From the first link.
If the study did not account for this, it’s worse than useless.
Of course, there’s also no way of knowing how many of the “overweight” are listed as such because they’re more muscular than average rather than fatter. That means the effects of exercise or body make-up are not fully accounted for.
I read the articles and a couple others, I’m just wondering why brazil and DSeid keep pointing out that mortality rates are higher for those on the lower end. I’m just trying to understand the mindset behind the hyper focus on the mortality rates.
Yeah!
If I’m going to die because I have a six-pack, at least I’ll leave a beautiful corpse.
Quoth Blondie.
Most likely because trying to keep a very low bodyfat level often results in unhealthy behavior. Poor diet and/or questionable supplements just as an example.
Notice it’s been mentioned that even competitive bodybuilders “fat up” in the off-season.
Now it can be possible to maintain low levels by exercise alone but it requires a huge investment in time and effort.
Elite distance runners typically cover 100 miles or more per week.
A pro cyclist can cover 500 or more weekly.
I don’t know how many dedicated athletes will buy the advice “if you want to live longer gain some weight and exercise less”. I suspect that plenty of overweight people would take that advice to heart though. We seem to be in a weird place, metabolically. I’d love to see a metric that incorporates happiness and disease risk.
Bullshit. It’s not weaseling to patiently explain that your interpretation of my statement was idiotic.
On the other hand, it IS weaseling to claim, repeatedly, that I ignored your question, and then when you finally realize that you somehow, amazingly, unbelievably, missed both answers to it, even though you managed to quote one of them without noticing the link to the OTHER post you missed, to now claim that, OK, so maybe you were totally fucking wrong to say I ignored your question, but that the important thing here is that you were not satisfied with my answer.
And the fact that you go into attack mode to do so just shows how hypocritical your entire post is.
This exchange is concluded. I said GOOD DAY, sir.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I think most reasonable people would be concerned if a family member was drinking a bottle of wine a night. Even if that person was not missing work as a result.
And by the way, there was a thread a while back entitled Is a bottle of wine per night gonna destroy my liver
One poster in that thread cited an Australian study which apparently stated that the “risk increased significantly when alcohol intake exceeded 40 grams per day.”
A bottle of wine contains significantly more than 40 grams of alcohol.
But epbrown01 believes it’s not reasonable to even be concerned about a relative who drinks a bottle of wine a night :rolleyes:
Gawd almighty will you cut this crap out already?
I’d argue that having one’s self-esteem dependent upon your superficial appearance is not a good thing and that only being satisfied with your appearance at what we’d all agree is an extreme end of the spectrum is also worrisome. I would argue as a WAG that those who do that are unlikely to be happy people and more likely than those who are content with their lack of six packs to be at risk for a psychiatric condition. (Please note: not diagnosing anyone. And that is just my WAG.) Now accomplishments is another thing. Targeting new (realistic) fitness goals is a different item completely.
Actually in the study which I’ve linked to previously, (and in others) smokers and nonsmokers are broken out, and analyses were restricted to those without known serious illness at baseline measurements. It does not rule out the possibility that unknown serious illnesses were present in the thinner population (the unrecognized confounder issue). Low BMI could be a marker for undiagnosed illness that will become apparent over the next decade or for some mental health status that correlates with higher death rates. We cannot say that such is not the case. We do not have any reason though to believe it is. BMI is also not body composition; yes higher BMI may reflect more fat free mass and lower BMI may still have more BF% and more central obesity. It certainly might be that the higher mortality among those with low BMI reflects a paucity of fat free mass and is in no way correlated with extremely low BF%. It is a lot better than useless and is the best we’ve got but it is not perfect. What we can say is that current evidence does not suggest that all “normal” BMI is the same and that those who are high normal (who usually won’t have six packs) have the lowest mortality.
Barring reason to believe that low BMI individuals are happier mortality and morbidity (the presence of diseases) are the best we can go on. As for your (CLee’s) concept that being hyperlean will make people happier, not only is there no reason to believe that such is true, there is some reason to believe the opposite is the case. Actually the overweight and the obese (other than the severely obese) appear to have less risk of depression or ill mental health to no increased risk. I can find one study that shows a slight possible increase in ill mental health with obesity and that one finds no functional disability associated with increased BMI. Kind of shocking given societal attitudes.
Indeed most serious athletes would even do things that they know would shorten their lives if they were convinced that they could both get away with it and that would increase the odds of winning. In High School I was a wrestler (not a good one) and what my teammates did in pursuit of making weight was not something I would promote. Extreme goals not related to health often motivate extreme and unhealthy behaviors. Not always, sometimes the behaviors may also happen to be very healthy ones, but it would be foolish not be aware that such was a risk. In any case yes we do sometimes have to tell some serious teen athletes pretty much exactly that, that their health requires them to cut back on their running or swimming miles and eat a bit more. I am confident that overweight people would not do as you suggest; most are not idiots. If I understand you correctly you tie your feeling good about yourself to some degree to how thin you are and would feel less good about yourself if you were a bit heavier. IMHO most of the population would be well served to be less concerned about weight and appearance and more concerned about healthy habits and happiness at whatever weight they are.
