Monday, July 27, 2009

Fat Tuesday: 3 articles about fat.


Now, of course - this doesn't include an operational definition of obese, which one would hope is not from the MetLife weight scale and, rather, uses the increasingly more useful waist circumference or bodyfat measurement. As well, all of this is based on frequency tables, and the average "obese" person probably doesn't do Ironman Triathlons and trial ultras, so I'm not too concerned. Moreover, according to the AHO's definition of obese and this calculator, I'm not obese, but I'm definitely pushing maximum density.

In any case, my comment on this was that being big is just more expensive all around. I pay more for clothes, since the amount of any shipment of clothing that is devoted to plus sizes (12+) is generally very, very small - by the time the sales hit, there's nothing left but make-believe sizes (0, 2). Don't bother complaining to me if you're a size 0. I won't believe you. You're not real. Oh, and more expensive CRAPPY clothes, too, since clothing designers haven't gotten the notion that larger women don't just increase proportionally, they change shape.

Other ways that being big is more expensive, I've found: I go through running shoes more often, I wear through socks more often, and I seem to bang into stuff more often, requiring bandaids and such (I'm still not used to being this big and taking up this much space)

What on earth is "polycystic ovary disease?" I looked this up, and read the symptoms, and I'm fairly certain I don't have this. Still, I'm reminded of a brief conversation a few years back when I was reading the symptoms of menopause - plain, old menopause - to Sweet Baboo. He listened in astonishment for a little bit, and then finally shook his head and said, "Women's bodies just fall apart".
We do have unnecessarily complex bodies. There's all sorts of complicated plumbing and wiring down there, and up to about 40 years ago the answer was just to yank the wiring harness or the plumbing stack rather than research ways to fix it.

From the conclusion: "Caffeine supplementation does not provide recreationally active women a viable pathway to weight loss or any meaningful ergogenic performance benefits. "

However, I did find it interesting that they found improved Vo2 max in the 6 mg/kg dose. (that's about 13 mg per pound, which is about 2 cups of brewed coffee, I think, for a 100-pound person, which I am NOT) It makes me wonder if the 5-hour Energy Shot I always take before heavy workouts is just a placebo effect. Of course, they weren't studying stamina; they were studying efficiency. Nancy can probably lend more explanation to the results than I can, because it's not really my area.

Meanwhile:

I found this cool web site that helps you work out a training plan for a marathon or ultra. http://scrunners.org/ - - Click on your choice on the left.

...

1 comment:

  1. Very interesting. I just wish the picture of The David had him doing the truffle shuffle! But on a more serious note, we do need to take responsibility for ourselves. Food consumption has gotten out of control.

    ReplyDelete

Comments containing links to commercial websites from people with invisible profiles are deleted immediately. Chinese spammers are immediately deleted.

2016

Even though I was in awful shape in 2016 I was still stubborn and foohardy...so I spent a year running down whatever fitness base I had left...