Considering people who don't get regular exercise are more likely to smoke, drink more alcohol, eat a rubbish diet ect, activity or lack of it could have very little to do with why they died.
I can't find the study but going from the article its not worth finding.
Considering people who don't get regular exercise are more likely to smoke, drink more alcohol, eat a rubbish diet ect, activity or lack of it could have very little to do with why they died.
I can't find the study but going from the article its not worth finding.
The full paper is in the American Journal of Nutrition. I suggest those questioning the methodology read it prior to posting their critique.
a 12 year study to come up with a morsel of common sense.
Give me strength....roll eyes. ^_^
I don't know what you are saying at all. If you study the impact of some factor on long-term health, it has to be a long study. It doesn't mean that those doing it did nothing for 12 years except sit waiting for the next bit of data to come in. I think it is good that someone has done a large-scale, long-term study.
And it obviously ISN'T common sense: we have already seen one forum member, arguably more, flatly refusing to believe it, so ingrained is the picture that fat = unhealthy and thin = healthy.
Considering people who don't get regular exercise are more likely to smoke, drink more alcohol, eat a rubbish diet ect, activity or lack of it could have very little to do with why they died.
I can't find the study but going from the article its not worth finding.
What an odd thing to say. You have to subscribe to the journal to read their articles. And I would be interested to see any evidence that people who are active (and we are only talking about ordinarily active, not sporty) are less likely to drink, smoke or eat 'rubbish' than sedentary people. Plenty of people have a couple of beers after walking the dog, or take a break from their warehouse job for a ****.
And swimming. Many a fat pupil has had to walk the gauntlet of shame in his trunks with other pupils competing to take the piss, then swam far better than any of them. (and elite swimmers still have more body fat than elite runners.)
Nothing but the glorious liberation of coming onto a forum to ignore the topic and the other posts and keep hurling juvenile abuse. Tiresome stuff.
That's true. Lots of long distance swimmers, the kind that swim the Channel, are often carrying a lot of bodyfat as it helps keep them warm. Anyone who can swim the Channel has to be incredibly fit to do so. I know I couldn't do it.
I don't know what you are saying at all. If you study the impact of some factor on long-term health, it has to be a long study. It doesn't mean that those doing it did nothing for 12 years except sit waiting for the next bit of data to come in. I think it is good that someone has done a large-scale, long-term study.
And it obviously ISN'T common sense: we have already seen one forum member, arguably more, flatly refusing to believe it, so ingrained is the picture that fat = unhealthy and thin = healthy.
What an odd thing to say. You have to subscribe to the journal to read their articles. And I would be interested to see any evidence that people who are active (and we are only talking about ordinarily active, not sporty) are less likely to drink, smoke or eat 'rubbish' than sedentary people. Plenty of people have a couple of beers after walking the dog, or take a break from their warehouse job for a ****.
Its not an odd thing to say at all. Its a self reporting observational study. You can't expect them to get all the variables.
Its not an odd thing to say at all. Its a self reporting observational study. You can't expect them to get all the variables.
They state that they factored in drinking and smoking as variables.
"The combined associations between
PA, BMI, and WC with mortality were examined with Cox proportional
hazards models, stratified by center and age group, and
adjusted for sex, education, smoking, and alcohol intake."
I never suggested it be researched in respect of obesity.
The secret of good health is a healthy balanced diet and regular moderate exercise.
12 year research project unnecessary.
I'm not sure you have quite grasped the conclusion they came to. Regardless of diet, quite modest amounts of activity reduced mortality by a significan amount.
"The greatest reductions in mortality risk were observed
between the 2 lowest activity groups across levels of general and
abdominal adiposity, which suggests that efforts to encourage even
small increases in activity in inactive individuals may be beneficial to
public health."
Nothing at all about 'healthy balanced diet'; even if some of the people in the survey lived on nothing but lard, moving from the inactive group to the active group had a positive and beneficial effect on mortality.
Whereas it could be hypothesized that PA [physical activity] exerts its influence
on mortality indirectly through reducing adiposity, recent data
from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and
Nutrition (EPIC) suggest that PA is unrelated to change in body
weight
So increasing activity didn't make people any slimmer, it just made them live longer.
