Is that really all it takes?
Apr. 25th, 2005 09:12 amTwo weeks ago, more or less, I decided for a variety of reasons to start exercising, "hard but not seriously." There were a confluence of reasons, including stumbling upon my old Men's Health text on exercising and staying trim, finding a slim volume of abdominal and leg exercises, and locating a collection of miscellaneous arm/shoulder exercises that are, to put it plainly, brutal.
By "not seriously" I meant I wasn't going to put a lot of time into the effort. Maybe ten minutes a day. Y'know all those ads that say "Get fit in only ten minutes a day?" They were right.
This morning I noticed that my t-shirts are a little tight around the arms. Most of the upper-arm exercises are triceps-heavy and bicep-light, but I'm still developing biceps anyway. It's really weird; I'm not sure if it's just illusory or what. My abs don't seem to have improved much.
Meanwhile, as if the universe is out to laugh at my efforts, come a pair of insufferably smarmy posts from David Brooks and John Tierny in the New York Times, touting the recent blaze of news that "being a little overweight is better than being a little underweight." Tierny goes into the insulting category, suggesting that the overweight say things to those who exercise like "Don't listen to the medical nerds: get fit, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse."
I wonder if any of them actually read the original paper. Okay, here's the important part: the line about "being overweight is better than underweight" only applies if you're over 70 years old.
Okay, got that? Let me repeat it: The increased risk of death associated with being underweight applies to people 70 years of age and older. If you're over 70 and you're underweight, it's because you've lost muscle mass and general bodily fitness, not because you're missing any "healthful fat."
But Brooks and Tierney completely ignore that. They also ignore the simple fact that if you're lazy and sit on the couch, you're not going to be getting the heart fitness you need to live long enough for that to matter. And if you're actually exercising it'll be hard to maintain that "perfect heavyset" of a 29-point BMI. They also ignore the fact that the study concludes that one of the reason those in the 26-29 BMI range live longer is the the widespread use of anti-cholesterol drugs and better overall medical care. They ignore everything really useful in the study and use it to disperse a message, "Not only are you healthy when you're heavy, you're healthier, really!" No, not really.
So all the pro-fat sites are flogging the study, which is just idiotic. Really, the choice is simple: A Big Mac and expensive side of Zocor, or an apple and a little responsibility. (For a silly take on this, watch The Drugs I Need.)
It does not amaze me that those from the "party of personal responsibility" are popping the champagne corks on ignorance, a lack of personal responsibility, and the surrendering of all self-respect. It just disappoints me further.
By "not seriously" I meant I wasn't going to put a lot of time into the effort. Maybe ten minutes a day. Y'know all those ads that say "Get fit in only ten minutes a day?" They were right.
This morning I noticed that my t-shirts are a little tight around the arms. Most of the upper-arm exercises are triceps-heavy and bicep-light, but I'm still developing biceps anyway. It's really weird; I'm not sure if it's just illusory or what. My abs don't seem to have improved much.
Meanwhile, as if the universe is out to laugh at my efforts, come a pair of insufferably smarmy posts from David Brooks and John Tierny in the New York Times, touting the recent blaze of news that "being a little overweight is better than being a little underweight." Tierny goes into the insulting category, suggesting that the overweight say things to those who exercise like "Don't listen to the medical nerds: get fit, die young, and leave a beautiful corpse."
I wonder if any of them actually read the original paper. Okay, here's the important part: the line about "being overweight is better than underweight" only applies if you're over 70 years old.
Okay, got that? Let me repeat it: The increased risk of death associated with being underweight applies to people 70 years of age and older. If you're over 70 and you're underweight, it's because you've lost muscle mass and general bodily fitness, not because you're missing any "healthful fat."
But Brooks and Tierney completely ignore that. They also ignore the simple fact that if you're lazy and sit on the couch, you're not going to be getting the heart fitness you need to live long enough for that to matter. And if you're actually exercising it'll be hard to maintain that "perfect heavyset" of a 29-point BMI. They also ignore the fact that the study concludes that one of the reason those in the 26-29 BMI range live longer is the the widespread use of anti-cholesterol drugs and better overall medical care. They ignore everything really useful in the study and use it to disperse a message, "Not only are you healthy when you're heavy, you're healthier, really!" No, not really.
So all the pro-fat sites are flogging the study, which is just idiotic. Really, the choice is simple: A Big Mac and expensive side of Zocor, or an apple and a little responsibility. (For a silly take on this, watch The Drugs I Need.)
It does not amaze me that those from the "party of personal responsibility" are popping the champagne corks on ignorance, a lack of personal responsibility, and the surrendering of all self-respect. It just disappoints me further.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
