New reports on exercise, cholestrol levels, etc.

[Billie]

I will try to find the link so ev eryone can read it if they haven't. Pretty amazing numbers they are having us (women)shoot for. And while they are "just numbers" they probably are also indicators of where insurance carriers are going to go. I know my health insurance carrier reduced my portion by taking an extensive health quiz, but then I thought hmm what is next -- what will they do with that???

In a nutshell, I believe the report is saying women need to exercise 30 minutes a day if they are in good physical condition and 60-90 minutes if they are not--that's a whole lot. As well they dropped acceptable cholestrol readings which could mean more and more time fighting with docs and cholestrol reducing drugs.

Your thoughts?

[AT22]

I'd like to see the report. Do they define "good physical condition"? That is my first question about the exercise recommendation. And I need to read it to comment on your second thought about numbers.

The report obviously separates those in good physical condition from those that are not. As you've described it, the 60-90 minute recommendation appears to be targeted at someone that is not doing a high intensity routine. You see in the gyms and on the streets plenty of people "working out" - leisurely pedaling on the recumbent bike, strolling on the treadmill, walking the dog. While all this is not a negative (any exercise has some benefit), it's probably not giving you the kinds of benefits this type of report is evaluating. So the 60-90 minute recommendation is to make those people work more, work harder, see more benefit. It says just this: "if not in good physical condition" you need MORE!

A sidenote: At least recently, most "pros" state that after 60 minutes your return on investment decreases. That is, you risk injury or overtraining and after 60 minutes you really aren't making a lot of gains. Of course, that is after 60 minutes of intense weight lifting/interval or high intensity cardio, but still, exercising for very long periods of time doesn't necessarily = better health. In fact, elite athletes often have future negative consequences of long term, high intensity, long duration training.

Is 60 minutes a lot? I don't have kids, but I am married and work full time. I don't have a ton of hobbies but I do some volunteer work -- maybe 10 hours a month, and have a social life :) With that, I manage to put in 60 minutes of exercise 5x per week. I don't think it's out of the question for most people. I assume you could split it into two portions of 30 minutes, or even smaller bursts of exercise. But I digress...

I think these reports should focus on intensity or type of exercise, not just duration. For what it's worth, I believe that is much more important.

Thanks for the topic - I love this stuff:D

[bluejay111]

I think this is just another ploy by big pharma to scare more people into taking cholesterol lowering drugs. You know the doctors are going to buy into this. I personally think it is time for women to stand up and say enough is enough. It's the low fat/high carbs mentality that is causing our problems.

[snapdragon]

I think it's a conspiracy among those idiots who invented the BMI that says if I don't weigh less than 120 pounds I'm overweight.:(

[Ammy]

HA!! I'm with you THERE!!

My calculated "BMI" right now is 32.9...which puts me in the obese category. I started at 51.9 BMI :eek: before I lost my weight.

Right now, I'm a size 14. Now I KNOW that's not small, but that silly BMI thing just makes me crazy. Does it take into consideration that I am (actually diagnosed as) big boned and have ACTUAL MUSCLES?? Nope, not at all...
Just my height and weight...

In order to be in the "normal" range, I'd have to be 152 or less...
I talked to my GF, and we both agree...if I DID weigh 152, I'd look SO horrible that I'd be sent away for having anorexia or something...

Nope, I'll NEVER fit in their range. Guess I'll create my own!

[snapdragon]

I agree with you Ammy! Let's make a new category for "everyone is different". I wear a 18 and when I'm able to take off 10-15 pounds I know from experience that I will fit a 14 like you. As I am barely 5 ft. 1.5 inches I bet I won't look anything like you either. I don't have big bones but do have longish legs and arms for my height. I really could have used the extra inches in the middle ya know?:)

[Ammy]

yeah, I like that category!
I was an 18 - 20lbs ago...and before skin reduction surgery
When I was 320, I could SQUEEZZZZEEE into a size 28...
It took 50lbs before I had to buy new clothes!!


