Jump to content
iceicebaby

Debate and Health?

Recommended Posts

In response to a pm and other questions that will come from this thread, I figure I'll steer some people in the right directions based upon their goals.

 

 

---------

First is the routine for people looking to lose weight. Unlike most personal trainers I have a very different take on training for losing weight other than the archaic "go run for an hour". I think many people get caught up in the "oh great, more running" and they don't really push themselves.

 

This is essentially a cross-training routine designed so that the person can adjust it to their personal fitness level to push themselves. One of my friend's that used this lost over 25 lbs in two months.

 

All exercises are performed near failure. Do not consistently train to failure, it is detrimental to your central nervous system.

 

The exercises are arranged in a pyramid fashion, designed to pre-fatigue a smaller muscle group before targeting a large one. Simply put this makes specific muscle groups have to work harder due to the fatigue others have.

 

Exercises are performed with no rest between sets, but there is rest between muscle group transitions.

 

(Given I do not know your fitness level.... if you feel lightheaded, gasping for breath, PLEASE take rest between sets, but as you progress in the routine, try and take less rest.)

 

Descriptions of exercises can be found here: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/exercises.htm

 

Do this two-three times a week, always with at least a days rest in between.

------------

A)

Dumbell Lunges x 16 reps (8 steps a leg)

Squat x 10 reps

calve raises x 20

(rest three minutes)

 

B)

overhead press x 8

front dumbell raises x 8

pushups x failure

 

C)

chinups x failure

barbell curls x 12

weighted crunches x failure

 

10 minutes of High Intensity Interval Training. This is basically cycling running hard, with running slow.

Start out at a light jog for 1 minute, then for the next 30 seconds, turn up the pace to 3/4ths a sprint. Slow it back down for another minute, let your heart rate catch up and repeat.

 

 

 

 

-----------------

Now for your testosterone raging bulls, this section for you is about gettin big.

 

There's two routines here, one is for the beginning weight lifter. Its focus is on compound exercises. A compound exercise is one that involves multiple muscle groups. These have been proven to stimulate the greatest amount of hypertrophy compared to any other exercises.

 

The second one is for the intermediate lifters. Its got a bit more volume to it, and more isolation exercises.

 

 

Beginning:

Day one: Push

Bench Press 5 sets x 5 reps

Military Press 3 sets x 8 reps

dumbell tricep extensions 3 sets x 10 reps

Pushups - 2 sets x failure

 

Day Two: Pull

Deadlifts 4x5

Dumbell Rows 4 sets x 8 reps

chinups x failure (3 sets)

 

Day Three: Legs

Squats- 3 sets x 12 reps

Lying leg curls 3 sets x 10 reps

Lunges 2 sets x 16 reps (8 steps a leg)

Calve raises 3 sets x 12 reps

 

--------------------

Monday: chest

Bench press 4x8

Incline Bench press 3x10

Decline 3x12

Dumbbell Flys 3x12

 

Tuesday: back, biceps

Dead lift 5 sets x 5 reps

barbell rows 3x10

pull-ups 3xfailure

Barbell Curls 3x8

DB Curls 3x10

 

Thursday: legs

Squats 5x10

Leg curls 3x10

DB or BB Lunges 3x16(8 reps per leg)

Calve Raises 3x15

Leg Extensions 2x15

 

Friday: shoulders, triceps

Military press 3x10

Shrugs 4x8

Dumbbell raises 3x10

Reverse Flys/rear lateral raises 3x12

DB Tricep extensions 3x10

Skullcrushers 3x10

 

 

Also note, routines need to be changed at least once every two months. Not only the exercises need to change, but also the rep ranges they are performed at.

The rep ranges I have always used are:

3-6

6-8

8-15

 

I change rep ranges every month.

 

 

-------

As for Diet....

 

I'll explain it generically because I think most debaters are smart enough to figure it out.

 

Your body has three states, catabolic, anabolic and metabolic.

 

Catabolic is where your body is breaking down tissues. Anabolic is where your body is building tissues. Metabolic is when it is doing neither - it's the happy medium where your body wants to be.

 

The state your body is in is dependent upon your caloric intake.

First you calculate your BMR or Base Metabolic Rate. Your BMR is the amount of calories it takes for your body to maintain your weight. (some calculate this at rest, others calculate it with an estimate of physical activity included)

You can do that here : http://www.bmi-calculator.net/bmr-calculator/

 

If you consume fewer calories than your BMR, you enter a catabolic state.

 

If you consume more, you're in an anabolic state.

 

People naturally tend to be towards one of these states. Hence why some people are skinny(ectomorphs) and others not so skinny (mesomorphs and endomorphs). Although, the morphs are also dependent upon bone structure etc. knowing which category you fit into can significantly help you understand the diet you need to follow.

 

I comment less on diet because in most states you have to be a registered dietician to give diet advice, so it's not something I usually do.

 

 

 

 

I posted a whole slew of info - if you have any questions or specific goals (sport oreinted?) feel free to ask.

 

 

Mkay....this is for guys, obviously. Well, I'm a chick and this is generally MY idea of working out. Which I do these everyday....I'm kinda a beast. :)

 

DAILY ROUTINE:

1. 30 minutes of the cardio machine on a level six. If you cannot access one, then do 30 minutes on a treadmill with a level four incline.

 

2. I have no idea what the hell the odd thing is called that targets your theighs, so I call it the theigh machine. You can set the weight to various ones. If you're new to this, I would suggest 25lb, and do 25 reps. I have went to 40lb. and I go 100 reps per position.