It's perfectly possible to be fat and fit, or slim and very unfit. You shouldn't always judge a book by its cover.
I'm about average weight for my height and a size 12 but a few years back I was on course for dropping to a size 10 but was incredibly unfit (did go to a gym but that was all). Took up running and now I'm destined to continually remain a size up from 12 in skinny jeans (and remaining a 12 in normal clothes) but my fitness levels are through the roof so I can definitely see where you're coming from.
They state that they factored in drinking and smoking as variables.
"The combined associations between
PA, BMI, and WC with mortality were examined with Cox proportional
hazards models, stratified by center and age group, and
adjusted for sex, education, smoking, and alcohol intake."
I'm not sure you have quite grasped the conclusion they came to. Regardless of diet, quite modest amounts of activity reduced mortality by a significan amount.
"The greatest reductions in mortality risk were observed
between the 2 lowest activity groups across levels of general and
abdominal adiposity, which suggests that efforts to encourage even
small increases in activity in inactive individuals may be beneficial to
public health."
Nothing at all about 'healthy balanced diet'; even if some of the people in the survey lived on nothing but lard, moving from the inactive group to the active group had a positive and beneficial effect on mortality.
So increasing activity didn't make people any slimmer, it just made them live longer.
Inactivity is the main cause of obesity, the two things are very much linked so I'm not sure how it can be claimed that inactivity is killing more than obesity.
Because obese people who were physically active had no difference in mortality to skinny people who were innactive.
If there was a park nearby or even woods I would but it's just houses after houses. I don't particularly enjoy aimless walking but I used to like cycling hence my thoughts re an exercise bike.
Audio books are great in these circumstances. So long as you don't have the volume so high you can't hear what's going on about you, but the traffic isn't too loud.
It's storage though Truth, literally haven't got the room to leave it out and the small amount of storage I've got is packed to the hilt as it is, that's why I thought about an exercise bike (one that you can fold up).
And if you live in a flat, your downstairs neighbours won't thank you for pounding away on a treadmill.
Which is done for the reasons stated in my post. To make people think it's fine to be lazy, fat bastards, instead of getting up and doing exercise.
Actually, it's to make people realise that it's not OK to presume that because you are thin, you are healthy. The study doesn't say it's OK to be overweight.
I can almost feel the wave of excitement from the fat people in the nation that will now think they're fine because they are - what they think is - active.
Only those who misread it. And it makes a change from thin people thinking they are fine.
Exactly so. Using someone's BMI as a sole indicator of their health and fitness levels is, at best, unhelpful. Giving the impression that if your bmi is low then you can carry on with an unhealthy lifestyle could be quite dangerous too.
True, but BMI shouldn't be dismissed too quickly. I've lost track of people who talk about American Football players having high BMIs, as if it applies to them. If you aren't an athlete with unusually high muscle mass, then BMI is probably relevant.
Also, your knees won't know or care if your added mass is muscle or fat, so the stats for needing a knee operation etc still apply. In fact, it's probably worse!
a 12 year study to come up with a morsel of common sense.
Give me strength....roll eyes. ^_^
That's not what happened. It quantified the relative impact on health of two separate known risks. Unfortunately, many people do think they'll be fine if they are a healthy weight, and research like this, is helpful to get people to focus on what is important.
Researching cures for cancer is always a good project.
Researching cancer prevention is worthwhile too. Cancer would have been one of the health outcomes considered, because inactivity and obesity are risk factors. If this study encourages people to exercise more, then less people will get cancer in the first place!
That's not what happened. It quantified the relative impact on health of two separate known risks. Unfortunately, many people do think they'll be fine if they are a healthy weight, and research like this, is helpful to get people to focus on what is important.
Researching cancer prevention is worthwhile too. Cancer would have been one of the health outcomes considered, because inactivity and obesity are risk factors. If this study encourages people to exercise more, then less people will get cancer in the first place!
Any professional dietician will stress the importance of healthy eating AND exercise.
This 12 year study has not found anything new. Waste of time and money.
Actually, it's to make people realise that it's not OK to presume that because you are thin, you are healthy. The study doesn't say it's OK to be overweight.
Only those who misread it. And it makes a change from thin people thinking they are fine.
