Re: Obesity's Huge Hidden Costs

[Guest guest]

I just hafta point out a cupla of my observations.

I don't doubt all the problems with obesity.

There's a truck stop we eat breakfast once in a while, and in the 10 years we've live here there are 2 fat (be polite) waitresses that run around waiting on people. They work sometimes 12 hr shifts when traffic is heavy.

Both move like athletes. I have always wondered with the exercise why they don't lose weight.

Another was a heavy black lady checking baggage at Houston airport, and I asked her how long she had worked there, and she was very open and friendly with her answers. I think 7 yrs, and stand up all shift, except lunch and 2 breaks.

I don't know what they eat, but it's obvious to me there's more to it than diet.

Some days, I drop down to 1400 - 1500 kcals and the result is the next day, I don't defecate. Even at 1800 kcals, I have enough recoverable calories in waste to cover the outage the next day.

I kinda like the "throughput" better.

Regards.

[ ] Obesity's Huge Hidden Costs

I would have posted just the link, but i had to copy and paste stuff from both the article and the slide show..

JSN

FORBES.comObesity's Huge Hidden Costs Herper, 07.20.06, 6:00 AM ET

Six in ten people in the United States are overweight, with a third crossing the boundary into obesity. The extra weight leads to at least 100,000 deaths annually. Obese people are at a much higher risk for heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis and some cancers.

Doctors call people obese if their weight in kilograms is more than 30 times bigger than their height in meters squared. This is known as a high body mass index, or BMI.

Even kids are getting fatter. Nineteen percent of children between the ages of 6 and 11 are overweight, up from 4% in the 1970s. Doctors are turning to intensive behavioral therapy to try to keep these children from gaining more weight.

..

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

Based on what you wrote there (attached below), the conclusion I

would draw is: " ...... but it's obvious to me there is more to it

than exercise " (!)

The fact is that in order to burn off one OUNCE of " Lay's Classic

Potato Chips " (150 calories) you have to walk at three mph for three

miles.

My guess is that your waitresses eat (fat-laced foods) liberally at

work for free whenever there is a lull in traffic. Then go home at

the end of the day and eat a couple of bags of potato chips with two

litres of coke, laying on the couch exhausted, and watching TV.

Just a guess.

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@...>

wrote:

>

> I just hafta point out a cupla of my observations.

> I don't doubt all the problems with obesity.

> There's a truck stop we eat breakfast once in a while, and in the

10 years we've live here there are 2 fat (be polite) waitresses that

run around waiting on people. They work sometimes 12 hr shifts when

traffic is heavy.

> Both move like athletes. I have always wondered with the exercise

why they don't lose weight.

> Another was a heavy black lady checking baggage at Houston

airport, and I asked her how long she had worked there, and she was

very open and friendly with her answers. I think 7 yrs, and stand up

all shift, except lunch and 2 breaks.

> I don't know what they eat, but it's obvious to me there's more to

it than diet.

>

> Some days, I drop down to 1400 - 1500 kcals and the result is the

next day, I don't defecate. Even at 1800 kcals, I have enough

recoverable calories in waste to cover the outage the next day.

> I kinda like the " throughput " better.

>

> Regards.

>

>

> [ ] Obesity's Huge Hidden Costs

>

>

>

> I would have posted just the link, but i had to copy and paste

stuff from both the article and the slide show..

> JSN

>

>

> FORBES.com

>

> Obesity's Huge Hidden Costs

> Herper, 07.20.06, 6:00 AM ET

>

> Six in ten people in the United States are overweight, with a

third crossing the boundary into obesity. The extra weight leads to

at least 100,000 deaths annually. Obese people are at a much higher

risk for heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, arthritis and some

cancers.

>

> Doctors call people obese if their weight in kilograms is more

than 30 times bigger than their height in meters squared. This is

known as a high body mass index, or BMI.

> Even kids are getting fatter. Nineteen percent of children

between the ages of 6 and 11 are overweight, up from 4% in the 1970s.

Doctors are turning to intensive behavioral therapy to try to keep

these children from gaining more weight.

>

> .

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Rodney,

and that's logical, but I still ask the question because the heavier a person gets, the more calories they must burn exercising. Inside that 300# body is a little guy working his tail off.

Another example is a guy working outside, building in cold weather, in line in front of me, gets a whole plate of mashed potatoes and gravy, like 4 servings. Plus a second plate of meat,etc. He was about 155 #, gray hair.

I have many examples you don't even want to hear about. I maintain it's not just calories.

You see the docs deal with fat people and the ONLY thing they can say is diet, but in fact there are people (my oldest son, eg) that eats 6000 kcals and weighs 135#. In fact, I only have 1 gchild that could be called plump, the rest (9) are skinny and all they eat is crap. I have 5 "inherited" gchildren that are thin also. So I don't see the problem.

We are a skinny family.

I certainly can't indict the fast food places.

Regards.