 

3. Nodalis Eqip- Just do all of the ones that the muscle men aren't doing. They like to aim towards the weight lifting, but normally there's other things in the room as well. For each machine, do 15-30 reps.

 

4. Cool down with 20 minutes on the bike that gets you nowhere whatsoever.

 

5. Stretch. You're probably tired.

 

6. Go back to the treadmill. Set the incline up to level ten. This is what works your butt. Your speed should be level 3.5. Walk like this for ten minutes. It's best to try and not hold onto the rails because you get more of a workout.

 

7. SAUNA!!! :)

(Honestly, it's really good for you because it cleans your pores.

 

8. Also, please remember to drink plenty of water. I normally drain 2-3 bottles.

 

 

My mom thinks I'm a freak but I like to consider myself healthy. Usually in the mornings I spend an hour or so doing yoga. Noon is the gym. Night-evening is a 1.2 mile walk.

 

Please don't think I'm lying. This is truly my workout. I used to be ALL fat and no muscle. Now, I'm almost all muscle just by doing this for about uhh, hmm. I'd say maybe four months. Good luck and feel free to PM me as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[EDIT] DO NOT FORGET TO DRINK WATER!!!!!! i drink about 2 gallons a day xDDDDD

 

ha well since everyone seem's to be posting their exercise routines I shall too

 

this if the BFS (better faster stronger) program given to every all-city and all-state player on varsity

 

the section I do is for offensive linemen, but i also add part's from the defensive linemen section (i'm a D-linemen but play both O and D)

 

it's a workout for people who wants to get much more toned/bigger muscles

 

they recommend a 1 minute break or stretch between each transition but it's not necessary, and the weight lifting part in my opinion should be down right after each other without stopping

 

monday/wednesday/friday/sunday

-------

(outside)

stretches - 5 mins

warm up lap - jog 500 yards

running - run 1 mile at moderate speed

cool down lap - 250 yards at slow jogging speed close to walking speed

(inside - weight room)

squat press - 5 sets - 10 reps --- start off at a comfortable weight, i've gotten up to 450 lbs but beware it is extremely hard and bruises your shoulders often

bench press - 10 sets - 10 reps --- comfortable weight not too high not too low

bench press (triceps) - 5 sets - 5 reps --- normal bench press but bring your hands much closer towards the middle of the bar

bench press (pectorals) - 10 sets - 10 reps --- normal bench press but bring your hands towards the weights and as far apart as possible

(inside - target training)

push ups - 20 push ups x 5 with a minute rest in between

military style push ups - 50 push ups x 1 -- bring hand farther apart, at shoulder level, make sure to touch the ground and extend your arm all the way on the way up, hold each push up for 1 second)

squats - 20 squats x 4 --- squat normally, add weights if desired, i use a back weight that weighs 40 lbs while doing these

sit-ups - 30 sit ups x 3

 

tuesday/thursday/saturday (rest or cooldowns day's)

(outside)

stretches - 10 mins

warm up lap - jog 300 yards

running - run 1/2 mile at full speed

cool down lap - 100 yards at slow jogging speed close to walking speed

(inside - weight room)

squat press - 2 sets - 5 reps

bench press (triceps) - 5 sets - 5 reps --- normal bench press but bring your hands much closer towards the middle of the bar

bench press (pectorals) - 10 sets - 10 reps --- normal bench press but bring your hands towards the weights and as far apart as possible

(inside - target training)

push ups - 20 push ups x 5 with a minute rest in between

squats - 20 squats x 4

sit-ups - 30 sit ups x 3

diamond push ups - 20 push ups x 2 --- make a diamond shape with your hands in the middle of your chest

lunges - 20 lunges per leg ( 40 in all )

Up Downs (horribly tiring =P) - 20 up-downs x 3 set's (TAKE A BREAK BETWEEN EACH SET!!!!!) to do this, start in a pushup position, jump up, do a jumping jack, and drop back down to a push up position, do a push - up, and jump back up and continue

 

 

yeah i do that everyday for the whole off-season

Edited by Erkansus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erkansus, training the same muscle group every day is often counterproductive.

 

1. It takes your muscle's glycogen levels 7 days to return to normal levels. I don't mean you should lift once every 7 days, but training any muscle group more than two or three times (for powerlifters) a week is too much

 

2. It overloads your CNS

The motor neurons you fire become smaller, and they fire less frequently when you overload your CNS.

 

 

Also, you have way the hell too much volume. You do not see Jay Cutler or Ronnie Coleman doing 25 sets of bench press. Unless you're poppin Dbol like it's skittles, there is no reason to be doing that many sets.

 

If you want to up the intensity, take less time between sets, don't add sets.

 

Remember, you don't grow in the gym. You grow outside of the gym when resting and eating properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i can bench 165 but i cant do more then 10 pushups without being really fatigued. i weigh 185. How do i fix this?

 

I typically only get around 6 hours of sleep a night, do i need more to help excersize?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think there's a pretty even ratio of overweight people in debate and those who participate in "normal" activities, i just guess the extremeties are a bit more...defined. most debaters i've seen are either very thin or somewhat "chub", not a lot in between. This might just be reflective of the way people deal with stress (losing/gaining weight) but i think to say most debaters are overweight is a real stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erkansus, training the same muscle group every day is often counterproductive.

 

1. It takes your muscle's glycogen levels 7 days to return to normal levels. I don't mean you should lift once every 7 days, but training any muscle group more than two or three times (for powerlifters) a week is too much

 

2. It overloads your CNS

The motor neurons you fire become smaller, and they fire less frequently when you overload your CNS.