That's not what happened. It quantified the relative impact on health of two separate known risks. Unfortunately, many people do think they'll be fine if they are a healthy weight, and research like this, is helpful to get people to focus on what is important.
The above points in the article are what made me sit up and take notice. Good post btw.
Any professional dietician will stress the importance of healthy eating AND exercise.
This 12 year study has not found anything new. Waste of time and money.
I don't agree. I've been complacent the last few years re activity. I'm not overweight but don't exercise / monitor activity levels as I should so therefore the research has made me more aware of possible health issues that could arise.
So basically the research shows that just because someone is slim it doesn't necessarily mean they are healthy, they still need to take regular exercise and also that overweight people can improve their health by taking small amounts of regular exercise even if they remain overweight . I really think a lot more could be done to improve the nation's health by careful town planning such as building homes, business parks, shopping centres and schools side by side so people can walk from one to the other. Too often new housing developments are literally a couple of miles away from any of the others so residents have to use a car or taxi or public transport to go to work, take the children to school or go shopping.
So basically the research shows that just because someone is slim it doesn't necessarily mean they are healthy, they still need to take regular exercise and also that overweight people can improve their health by taking small amounts of regular exercise even if they remain overweight . I really think a lot more could be done to improve the nation's health by careful town planning such as building homes, business parks, shopping centres and schools side by side so people can walk from one to the other. Too often new housing developments are literally a couple of miles away from any of the others so residents have to use a car or taxi or public transport to go to work, take the children to school or go shopping.
Why do people need to drive or use public transport to travel a couple of miles? Walking 2 miles isn't really very far at all, barring disabilities of course. I would have thought that was a pretty effective way of incorporating exercise into daily life.
So basically the research shows that just because someone is slim it doesn't necessarily mean they are healthy, they still need to take regular exercise and also that overweight people can improve their health by taking small amounts of regular exercise even if they remain overweight . I really think a lot more could be done to improve the nation's health by careful town planning such as building homes, business parks, shopping centres and schools side by side so people can walk from one to the other. Too often new housing developments are literally a couple of miles away from any of the others so residents have to use a car or taxi or public transport to go to work, take the children to school or go shopping.
Yes, very good thinking. And cycle lanes are often discontinuous and full of parked cars, which makes them more dangerous than just cycling in the main carriageway.
Why do people need to drive or use public transport to travel a couple of miles? Walking 2 miles isn't really very far at all, barring disabilities of course. I would have thought that was a pretty effective way of incorporating exercise into daily life.
Public health planning is not about what people theoretically could do, it is about what they will do. You can see in the Netherlands, for example, that if the cycling infrastructure is good and safe enough, people will cycle. 'Proper' town centres, with houses, shops and offices are more likely to encourage cycling or walking than big retail parks set outside town. We are turning into a terribly car-based society. Meadowhall shopping centre in Sheffield, for example, offers a generous 12,000 free parking spaces. Let's guess how many people per day walk or cycle to it. I bet it's fewer than 100.
Comments
Lol. Strict but fair.
Give me strength....roll eyes. ^_^
I can't find the study but going from the article its not worth finding.
The full paper is in the American Journal of Nutrition. I suggest those questioning the methodology read it prior to posting their critique.
And yet you give your opinion without posting a link to it..............
And it obviously ISN'T common sense: we have already seen one forum member, arguably more, flatly refusing to believe it, so ingrained is the picture that fat = unhealthy and thin = healthy. What an odd thing to say. You have to subscribe to the journal to read their articles. And I would be interested to see any evidence that people who are active (and we are only talking about ordinarily active, not sporty) are less likely to drink, smoke or eat 'rubbish' than sedentary people. Plenty of people have a couple of beers after walking the dog, or take a break from their warehouse job for a ****.
I don't find their website very easy to find my way round, and you would only be able to see the abstract anyway unless you subscribe. The Telegraph seems to cover it quite well: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11345448/Lack-of-exercise-is-twice-as-deadly-as-obesity-Cambridge-University-finds.html
what`s your suggestion for a long term health study since you`re so wise and clever?
That's true. Lots of long distance swimmers, the kind that swim the Channel, are often carrying a lot of bodyfat as it helps keep them warm. Anyone who can swim the Channel has to be incredibly fit to do so. I know I couldn't do it.