Nope...another 50lbs off of me will just never happen!!

[laughingW]

I personally think it is time for women to stand up and say enough is enough.
(standing up)

Enough is enough!

We don't have to listen to that stuff you know. Or buy it, or watch it on TV, or anything.

[Omlette]

I'm right there with you ladies on the BMI thing. Of course, right now, I am a combination of obese and preg, but I never do fit into the "right weight range". I'm 5'4", medium to large bone, and extremely muscular (well, I used to be). My target weight is 145-150 for what I am happy with and look healthiest at. The last time I lost weight and excercised quite a bit, I go down to 151. I was a size 8 and looked darn good (if I say so myself). There are many people that would consider that weight as fat.

Also, my dh is 5'10.5". He weighs 265. There is no telling what his BMI is. The catch to that, he is a powerlifter with a lot, and I do mean lots of muscle. Now, is he carrying a little fat - Yes. He could lose 20 lbs-25lbs. He used to compete at 242, but he maintained around 250, then would dehydrate to weigh in for the competition. He can not comfortably maintain a weight under 245 with his muscles.

[banshee]

Well, let's see... I'm just under 5'0" tall. The BMI charts say that to be "normal" weight I would need to be 97 lbs :eek: - 128 lbs.

I'm currently at 140-142 lbs and wearing size 8 slacks. Then again, I've been in the 142-145 range for the last 10 months, and I've gone down more than a full size during that time.

Now, I did weigh 98 pounds as a freshman in college, and I was the same height back then... but if I tried to get BACK to that weight I would be doomed to disappointment!

Based on various lean mass calculators and the results I've been seeing on the scale and my measuring tape, when I get down to my goal of 24% body fat, I estimate that I'll weigh around 132-135. That will be 7-10 pounds gone from the scale, but about 18 more pounds of fat gone. Still overweight by the current BMI charts, even though I'll be at a "healthy" bodyfat percentage.

When I started this journey, I was 182 pounds and 69% bodyfat. (Yep, over 125 pounds of my weight was fat!) :eek: :( :eek: So I've lost 40 pounds according to the scale to get to my current 36% bodyfat. If you do the calculations, though, that's actually a loss of almost 75 pounds of fat! This is why BMI (and the scale!) are so useless - weight alone is NOT a good indicator of fat loss.

I am so glad that I kept detailed records during my loss - weight, bodyfat (both by measurement and by bodyfat scale), several different areas of measurements, bloodwork and exercise. I have it all in a spreadsheet so not only can I look back and marvel at the progress I've made, but I can show it to others to prove my points! :D :p

[Dharmalisa]

Hi - this is my first post on this board!! I know this thread is older, but just wanted to say that the last time I checked my cholesterol (Jan 06) it was 211. I was kinda worried about my doctor's reaction, but get this: my HDL was 94, LDL 101, and Trig were 54!! My doctor's mouth actually gaped when she saw those numbers!! She just said hey, that's GREAT!!

I have been low carb, off and on, and staying completely away from trans fats and poly fats for several years. And I've been weight training (2X/week) for the last 3 years. I guess that's all the proof I need that diet and exercise really make a difference!!

[Gaelen]

And in what I find a continuing, disturbing turn of events, this story just came across from Reuters about an obese man who is undergoing gastric bypass in order to improve his chances of adopting a child.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070825/ap_on_he_me/obesity_adoption_fight_4;_ylt=AjsNBw_yXhGiFxpne5Z5 G0UE1vAI

Right or wrong, where ever you may stand on gastric bypass or on the appropriateness of Missouri having removed the child from the foster parents who had cared for him from the age of one week until he was four months old, it seems an odd place for the Missouri judge to take a stand, especially since it's the same judge who'd approved a previous adoption for this couple. But this final sentence in the story was what really turned my head:
"In May, the Chinese government began considering the body mass index of American parents when screening couples' eligibility for international adoption.