 

 

Also, you have way the hell too much volume. You do not see Jay Cutler or Ronnie Coleman doing 25 sets of bench press. Unless you're poppin Dbol like it's skittles, there is no reason to be doing that many sets. (I am required to lift and train for a minimum of 2 hours after school in school, and if coach doesn't see you working then they add sets -_-)

 

If you want to up the intensity, take less time between sets, don't add sets.

 

Remember, you don't grow in the gym. You grow outside of the gym when resting and eating properly.

yeah there's a variation to the routine every 2 weeks but i was too lazy to type it

 

 

and to synergy.... like i said it's for defensive and offensive lineman who want to get bigger... it focuses on the main groups used in a game, and it's specifically designed to help you with your pushing and rushing power.

 

the variations between weeks include taking out a whole muscle group and replacing it with another to give it rest, usually they replace it with core, or mid-section workouts

 

it works.... trust me =]

 

btw with this program i went from

benching 160lbs to benching 265lbs (working towards 300)

squatting 230 lbs to 450lbs normal rep weight and 500 max weight

sprinting the 40 from 7.5 seconds to 5.6 seconds ( i weigh 265 so BIG accomplishment)

90 lbs on the "jammer" to 230 lbs on the "jammer"

450 lbs on the leg press to 865 lbs on the leg press (max weight on machine)

i was using creatine (sp?) and glucose (or i think it was) replenishers for the first 2 months but i weened myself off of it because i felt it was cheating, and i feel more accomplished when i do it without the aid of substances =]

Edited by Erkansus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creatine is in every meat.

 

In exercise your body uses ATP(adenosinetriphosphate) for energy. ATP converts to ADP (adenosinediphosphate). Creatine reacts with ADP turning it back into ATP giving your muscles more energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And don't worry about being embarrassed or not being in shape the first time you walk into the gym. You have to start somewhere and almost every one of us were there ourselves at one time. So no one will say anything to you

 

As a gym guy myself, I can completely confirm this.

 

If I see a fat person at McDonald's scarfing down a trayful of Big Macs, I'm going to be a judgemental arsehole.

 

If I see a fat person on a treadmill at the gym, actually working up a sweat, I'm thinking "Good on ya, mate."

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is kinda off topic but i went to a chiropractor for some back problems the other day, and was suprised when they tested my blood and gave me a new diet to follow to match my blood type. i think this is a little sketch, since yall are health connoisseurs, what's your take on this practice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Creatine is in every meat.

 

In exercise your body uses ATP(adenosinetriphosphate) for energy. ATP converts to ADP (adenosinediphosphate). Creatine reacts with ADP turning it back into ATP giving your muscles more energy.

i was using the creatine powder from a vitamin shop along with protein bars, and some other powder that began with a g (not sure exactly what it was)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is kinda off topic but i went to a chiropractor for some back problems the other day, and was suprised when they tested my blood and gave me a new diet to follow to match my blood type. i think this is a little sketch, since yall are health connoisseurs, what's your take on this practice?

In most states what your chiropractor did is against the law. Health related professionals can get sued out the ass for giving diet information if they are not a registered dietitian.

 

So i can bench 165 but i cant do more then 10 pushups without being really fatigued. i weigh 185. How do i fix this?

 

I typically only get around 6 hours of sleep a night, do i need more to help excersize?

What you're seeing is the difference between types of hypertrophy. There is myfobirilar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Myofibrilar hypertrophy creates type 2 A and B muscle fibers, and sarcoplasmic creates type 1 muscle fibers.

Type 1 muscle fibers fire smaller motor neurons (weaker), and are smaller. However they are very oxygen efficient.

Type II A muscle fibers fire very large motor neurons but fatigue very quickly.

Type II B muscle fibers are fast twitch oxidative, meaning they're somewhat in between the two above, but much stronger than oxygen efficient.

 

You can determine the type of hypertrophy you stimulate by the rep ranges you choose.

 

Reps 1-3 generally create adaptations within your CNS.

Reps 3-8 tend to create myofibrilar hypertrophy.

8-12 are great for type II B muscle fibers

15+ create sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, which is essentially endurance training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, Jeet Kune Do, Krav Maga, Judo, Acrobatics, wrestling, martial arts in general, sports, are Free Running, and are good ways to stay healthy.

 

I dont like the idea of delgating physical exertion to the space of the gym. Humans are animals, that got fat with decedent culture.

 

If it was a litle bit more socially exeptable i think i would run everywhere.

 

But yeah. Debating can be prety physically strenuous.

 

- Searles II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just saying some people like to be fat, what's the problem with decadence anyways? I really hate that obesity is seen as sometype of negative thing, I don't understand why.

 

I mean, sure it's real easy to agree that being fat is bad for you, but the studies on the issue are flimsy at best. The correlation between obesity and health problems are shoddily linked and take very few factors into account other than BMI and/or total body weight. Some US funded studies included overweight indiviudals (those with a BMI of 25-30) who died in car accidents in their reports; the margin of error is absolutely huge.

 

Not to mention, extra body fat is actually protective for the elderly.

 

And, exercise alone cannot solve obesity - it's empircally proven.

 

There are functional arguments, and sure their are weight-related illness issues that can't be denied, but the mortality rate is an over-inflated myth. Illness can set it on just about anyone, because their is a correlation between obesity and illness doesn't necessitate obesity as a bad thing. Driving Cars, Owning Guns, and a myriad of other things increase the chance of illness and death - In terms of the body it all boils down to aesthetics.