[ ] Re: Obesity's Huge Hidden Costs

Hi JW:Based on what you wrote there (attached below), the conclusion I would draw is: "...... but it's obvious to me there is more to it than exercise" (!)The fact is that in order to burn off one OUNCE of "Lay's Classic Potato Chips" (150 calories) you have to walk at three mph for three miles. My guess is that your waitresses eat (fat-laced foods) liberally at work for free whenever there is a lull in traffic. Then go home at the end of the day and eat a couple of bags of potato chips with two litres of coke, laying on the couch exhausted, and watching TV.Just a guess.Rodney.>> I just hafta point out a cupla of my observations.> I don't doubt all the problems with obesity.> There's a truck stop we eat breakfast once in a while, and in the 10 years we've live here there are 2 fat (be polite) waitresses that run around waiting on people. They work sometimes 12 hr shifts when traffic is heavy. > Both move like athletes. I have always wondered with the exercise why they don't lose weight. > Another was a heavy black lady checking baggage at Houston airport, and I asked her how long she had worked there, and she was very open and friendly with her answers. I think 7 yrs, and stand up all shift, except lunch and 2 breaks. > I don't know what they eat, but it's obvious to me there's more to it than diet.> > Some days, I drop down to 1400 - 1500 kcals and the result is the next day, I don't defecate. Even at 1800 kcals, I have enough recoverable calories in waste to cover the outage the next day. > I kinda like the "throughput" better.> > Regards.> _,_.___

..

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi JW:

>

> Based on what you wrote there (attached below), the conclusion I

> would draw is: " ...... but it's obvious to me there is more to it

> than exercise " (!)

>

> The fact is that in order to burn off one OUNCE of " Lay's Classic

> Potato Chips " (150 calories) you have to walk at three mph for three

> miles.

>

Hi Rodney,

Sorry to point this out but unless you're a very light person, or an

extremely efficient walker (or maybe residing on an extraterrestrial

planet with less gravitational force or whatever) you will probably

expend more calories than that.

From the following article,

" A simple rule of thumb is 100 calories per mile for a 160 pound person. "

http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm

a~z

[Guest guest]

Hi Aequalsz:

Well I am not sure I can agree with you for a number of reasons.

First, the source you provide has two major flaws. It gives no

evidence to support its claims, no studies referenced for where it

got the data. Second, it has a very clear reason to be biased. The

site you linked even calls itself " walking. about.com " (!!!).

Clearly they are 'in business' to advocate the benefits of exercise.

Of course, while this does prove their data are misleading, it

certainly suggests they would need to be verified before taking them

at face value.

This is an issue that has been discussed here fairly extensively

before, including by me, and I posted references at that time which

appeared to support the 70 miles walked at three mph per pound of

weight lost. If you wish you could do an archive search to find

them. But here are two more sources you might want to take a look at:

One is " Healthy Women, Healthy Lives " the book written by Walter

Willett, the principal investigator of many of the Nurses' Health

Study papers. He quotes as his source the " Department of Health an

Human Services " of the US government. I have briefly search the

department's website and was unable to find the data referenced by

Willett, so I cannot give an opinion of their validity/tendency for

bias. If they came from Aerobics or others associated with

them I would think there is a risk that those numbers might also be

biased, in a similar direction.

But here is a study you might like to look at which appears to have

been carefully done and comes to the conclusion that the 70 miles per

pound number is far too optimistic for walking. It studied people

who **jogged** and their data show that jogging - which is much more

energetic per mile than walking, as we have also previously discussed

here - requires 73.7 miles per pound of weight burned off. If these

numbers are accurate then it is likely that walking at three mph will

require 100 miles or more per pound. Here is my analysis of their

data:

The study is PMID: 16002776. It was done at Duke University. They

had a control group that took no exercise, that was similar in other

respects to three 'treatment' groups. They followed the control

group for six months, during which time members put on an average of

1.9 pounds. One of the treatment groups was daily joggers they

followed for 243 days. One might assume that over the same 243 day

period the control group would have added 2.7 pounds. The control

group also differed from the jogging group in consuming about 25

calories per day less. Had they consumed the same number of calories

the control group would have been expected to have had a total weight

gain over the 243 day period of 4.4 pounds.

The joggers, in contrast to the control group, lost an average of

five pounds. So the weight difference between the groups that is

attributable to exercise was 9.4 pounds. That converts to 32,900

calories.

How far did they jog? They jogged 693 miles!!!!!! So calories

burnt per mile of JOGGING in this study was 47.5. And the number of

miles required to burn off one pound of weight (to burn 3500

calories) comes out at 73.7 miles.

Clearly, based on the above data, walking at three miles per hour

would burn off appreciably fewer calories per mile, and require many

more miles to burn off one pound of weight. Perhaps 100 miles per

pound? Perhaps more than 100? I do not have a hard number for

precisely how many miles one needs to walk at three miles per hour to

burn off one pound of weight, sources differ, but the data from the

study above clearly suggest that the number I quoted - 70 miles per

pound - may be low by a considerable margin.

If you have studies similar to the one I have noted above, which

carefully measure caloric intake and weight lost over carefully

measured amounts of exercise in comparison with a control group,

please post them. It would be helpful for the group here if we had

some definitive studies we could put in the files to reference when

we need to, since this is a topic which comes up periodically.

Rodney.

