"Americans Exercise More....Obesity Rates Still Climbing"

Options
1468910

Replies

  • Lean59man
    Lean59man Posts: 714 Member
    Options
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Lean59man wrote: »
    Carrying heavy bodyweight, whether muscle or fat, has been shown to be detrimental to health.

    It puts a strain on your heart in either case.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say if we look at 2 6ft, 275 pound guys one is 15% BF and the other is 35% BF the guy with 15% is actually moving, getting his heart rate up, etc and most likely healthier.

    Is his heart healthier than another guy that is 6ft, 200 pounds and 25% BF? Someplace the streams cross.

    Unfortunately, this is not the case.

    High bodyweight levels lower life expectancy. It doesn't matter if you are muscular or not.
  • Lean59man
    Lean59man Posts: 714 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    "My husband weighs 210 and is 5'9" and he's not obese."

    This 5'9", 170lbs person who has done a little bit of training and has more than average amount of muscle thinks that's highly improbable.

    There are guys in the NFL who are 5'6" and weigh 190 and have low bodyfat levels.

    They are outliers but they exist.
  • Silentpadna
    Silentpadna Posts: 1,306 Member
    edited March 2018
    Options
    Obesity is merely a classification based on weight to height ratio. Nothing more. Being classified as obese doesn't necessarily mean you carry all of the health risks equally to others classified as obese.

    There are many very fit people. When @sijomial writes that her husband is "not obese at 5'9, 210", I don't think her point is to argue the classification, because it's simply a number and you can't really do that. Technically the numbers say he is. I would doubt very highly, however, that if he's in good shape with a muscular build that he carries the health risk that the average obese person would. At least I think that's her point.

  • Silentpadna
    Silentpadna Posts: 1,306 Member
    Options
    Lean59man wrote: »

    High bodyweight levels lower life expectancy. It doesn't matter if you are muscular or not.

    The first part of this is, for the most part, agreeable (if you don't consider the second part.

    But I can't take that statement as a whole to be truth. Are you really saying that the life expectancy of a guy with 15% body fat, yet classified as obese, has the same life expectancy of someone with 35% body fat at the same weight? I'd like to see the case for that. I'm sure that you could come up with a study that correlates BMI as a whole....i.e. one that includes the entire body fat populations within each BMI percentage. But that does not say that being muscular doesn't matter.

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    Yes, But there's multiple issues at hand.

    You can't generally speaking outrun a bad diet. So there is a certain population that are fat and fit. I still fit into that category and other active posters have identified that they once fit into that category as well. I'm much less fat than 2 years ago. and somewhat less fit(due to recovering from injury)

    But just as meaningful is that there's a great deal of misperception of what meaningful activity and exercise is. Doing 30 minutes of chest press, OHP, Squats, DLs, lunges, rows, etc in a slow meandering circuit with 2 lb hand weights will burn fewer calories than walking the 1.5-2 miles you could have walked in that time. But there are classes and DVDs stealing people's(mostly women) money. Telling them that this is what they need to do to tone their bodies.

    My brain tells me there are other issues as well but they've escaped me.
  • dinadyna21
    dinadyna21 Posts: 403 Member
    Options
    I will say the amount of people on rascal scooters during my last visit to Disneyland was insane...

    Literally an explosion of these things over the last several years...

    The majority did not appear to even need them for any particular reason

    And here I sit thinking I should've invested in scooters 10 years ago :(
  • MichelleWithMoxie
    MichelleWithMoxie Posts: 1,817 Member
    Options
    TheBigFb wrote: »
    The answer is SUGAR

    :laugh:
  • acorsaut89
    acorsaut89 Posts: 1,147 Member
    Options
    Lounmoun wrote: »
    I think people need to be aware of both their real calorie intake and their real activity level and what is appropriate for their weight management goals. Tracking can help with that.
    There are a lot of people who think if they just "eat healthy" they will lose weight just like there are many who think they just need to exercise more. Neither approach is going to be effective if the person is still taking in too many calories for what they are doing. A lot of people think you get fat eating 3 whole pizzas or gallons of ice cream daily but most people it is the steady overconsumption of a couple hundred calories per day. That might be their fancy cup of coffee or healthy smoothie.

    This! There a book called Mindless Eating and it emphasizes the Mindless Margin, which is really just overeating by 200 - 300 calories/day and it really adds up over time.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    TheBigFb wrote: »
    The answer is SUGAR

    The keto fad is lying to you.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    Lean59man wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    "My husband weighs 210 and is 5'9" and he's not obese."

    This 5'9", 170lbs person who has done a little bit of training and has more than average amount of muscle thinks that's highly improbable.

    There are guys in the NFL who are 5'6" and weigh 190 and have low bodyfat levels.

    They are outliers but they exist.

    Steroid users skew the numbers.
  • goatg
    goatg Posts: 1,399 Member
    Options
    MichSmish wrote: »
    goatg wrote: »
    MichSmish wrote: »
    goatg wrote: »
    MichSmish wrote: »
    MichSmish wrote: »
    Tblackdogs wrote: »
    I am constantly amazed on this site by the amount of calories people "claim" to have burned by exercise. I'm sorry, but most people (especially older women) are not burning 1000 calories from an hour and half of exercise. I went on a 100 mile hike in New Mexico, and I didn't lose a pound, even when hiking 10 plus miles a day with a 45 pack on my back.

    90 mins of running burns me about 1k calories. I don’t think it’s highly unlikely to burn 1k with 90 mins of exercise, dependent on exertion level of course. Now those who claim a 1k burn in 60 mins are pretty laughable. But 1k in 90 mins is not unfathomable.

    what exercise is netting you 1000cal burn in 90min? because that is like 3.5hrs of cycling for me at 16mph

    I can run 11.5-12 miles in 90 mins, that burns me about 1k calories. I’m 33 y/o, 5’1” ~110 lbs.

    Ran 13.2 today in 2 hours. Steady effort, HR avg 75% max (for people who think that matters). 29, 5'7, 146, female.
    Burned about 1200.

    Right on, that’s a great run and sounds about right for calories burned. I get in 15-16 miles in 2 hours, and usually clock about 1300 or so calories burned.

    That's awesome. Do you watch your heart rate during your runs?

    I don’t. I’ve never used any of the hrm gadgets, but I’m curious now. My husband has an Apple Watch, maybe I’ll borrow that one of these days to check it out.

    I couldn't imagine training without one! Make sure to update the watch to your stats (especially age). That'll give you accurate HR zones : )
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Options
    I will say the amount of people on rascal scooters during my last visit to Disneyland was insane...

    Literally an explosion of these things over the last several years...

    The majority did not appear to even need them for any particular reason

    We observed the same thing with wheelchairs years ago. We were leaving the park at closing time and there were may wheelchairs left in the Main St area which was blocks from the boats to the parking lot.

    MICKY HEALS.