 

As a person who has lived both sides of the coin (304 pounds at age 12... got down to under 194 by 15), I can honestly say that the quality of life is negliable - especially at this young of an age. I've done the intense work-out regimes and i've quit them, I could pull it up to prove my point, but it was a basic 5x5 squat intensive workout regime. Didn't work for me in the long term, but the gym is a still a great place to workout stress.

 

My perception, which feel free to say is flawed, is that Americans are highly susceptible to developing pre-conceived notions of beauty and functionality, the implications of which are any slew you can pick out of your impact file...

 

It's just a pseudo-patriarchal, masochistic developmental hitch in the progress of society spurred on by the uber-functionality of a capitalist market system dictating a non-stop stream of 'acceptability' straight in through your occular-bulbs.

 

Not to spoil the discussion with debate arguments, but in terms of "regulating docile bodies" the smear campaign set out upon by the US government to condemn obesity ranks pretty high. It's fairly analagous with the panopticon in all honesty. The government defines something as bad, and we all set out to regulate ourselves - if we 'fail to regulate ourselves' we're regulated by every other person. The judgemental stares, the concerned sit downs, the weightloss advertisements EVERYWHERE. Hell, I don't need to begin with the out-right insults and prejudice; the loss of job oppurtunities over equally qualified thin people... its ridiculous

 

This is doubly opressive for women, simply because it's generally still acceptable for a guy to be overweight or obese. He's just got a 'beer belly' or he's a 'fat cat'. Women naturally accumulate more body fat than men, and its against the rules for any woman to go over size 6 or 8, ridiculously arbitrary standards of aesthetics. Not to mention the majority of those weightloss ads are directed at women... it's a self-perpetuating cycle of insanity.

 

Oh, and if anyone needs the citations for all these claims, i'd be more than happy to produce them... I just think it's amazing that people will condemn something without knowing why they do. It's all related to fear of inadequacy. I respect the Hulk in so many ways - he's got the right attitude; do what makes you happy... but it's ridiculous to think that being fat = not being happy.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, sure it's real easy to agree that being fat is bad for you, but the studies on the issue are flimsy at best. The correlation between obesity and health problems are shoddily linked and take very few factors into account other than BMI and/or total body weight. Some US funded studies included overweight indiviudals (those with a BMI of 25-30) who died in car accidents in their reports; the margin of error is absolutely huge.

I'm not necessarily defending that study (I haven't seen it) or its methodology, but if it's true that larger people are more likely to die in auto accidents (say, perhaps, because it is more difficult to remove them from the car, or the car's safety features are less effective on larger people), then including them in the study's counting isn't necessarily improper.

 

The problem with classifying and quantifying obesity as a health risk is that it's not harmful in and of itself, but it does tend to increase risk factors for other diseases and conditions. So a coroner will never write "he was fat" as a cause of death, even though he might not have died for another 20 years if he was slimmer. So you're right that it's important to take the ads and other pronouncements with a suitable degree of skepticism, but, for many people, being "overweight" (which is also tough to define) does negatively impact their overall health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, sure it's real easy to agree that being fat is bad for you, but the studies on the issue are flimsy at best. The correlation between obesity and health problems are shoddily linked and take very few factors into account other than BMI and/or total body weight. Some US funded studies included overweight indiviudals (those with a BMI of 25-30) who died in car accidents in their reports; the margin of error is absolutely huge.

 

Not to mention, extra body fat is actually protective for the elderly.

 

And, exercise alone cannot solve obesity - it's empircally proven.

 

There are functional arguments, and sure their are weight-related illness issues that can't be denied, but the mortality rate is an over-inflated myth. Illness can set it on just about anyone, because their is a correlation between obesity and illness doesn't necessitate obesity as a bad thing. Driving Cars, Owning Guns, and a myriad of other things increase the chance of illness and death - In terms of the body it all boils down to aesthetics.

 

 

LOL. I definitely want to see these so called citations. I want proof of the following:

 

1) Correlation between obesity and health problems is shoddy

2) Body fat is protective for elderly

3) Exercise cant solve obesity

4) Mortality rate for obese is not higher than not obese

 

I have nothing against people who are fat and want to be fat. If they are fat and happy, then I am happy for them. Just dont expect me to have to squeeze in the airplane seat because you take up half of my seat too. If you take up half my seat, then you should pay for half my fare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, sure it's real easy to agree that being fat is bad for you, but the studies on the issue are flimsy at best...

 

tl;dr

 

There's still only a risk that being fat kills/lowers your quality of life. You'd be hard pressed to find a single study (flimsy or otherwise) that links obesity to any positive health factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Fox on Socks

 

Exactly, but at the point obesity becomes an identity we are all furthering the message that FAT is the problem, even though, like you said, FAT is never written on the coronors report.

 

And, at the point were the correlation is not being overweight as much as certain issues that correlate to being overweight - were masking the problem. Like the prevailance of Soda and Fast Food. If we can blame the FAT person sitting in McDonalds for those deaths we can also sit there and eat that same fast food. The preservatives and sweetners inwhich have a higher correlation to the negative effects of being overweight.

 

If as a community we find the deaths associated with FAT as bad, then we should address the advertising and wide spread availability of Soda and dangerous Foods containing said perservatives. Not sell us Pills and special drinks and foods to 'lose weight'. Exercise is the right direction, but it's fighting an uphill battle (see the cited evidence under point 3 below)

 

@ Ankur

 

1) Corrleation between obesity and health problems are shoddy:

 

Health Concerns associated with Obesity are Overstated: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/06/AR2007110601436.html

 

 

2) Body Fat is protective for the elderly:

 

An Amazingly well cited article that supports ALOT of the claims i've made, including that Body fat is protective for the elderly AND Federal studies are shoddy and used to incite panic:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/35/1/55?ijkey=bed0fbed20fb9a4f8d15ea0409c5cea5483a0813&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

 

- its a pretty long article, I can post the specific part if you need.

