional calculation (weight and height) not only defies basic mathematics, but it is a revealing and very negative professional, educational, and intellectual self-description regarding the overall scientific incompetency of the medical industry, gov. medical agencies and the Docs. that use a two dimensional BMI.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79379]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dduggerbiocepts]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:25:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Diabeetus]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79376]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Whenever I read &quot;diabeetus&quot; I hear Wilford Brimley's voice.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79376]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[tracystoller]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:37:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Wow]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79375]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I am speechless. Maybe this is the Smart Planet Webiste for the Dumb Species.  I shudder to think how this mess of information and conclusions (so many variables one cannot count on the fingers of an endless line of hands)  will be used by dumb people who reside on this smart planet. Wow!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79375]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[WAGEPOINT]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:28:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Idea]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79383]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Here's a thought:Maybe, slim people only develop these diseases if they are naturally &quot;weak&quot;i.e, 10% of the normal population develop Type 2 diabeetus, while 80% of the obese population do.Now, the diabeetus might be more lethal to the slim people, because they developed it through natural fallibility, however, that doesn't mean that the obese population is more healthy than the normal population.Let's say that it kills 80% of the normal population who develop it, and 30% of the obese population. That still means that 8% of normal people develop lethal diabeetus, while 24% of the obese do.Thus, this disease is more lethal to normal people who develop it, yet overall kills a greater percentage of the obese population.These numbers are, of course, just an example. I'd have to see the data from the actual studies to make an informed judgement.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-11875-79383]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[am462]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:12:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

