Article View: alt.support.diet
Article #1622Re: Atkins = ? (should i start this again?)
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:50
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 23:50
36 lines
2776 bytes
2776 bytes
In article <Xns942E9971B15758ch@127.0.0.1>, Wayne S. Hill wrote: > Vegetarian wrote: > >> JC Der Koenig wrote: >>>> Look at your BMI. At 5'6" and 190, you are over 30, which >>>> is categorized as obese. >>> >>> And if he is at 12% bodyfat? Still obese? >>> >>> Idiot. >> >> I highly doubt that having this pile of useless, worthless >> muscles is doing anything good for his health. Having a BMI >> of 32 is bad. Being fat at BMI 32 is horrible, being >> muscular at BMI 32 is not that great either. > > References? Can you point to any peer-reviewed studies that > indicate that "excess" muscle mass raises health risk? BMI is > used as a simple-minded proxy for BF% because, As I've already pointed out, it's actually a proxy for mortality, or at least that's where the concept originated. > in the broad > cross-section of society, people with high BMI have high BF. > It is an unwarranted leap to conclude that high BMI with low > BF% causes health risk. There are two big leaps in here. One is the assumption that a link between mortality and BMI exists independent of BF%, the other is that such a link is causal. Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<slrnbqtklh.54a.abuse@panix2.panix.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!panix!not-for-mailReferences:
<Wbhrb.6788$jy.3697@clgrps13> <Ydhrb.346965$6C4.158687@pd7tw1no> <Gltrb.17348$pK6.9547@lakeread02> <ZXtrb.2169$%F.1648@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> <bom4r0$2pf$0@pita.alt.net> <Xns942E9971B15758ch@127.0.0.1>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109a5e,1e6c94c09f6752af X-Google-Attributes: gid109a5e,public X-Google-Thread: 110137,1e6c94c09f6752af X-Google-Attributes: gid110137,public X-Google-Thread: 10c314,fcbab283e86bd9b2 X-Google-Attributes: gid10c314,public X-Google-Thread: 114e2b,1e6c94c09f6752af X-Google-Attributes: gid114e2b,public X-Google-Thread: 106a7e,1e6c94c09f6752af X-Google-Attributes: gid106a7e,public X-Google-Thread: 109bf8,1e6c94c09f6752af X-Google-Attributes: gid109bf8,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-09 15:50:10 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!panix!not-for-mail From: Donovan Rebbechi <abuse@aol.com> Newsgroups: alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-calorie,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet.low-fat,calgary.general,misc.fitness.weights Subject: Re: Atkins = ? (should i start this again?) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 23:50:09 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 36 Message-ID: <slrnbqtklh.54a.abuse@panix2.panix.com> References: <Wbhrb.6788$jy.3697@clgrps13> <Ydhrb.346965$6C4.158687@pd7tw1no> <Gltrb.17348$pK6.9547@lakeread02> <ZXtrb.2169$%F.1648@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com> <bom4r0$2pf$0@pita.alt.net> <Xns942E9971B15758ch@127.0.0.1> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1068421809 10436 166.84.1.2 (9 Nov 2003 23:50:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 23:50:09 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (NetBSD)