 

3) Exercise can't Solve for Obesity:

 

Exercise Alone Can't Solve for obesity alone - but exercise is still a great thing for the body: http://www.livescience.com/health/090106-exercise-obesity.html

 

4) Mortality rate for obese is not higher than not obese:

 

- I'm going to need to clear up my term usage a bit here - morbidly obese individuals DO have a much higher risk of death and health issues... the problem arises in the defining of Obese and Overweight. I never said that Morality Rates aren't higher as extremes are approached, just that the correlation is over-exaggerated and used to control populations and push a multi-billion dollar "weight loss" industry. When it comes down to the 'debate community' - those extremes are rarely reached and most of those "overweight" debaters have little to nothing to worry about in terms of Death (other than the infinite other ways to be killed)

 

- And, the article under my second point supports all these claims in various places, and i can provide more if need be.

 

Also, there are numerously well-written books about biopolitics and obesity for the bottom part of my post, i can get those cites if we need them for discussion as well as MORE articles supporting the claims above.

 

and, Airplanes are an interesting situation... and i admit there are these types of functional arguments to be made... but if the argument comes down to spatial relations as being why obesity is bad well... that's a pretty selfish reason to force preconceived notions on someone...

 

@ Neg Repper

 

Shut the hell up - when it comes to ANY challenge to what you hold near and dear - you completely ignore the facts... I bet you've never been Obese, you don't know anything but what you WANT to know... oh, and sign your Rep or say it outloud if you think you can actually argue the points other than unfounded tautology which never solves anything. It's only a means to project your inadequacies, friend.

 

@ Hulk (ish)

 

Way to deal with what I'm saying... i respect your knowledge on the situation, and there are functional issues with extreme obesity that warrant your joke somehwat... but being overweight (in terms of being from 25-30 BMI as defined by the US governments) is an issue of aesthetics, not health issues.

 

Young Women are ESPECIALLY susceptable to this, but it's a societal problem, and your shrugging off of it is not becoming of your profession. If you actually read the articles I provide, the major response to thise studies and findings have universally been, "their rubbish", but relying on a claim when that claim is challenged without providing a warrant is just... well... inadequate... and relying on the fact most of society sees fatness as a bad thing is not enough of a reason for an educated person to see fatness as a bad thing... methinks.

 

Also, I have been on weight routines, i've done the research on them, and I decided it wasn't for me in the long run. I dont mean to say I know NEARLY as much about physiology as you do, and it Doesn't mean im anti-excercise, because its great stress relief and well... just good for you. My argument isn't anti-exercise... i dont know why you think it is... you can be Fat and exercise. Infact, Your response to my post is EXACTLY why fat people don't like to go to the gym... so even if you welcome them with open arms, your still superior. I wonder why people don't invite feeling inferior... must be cause their just stupid, lazy fat people, right?

 

@ SHS2011

 

Exactly, and that's why I think what I'm talking about can be somewhat dangerous. I'm not saying it's OKAY to be unhealthy, but rather that if your truly interested in being HEALTHY you should identity something besides weight as a means of doing that. See my response to Fox on Socks.

 

--------------------

 

When it comes to debate, there is NOT a large population of Obese individuals - we are talking about individuals who are Overweight at best. If you want to address "debate and health", a move to lose weight is just wrong... the prevailance of fast food, soda, and pizza is what should be addressed.

 

And, for the record - I was having a dicussion with my partner and team about preparing better food options for tournaments and the like. My partner and I were even talking about trying vegetarianism for various reasons - not one of which was to 'lose weight'.

 

My point is further by the fact the exercise routines provided are modified to acheive different phsyical outcomes - as in a means to produce beauty in terms of what each individual wants. This relies on the presupposition that FAT is not beautiful, and that it can't be. This is just another proof that it all has to do with aesthetics (except in extreme cases).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Fox on Socks

 

Exercise can't Solve for Obesity:

 

Exercise Alone Can't Solve for obesity alone - but exercise is still a great thing for the body: http://www.livescience.com/health/090106-exercise-obesity.html

Absolutely not true.

Your body has a base metabolic rate, if your output exceeds input you have a caloric deficit which puts your body into a catabolic state. Simply put, if you eat less than you burn you will always lose weight. It's as foundational as 1+1=2.

 

 

Way to deal with what I'm saying... i respect your knowledge on the situation, and there are functional issues with extreme obesity that warrant your joke somehwat... but being overweight (in terms of being from 25-30 BMI as defined by the US governments) is an issue of aesthetics, not health issues.

You're correct that the BMI is not an accurate gague of health, considering my BMI is well over 25. However, it is asinine to argue that there is not a correlation between being overweight and having health issues.

You can provide some obscure links to less than reputable sources, but the knowledge base simply proves you're on the exact wrong side of this argument.

 

Young Women are ESPECIALLY susceptable to this, but it's a societal problem, and your shrugging off of it is not becoming of your profession. If you actually read the articles I provide, the major response to thise studies and findings have universally been, "their rubbish", but relying on a claim when that claim is challenged without providing a warrant is just... well... inadequate... and relying on the fact most of society sees fatness as a bad thing is not enough of a reason for an educated person to see fatness as a bad thing... methinks.

Dude here's your warrant:

Obesity is directly linked to high cholesterol, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, diabetes, gallblader disease, gallstones, osteoarthritis, gout, and many cardiovascular problems.