Growing up in the 80's, kids ate cakes, crisps, sweets and chocolate back then too but I don't recall seeing many overweight kids, unlike today.
I think our inactive lifestyles today - swap bikes for computer games and the internet - has a lot to answer for, as have too many ready meals.
Researching cures for cancer is always a good project.
call me old fashioned but that would be better left to researchers in oncology rather than obesity.
Its not an odd thing to say at all. Its a self reporting observational study. You can't expect them to get all the variables.
I never suggested it be researched in respect of obesity.
The secret of good health is a healthy balanced diet and regular moderate exercise.
12 year research project unnecessary.
They state that they factored in drinking and smoking as variables.
"The combined associations between
PA, BMI, and WC with mortality were examined with Cox proportional
hazards models, stratified by center and age group, and
adjusted for sex, education, smoking, and alcohol intake."
I'm not sure you have quite grasped the conclusion they came to. Regardless of diet, quite modest amounts of activity reduced mortality by a significan amount.
"The greatest reductions in mortality risk were observed
between the 2 lowest activity groups across levels of general and
abdominal adiposity, which suggests that efforts to encourage even
small increases in activity in inactive individuals may be beneficial to
public health."
Nothing at all about 'healthy balanced diet'; even if some of the people in the survey lived on nothing but lard, moving from the inactive group to the active group had a positive and beneficial effect on mortality.
So increasing activity didn't make people any slimmer, it just made them live longer.
I find that interesting. Don't you?
I'm about average weight for my height and a size 12 but a few years back I was on course for dropping to a size 10 but was incredibly unfit (did go to a gym but that was all). Took up running and now I'm destined to continually remain a size up from 12 in skinny jeans (and remaining a 12 in normal clothes) but my fitness levels are through the roof so I can definitely see where you're coming from.
Stating the obvious.
Because obese people who were physically active had no difference in mortality to skinny people who were innactive.
And if you live in a flat, your downstairs neighbours won't thank you for pounding away on a treadmill.
Yoga is good for many things, but isn't active enough in isolation.
Actually, it's to make people realise that it's not OK to presume that because you are thin, you are healthy. The study doesn't say it's OK to be overweight.
Only those who misread it. And it makes a change from thin people thinking they are fine.
True, but BMI shouldn't be dismissed too quickly. I've lost track of people who talk about American Football players having high BMIs, as if it applies to them. If you aren't an athlete with unusually high muscle mass, then BMI is probably relevant.
Also, your knees won't know or care if your added mass is muscle or fat, so the stats for needing a knee operation etc still apply. In fact, it's probably worse!
That's not what happened. It quantified the relative impact on health of two separate known risks. Unfortunately, many people do think they'll be fine if they are a healthy weight, and research like this, is helpful to get people to focus on what is important.
Researching cancer prevention is worthwhile too. Cancer would have been one of the health outcomes considered, because inactivity and obesity are risk factors. If this study encourages people to exercise more, then less people will get cancer in the first place!
Any professional dietician will stress the importance of healthy eating AND exercise.
This 12 year study has not found anything new. Waste of time and money.
The above points in the article are what made me sit up and take notice. Good post btw.
I don't agree. I've been complacent the last few years re activity. I'm not overweight but don't exercise / monitor activity levels as I should so therefore the research has made me more aware of possible health issues that could arise.
Do you think that repeating your points will make them more relevant or accurate?
Feel free to stop wasting your time and ours by posting something we've read a few posts earlier.
Why do people need to drive or use public transport to travel a couple of miles? Walking 2 miles isn't really very far at all, barring disabilities of course. I would have thought that was a pretty effective way of incorporating exercise into daily life.
Public health planning is not about what people theoretically could do, it is about what they will do. You can see in the Netherlands, for example, that if the cycling infrastructure is good and safe enough, people will cycle. 'Proper' town centres, with houses, shops and offices are more likely to encourage cycling or walking than big retail parks set outside town. We are turning into a terribly car-based society. Meadowhall shopping centre in Sheffield, for example, offers a generous 12,000 free parking spaces. Let's guess how many people per day walk or cycle to it. I bet it's fewer than 100.