It’s better to look good than to feel good.
So far you’ve admitted to running a marathon, the benefits of which are limited to bragging rights. So far you’ve hinted that the OP’s family member might be in danger of body dysmorphic disorder with no other evidence besides the stated goal to reveal “six-pack abs”. So far you’ve called a woman who runs a fitness blog obnoxious for posting an advertisement. So far you’ve picked on me for falling in the low end of the BMI normal range and reminded readers that people in the low end have a higher mortality rate. So far you’ve impugned me and the OP’s family member for ranking appearance at least as high as physical health, when you yourself have admitted to completing a marathon. Which, evidence has it, isn’t evidence of optimum health but serves to reinforce the runner’s personal goals very well. I’m not sure how to take your input. Statistician? Doctor? Athlete? Layman?
SDMB member? 
Anyway the article about the “fit Mom” and her posted photo of herself showing off her abs with the “What’s Your Excuse?” across it said nothing about her advertising a business. To quote -
Nothing in that article referenced a business. It was a Facebook photo asking people why they don’t look as buff as she does and nothing else, which I think of as obnoxious behavior. In fact she is quoted saying that she
WHY do you insist on making shit up so often?
I mean it is one thing for you to feel picked on. You certainly aren’t the only one in this thread with delusions of persecution and leptoderma (being thinskinned … yes I just made it up) but really, the repetitive stating things that just are not true is getting as annoying as a certain poster’s constant demands for apologies!
Dang.
You’re aware that 40g is about an ounce and a half? That pretty much the whole of France likely consumes more than that at breakfast and live long, productive lives? (And is four glasses really a bottle? I’d think it was about half…)
I’ve no doubt drinking an ounce and a half of alcohol is more detrimental that drinking, say, none. I’ve also no doubt that most people will die of old age before the cumulative effects catch up with them, while scientists can safely argue that even so, they were at “increased risk.” It’s a pretty much catch-all phrase - there’s almost nothing you can consume that doesn’t put you at increased risk for some malady. Being reasonable is understanding that the risks are infinitesimal, and irrelevant for anyone unconcerned about their next grant proposal.
So yep, if a happy, healthy relative is downing 4 glasses of wine with no apparent ill effects, they can rest assured that the cloud that rains on their parade isn’t named epbrown01. The heartless, unfeeling cad.
Thin skin? Nope. I’m not at all concerned about a stranger’s opinion of me. But I am perplexed as to why a doctor would throw out an extreme diagnosis (body dysmorphic disorder) with one symptom not on the list that confirms the OP’s “concerns” and why the doctor would admit to completing a marathon when there is no apparent BMI or mortality benefit to accomplishing such a task. Just wondering what your criteria for “normal” is, and why you are so quick to confirm the OP’s concerns when every single other poster is a bit dubious about his worries.
Oh as to my running a marathon … my time was nothing to brag about. My accomplishing that proves nothing other than that which some on these boards might already suspect … I might be a bit slow but I am stubborn. 
And so far the only poster who is in total agreement with the OP.
Pretty much exactly for that reason. The discussion was way imbalanced. There was and is not enough information to be able to state if there is a reason for concern or not and, depending on what that information is there could be. Those reasons for possible concerns should be part of the discussion too, instead of exclusively validation that aiming for six packs is A Good Thing. The conversation needed a counterweight.
As a general concept, IMHO, it is A Stupid Thing. The choice is not aiming for six packs or don’t exercise. It is what sort of exercise and what sort of goal. Again, extreme goals that are divorced from any health objective can motivate people to do stupid things.
If the op was my brother, for example, I would be asking him why he wants to set that as his goal and I’d find out exactly what he plans to do to achieve those goals. I would be concerned enough to do that. Depending on the answers I might tease him a little or I might encourage him or or I might set up some competition with him on some aspect of his program because we both tend to be competitive bastards or I might try to convince him that a different actual fitness goal made more sense. The specifics would be important.
So, in summary, washboard abs: mental health danger and foolish endeavor. Running 26.2 miles, a good 10 miles beyond reasonable health benefits: win! Because You said so.
No, I’m not aware of that. According to Wikipedia, per capita alcohol consumption in France averages slightly under 30g per day.
Yes of course. It would be unfortunate if your conclusions were based on ignorance.
And yet it’s unreasonable to be concerned about a family member who drinks 3 ounces of alcohol a day. :rolleyes:
Please show me proof that the increased risk from drinking a bottle of wine a day is “infinitesimal.” It should be pretty easy since, according to you, it’s unreasonable to even be concerned about a family member who drinks at this rate.
A bottle of wine, at least in Australia, contains 6-8 standard drinks. Your glasses must be bigger than epbrown’s.