 

If you're really buying into your argument that obesity has no health implications, put on 50 lbs and go jog a mile. You won't finish. This demonstrates not only the impact it has on your joints (formation of osteoarthritis), the impact it has on your heart (blood pressure and cholesterol), and the impact it has on your cardivascular system. (choking for breath already, are we?)

 

Infact, Your response to my post is EXACTLY why fat people don't like to go to the gym... so even if you welcome them with open arms, your still superior. I wonder why people don't invite feeling inferior... must be cause their just stupid, lazy fat people, right?

If you come into a track meet with one leg, do you feel inferior? Of course.

 

If I've busted my ass day in day out at something you better feel inferior, because I've simply made myself better at it. I'm not saying it in any way makes them less of a person, I'm saying that it's blatantly obvious there's going to be those feelings there. If you haven't worked at something, be it baseball, skateboarding, or even spreading in debate, you should expect that feeling of inferiority to come frequently. It's not unfair that they will feel inferior because it's something that's earned not given. If they haven't earnt it yet, then don't bitch about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Fox on Socks

 

Exactly, but at the point obesity becomes an identity we are all furthering the message that FAT is the problem, even though, like you said, FAT is never written on the coronors report.

Like I said, I don't know what study you're referring to, but this comment is non-responsive to my assertion that traffic fatalities can be obesity-related (note: not diet-related, not high fructose corn syrup-related, etc.).

 

If someone dies in a burning car, the cause of death would likely be asphyxiation/smoke inhalation, but the coroner's report won't say "deceased probably would have survived had rescue workers not had extreme difficulty removing his 450-pound frame from the wreckage." Or it might note that they died of head trauma, but would not opine that the victim would have survived had they not been so large that the airbag couldn't stop their momentum effectively.

 

These are admittedly hypothetical examples, but they are real causes of death, and rescue workers do say that larger people are harder to save. My comments are purely about size and have nothing to do with diet, exercise, or other lifestyle factors, except as they relate to one's physical size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absolutely not true.

Your body has a base metabolic rate, if your output exceeds input you have a caloric deficit which puts your body into a catabolic state. Simply put, if you eat less than you burn you will always lose weight. It's as foundational as 1+1=2.

 

I'm not arguing about the metabolic process, although i'm willing to bet it's a little more complex than that. The article I've provided is not disputing anything you've said. It's saying that diet, what you put into your body, is more important than how much you burn. If, for example, you put 2000 calories into your body, and burn 1200 in a day w/o exercise, you have to exercise and burn 800 to break even. If instead you alter your caloric intake, you sidestep that issue on face. It doesn't dispute the necessity of Exercise, just that Exercise by itself almost ALWAYS fails, and that Exercise is not the most important factor in weight gain/loss. Diet is.

 

 

You're correct that the BMI is not an accurate gague of health, considering my BMI is well over 25. However, it is asinine to argue that there is not a correlation between being overweight and having health issues.

You can provide some obscure links to less than reputable sources, but the knowledge base simply proves you're on the exact wrong side of this argument.

 

Alright, All Government Studies to date have used BMI to gauge "obesity" and "overweight". This means it's not just an indict of less than reputable sorces, its an indict of the general way of accounting for obesity. If you died in a car accident, would it be accurate to include you in a study about morality and obesity? Nope, but that's how they've been conducted.

 

Also, I've concede that in extreme cases there are correlations to health issues, but to say that if your overweight your chances of dying go up exponetially is just as asanine. That's what these counter-studies are saying, and they're EXTREMELY specific to major US studies done in 1992, and 2003... not obscure studies. All this hype is a product of 1980's weight-loss boom - it's a sector of the economy that keeps growing and the government is not about to quiet the panic set out in the populace that feeds said sector.

 

Dude here's your warrant:

Obesity is directly linked to high cholesterol, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, diabetes, gallblader disease, gallstones, osteoarthritis, gout, and many cardiovascular problems.

 

If you're really buying into your argument that obesity has no health implications, put on 50 lbs and go jog a mile. You won't finish. This demonstrates not only the impact it has on your joints (formation of osteoarthritis), the impact it has on your heart (blood pressure and cholesterol), and the impact it has on your cardivascular system. (choking for breath already, are we?).

 

I HAVE put on 50 lbs, i've lost over 100 lbs, I've been up and down the scale WAY too many times for a 19 year old. Most of my family is overweight, with SOME being Morbidly Obese - i've seen the health implications your talking about first hand and have stared doctors in the face as they repeated the same message, "Your going to die".

 

My point is this - functionally "Overweight" has absolutely none of these implications.. only when you get into extreme cases do you see things like blood pressure and cholesterol go, and as far as osteoarthritis goes, there are FAR more alternative causalities for OA than just obesity. For instance, exercising improperly, over-exercising, heredity, degenerative diseases, aging, and the list goes on.

 

Regardless, I'm telling you that there are FUNCTIONALLY negative effects, but mortality has been over-inflated, and its the panic of DEATH that is used to justify obesity as being a bad thing. It's those threats that force entire overweight populations to spring for "Jenny Craig" and "Slim Fast" as well as special pills and creams. It's what has been reported by the USFG and it's that type of logic that started this thread

 

Also, This is all assuming Middle Aged americans, at the Age of Debaters all of these things are a non-issue.

 

If you come into a debate round without blocks cut, and you get owned, do you feel inferior? Of course.

 

AND OR

 

If you come into a track meet with one leg, do you feel inferior? Of course.