--- In , " aequalsz " <aequalsz@...>

wrote:

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@>

wrote:

> >

> > Hi JW:

> >

> > Based on what you wrote there (attached below), the conclusion I

> > would draw is: " ...... but it's obvious to me there is more to

it

> > than exercise " (!)

> >

> > The fact is that in order to burn off one OUNCE of " Lay's Classic

> > Potato Chips " (150 calories) you have to walk at three mph for

three

> > miles.

> >

>

> Hi Rodney,

>

> Sorry to point this out but unless you're a very light person, or an

> extremely efficient walker (or maybe residing on an extraterrestrial

> planet with less gravitational force or whatever) you will probably

> expend more calories than that.

>

> From the following article,

>

> " A simple rule of thumb is 100 calories per mile for a 160 pound

person. "

>

> http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm

>

> a~z

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Aequalsz:

One further point: The BMIs of all the groups in the study I

referenced were between 29 and 30 ........... on the threshold of

obesity.

Clearly they will burn appreciably more calories per mile jogged than

those with a lower BMI. So people with a BMI of, for a number, 25

would need to jog/walk even further to burn off 3500 calories than

was the case for the subjects of this study.

Rodney.

> > >

> > > Hi JW:

> > >

> > > Based on what you wrote there (attached below), the conclusion

I

> > > would draw is: " ...... but it's obvious to me there is more

to

> it

> > > than exercise " (!)

> > >

> > > The fact is that in order to burn off one OUNCE of " Lay's

Classic

> > > Potato Chips " (150 calories) you have to walk at three mph for

> three

> > > miles.

> > >

> >

> > Hi Rodney,

> >

> > Sorry to point this out but unless you're a very light person, or

an

> > extremely efficient walker (or maybe residing on an

extraterrestrial

> > planet with less gravitational force or whatever) you will

probably

> > expend more calories than that.

> >

> > From the following article,

> >

> > " A simple rule of thumb is 100 calories per mile for a 160 pound

> person. "

> >

> > http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm

> >

> > a~z

> >

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi Aequalsz:

>

> Well I am not sure I can agree with you for a number of reasons.

>

> First, the source you provide has two major flaws. It gives no

> evidence to support its claims, no studies referenced for where it

> got the data. Second, it has a very clear reason to be biased. The

> site you linked even calls itself " walking. about.com " (!!!).

> Clearly they are 'in business' to advocate the benefits of exercise.

> Of course, while this does prove their data are misleading, it

> certainly suggests they would need to be verified before taking them

> at face value.

>

> > >

> >

> > Hi Rodney,

> >

> > Sorry to point this out but unless you're a very light person, or an

> > extremely efficient walker (or maybe residing on an extraterrestrial

> > planet with less gravitational force or whatever) you will probably

> > expend more calories than that.

> >

> > From the following article,

> >

> > " A simple rule of thumb is 100 calories per mile for a 160 pound

> person. "

> >

> > http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm

> >

> > a~z

> >

>

Hi Rodney,

Well I don't wish to pursue this discussion too far because some will

say that (a) the quoted sources are too old. (Apparently they have

been doing this type of research since about 1890 and seem to have by

now,established calorie expenditure during exercising pretty well) and

( almost everybody in the world is trying to sell weight-watching

foods and exercise routines and have published at least 99.9% of the

data existing on the web. So what you get is trying to convince a

group of very skeptical people using data usually provided by those

having commercial interests in selling some diet or exercise routine

or calorie counter device. Not a good combination IMHO,

However I would like to present the following information,

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/pdf/PA_Intensity_table_2_1.pdf

which comes from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

around 1999. You or anyone can easily calculate and estimate the

calories required for various types of activities. Anyhow this

source, while maybe not up to the meticulous standards of some is good

enough for me and so I do not wish or have time enough to pursue this

somewhat rehashed topic anymore. :-)

a~z

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

I am surprised that you don't know about " about.com " . They are not,

as you say, in business to advocate the benefits of exercise. They

are a sort of online resource page. In fact, here is their page on

calorie restriction:

http://healing.about.com/od/longevity_diet/index.htm?terms=calorie+restriction

Note that calorie restriction is indexed under " healing " on about.com,

whereas the page A=Z referred you to was in the " walking " category.

Diane

> > >

> > > Hi JW:

> > >

> > > Based on what you wrote there (attached below), the conclusion I

> > > would draw is: " ...... but it's obvious to me there is more to

> it

> > > than exercise " (!)

> > >

> > > The fact is that in order to burn off one OUNCE of " Lay's Classic

> > > Potato Chips " (150 calories) you have to walk at three mph for

> three

> > > miles.

> > >

> >

> > Hi Rodney,

> >

> > Sorry to point this out but unless you're a very light person, or an

> > extremely efficient walker (or maybe residing on an extraterrestrial

> > planet with less gravitational force or whatever) you will probably

> > expend more calories than that.

> >

> > From the following article,

> >

> > " A simple rule of thumb is 100 calories per mile for a 160 pound

> person. "

> >

> > http://walking.about.com/cs/howtoloseweight/a/howcalburn.htm

> >

> > a~z

> >

>