 

If I've busted my ass day in day out at something you better feel inferior, because I've simply made myself better at it. I'm not saying it in any way makes them less of a person, I'm saying that it's blatantly obvious there's going to be those feelings there. If you haven't worked at something, be it baseball, skateboarding, or even spreading in debate, you should expect that feeling of inferiority to come frequently. It's not unfair that they will feel inferior because it's something that's earned not given. If they haven't earnt it yet, then don't bitch about it.

 

Really? REALLY? Being overweight/obese has NOTHING to do with being prepared or being inferior in ANY way. I'm Obese, i'm fine with it - and i'm damn not inferior... except at maybe jogging, haha. As far as the not having a leg comment - your equating being overweight to not having a leg? I just don't know where to begin on that one... it's just another link to the aesthetics argument ultimately...

 

Alright, don't bitch about it? I'm not the one who started this thread - Obese people aren't just simply 'let alone' or something... they're actively pursued and pursecuited for NOT being as 'good' as you at being inshape.

 

Also, This argument at best proves that hard work justifies its rewards, its non-responsive to Fat being a good thing or that the 'rewards' in this case are a necessity and/or desirable.

 

My point was simply that its the idea that, "I workout everyday, your fatass hasn't" that scares overweight people away from the gym in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, I don't know what study you're referring to, but this comment is non-responsive to my assertion that traffic fatalities can be obesity-related (note: not diet-related, not high fructose corn syrup-related, etc.).

 

If someone dies in a burning car, the cause of death would likely be asphyxiation/smoke inhalation, but the coroner's report won't say "deceased probably would have survived had rescue workers not had extreme difficulty removing his 450-pound frame from the wreckage." Or it might note that they died of head trauma, but would not opine that the victim would have survived had they not been so large that the airbag couldn't stop their momentum effectively.

 

These are admittedly hypothetical examples, but they are real causes of death, and rescue workers do say that larger people are harder to save. My comments are purely about size and have nothing to do with diet, exercise, or other lifestyle factors, except as they relate to one's physical size.

 

Alright, fair enough, that scenario is valid enough. But we're not talking about 450 morbidly obese individuals in debate - were talking about slightly overweight individuals.

 

Also, I've conceded the functional issues, but spatial relations - as in the rescue workers couldn't get him out of his burning home or car... are still a poor justification.

 

And, the incorrectness of federal studies isn't soley predicated upon the inclusion of car accidents, it mostly stems from the usage of BMI as an indicator. the inclusion of 25+ BMI individuals dying in car accidents is only a testimant to the incorrectness, not the sole factor.

 

And, you admit this is a hypothetical, even though valid, scenario. Hypothetical scenarios don't validate any claim, and while this could have happened in some facet in the past or might in the future, the obscure chance of it happening don't justify labeling being obese/overweight as bad.

 

Also, in a hypothetical situation, being obese could be a positive thing after a shooting. the person, weighing 500 pounds, had enough fat to stop the bullet from reaching the inner body cavity. That scenario doesn't prove fat is a good thing, does it? Nope, neither does yours because the functionality of the human body is extremely subjective. There could ALWAYS be a scenario that can justify either side of the argument.

 

My point is that the TRUE reason why Americans think fat is a bad thing all boils down to an aribrary Aethestical definiton. Justifications otherwise only mask this regulating of what is, and what isn't beautiful.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam, I'm not going to argue with redundancy here. You can believe what you want to try and legitimate your lifestyle. You can only turn a blind eye for so long. However, when you experience exactly what we've all warned you about, I will simply say, we told you so. By the way, this is coming from a certified personal trainer. May you enjoy your doughnuts as much as your health implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to get back to this thread later this weekend, probably tomorrow. But Sam, I am telling you that most of what you posted is about as phony as a three dollar bill. Micah, you are wrong on some things too. I am gonna clear it all up later. But I will address one thing now because its very simple:

 

There is a minimum caloric intake every person needs and it is based on their natural body needs (its not universal). No, its not BMR. Its roughly about 5-10 calories per pound of lean muscle mass below BMR. Net consumption of calories less than this amount forces the body into starvation mode in which case the body cannibalizes its own muscle mass and reduces its metabolic rate regardless of your level of activity. To make matters worse, the thyroid control metabolism. The various forms of hypothyroidism can result in a significantly mitigated impact of exercise. I only mention this because obese individuals, especially those who were obese as children, have malformed thyroids or develop some form of hypothyroidism. This produces an additive effect to the reduced weight loss of obese people.

 

So Micah, no, burning more calories than intake does not always equal weight loss. Its not as easy as 1+1 = 2. But yes, as a general rule of thumb, you are correct. There are just significant asterisks/footnotes to go along with it.

 

Sam,

Saying that diet is a key factor is about as intelligent as saying "the sky is blue". Exercise burns calories. If you eat more calories than you burn off through exercise, obviously you will still gain weight (or not lose any). The study citing the Nigerian women et al. is just common sense. Its very obvious that if you eat a diet high in fat (i.e. calories), you will not lose weight as quickly. Yes, its true you can lose weight without exercise - you just eat less calories (but not below what I mention to Micah!). But exercise provides an opportunity to elevate your natural resting metabolic rate because exercise builds muscle irrespective of whether its weightlifting or cardiovascular activity and muscle burns calories. It is never recommended that diet changes alone are significant enough for weight loss because its the most variable part of an individual's calculations. No nutritionist, physician, or any other relevant health professional will ever advocate a weightloss program that does not include exercise (except in the rare case that exercise will actually be damaging).

 

I'll get to the rest later.

 

 

====================================================================================================

Sorry. Couldnt resist working on this right now. I really dislike when people either misunderstand science or misrepresent it.

 

On the Issue of Obesity & Mortality

Flegal et al 2005, 2007. JAMA. (i.e. the author/article cited by your Wash Post article)

 

Flegal's 2007 study is a followup on her 2005 study which uses data from the NHANES studies (there were several, three or four I think). The 2005 study strictly looked to analyze mortality as a function of BMI as segregated into four categories: underweight, normal, overweight and obese. The 2007 followup is to break down the mortality categories into three main categories: cardiovascular disease-related deaths, cancer, and other (termed non-cancer, non-CVD) in her studies.

 

Flegal finds that obesity is highly correlated with cardiovascular disease-related deaths (CVD) but there is no statistical evidence in the sample pool showing being overweight is linked to CVD-related deaths. Obesity was also linked to greater obesity-related cancer deaths, but not to cancer overall. Being overweight or obese led to greater mortality from kidney disease and diabetes. Flegal finds that there is a protective effect of being overweight and hypothesizes that this may be due to having extra vital stores during illness to aid recovery. This is medically sound reasoning... hence the reason why physicians say you still need to eat when you're sick. The following are things YOU do not account for: What you dont see in the 2007 report is what is included in the 2005 report where Flegal suggests that the decreased mortality for obesity (over time, not overall) is due to decreased mortality for CVD overall thanks to improvements in healthcare. Flegal also goes on to say that many people in the overweight category may not be fat and may actually have increased muscle mass (but this would be something which you cant determine from NHANES because I dont think NHANES took into account body fat percentage vs lean muscle mass) - but it makes perfect sense since even a moderate exerciser is likely to have significant muscle mass to body fat ratio which will increase BMI to minimally the upper range of the normal to the overweight category. Flegal also comments at the end of the 2007 report that her own report doesnt suggest that being obese or overweight is good for you, only that its not as bad as everyone thinks. She specifically indicates that the findings should not encourage people to be overweight/obese or to ignore current public health recommendations.

 

On the Issue of Body Fat Being Beneficial for the Elderly

First off, the article is written in December of 2005 by people who know less about science than my 6 year old nephew. And it becomes painfully obvious when you actually read the source material they cite to write their counterpoint opinion article. I actually want to blast this article because a) I can and B) because I like showing how people write professional submissions with an agenda. They present a few health claims as being fallacious.

 

Claim #1: There is an obesity epidemic

The first source they cite understates the current trend because its from 1998. Do you mean to tell me that the authors couldnt find a more recent study on prevalence of obesity in America? LOL. Not to mention the fact that the abstract of the article cited states: "For men and women aged 20-74 y, the age-adjusted prevalence of BMI 25.0-29.9 showed little or no increase over time but the prevalence of obesity (BMI > or = 30.0) showed a large increase between NHANES II and NHANES III. Trends were generally similar for all age, gender and race-ethnic groups. Conclusion: Between 1976-80 and 1988-94, the prevalence of obesity (BMI > or= 30.0) increased markedly in the US. These findings are in agreement with trends seen elsewhere in the world. Use of standardized definitions facilitates international comparisons." Now, to an educated scientist, this is just comical because the claim in the article you cite is not even remotely supported by the source they cite.

 

They then go on to make some ridiculous babble about Big Macs and IQ which is just logically bankrupt anyways. The next real claim they make is that the epidemic is overblown because of a modest weight gain among people who were in the BMI range of 23-25 ending up in the BMI range 25+ (or respectively of obese). This is just ridiculous. So what? We are supposed to shift the ranges for overweight due to the demographic shift? This is like saying "there are more graduates now." Well no shit. More people graduated. Might that be why? Furthermore for a person with a BMI of 23, a change to a BMI of 26 (i.e. in the overweight range) is a gain of about 15 pounds (give or take based on size, gender and age). Hardly modest.

 

Claim #2: Mortality Rate Increases with Increasing Degrees of Overweight

 

The next source is Flegal, who I addressed previously. Yet the authors of this article suggest the ideal weight for longevity is overweight - something Flegal does not advise. Thats pretty funny all by itself. The next cite if about U shaped mortality across weight spectrum. Well, gee golly whiz. It didnt take a neurosurgeon to figure that out. Very obese and grossly underweight are both bad. No one ever said that being 5'8" and 85 pounds was a good thing. I know plenty of physicians who have told underweight people, especially underweight women interested in pregnancy to increase their body weight. But a U shape hardly suggests that being obese isnt bad. It contradicts their own ideas. Stupid.

 

By this point, you should get the idea of how poorly this article was written. Its bad enough that the authors cited dont even agree with the article you linked. But lets get to the section on elderly because this is just sheer ridiculous humor so bad I nearly pissed myself laughing so hard.

 

We actually know little about why the very thin and the very heavy are more likely to die than those in the ‘normal,’ ‘overweight’, and ‘Type I obese’ (BMI = 30–34.9) categories, and it is likely that there are multiple causal pathways across the weight spectrum. For instance, intervening with dietary supplementation to cause weight gain in underweight elderly persons has been shown to reduce mortality and prolong survival. 19–21

 

Source 19 is about the impact of a 5% weight gain among seriously undernourished elderly who are institutionalized. Source 20 is about protein and energy supplements among elderly at risk of malnutrition. Source 21 is about the impact of weight gain among geriatric anorexics!

 

Here's a shocker: elderly who are undernourished, malnourished and grossly underweight... gain weight... and live longer.

 

At no point does this even come anywhere remotely close to supporting the idea that being obese or even overweight is good for the elderly.

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would like me to continue my pasting of your arguments, I will. But I have made my point sufficiently, I think. Your claims are bogus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...