PDA

View Full Version : Moooooooo - chelle Obama update ...



LWW
10-12-2011, 03:36 AM
While haranguing America about proper dietary intake:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When Paula Deen met Michelle Obama, it wasn't exactly the queen of butter versus the first lady of garden greens. Deen, known for her delicious not-so-good-for-you recipes like Gooey Butter Cake, said the two women had more in common than you might expect.

"Well, I did a show with Michelle and I just loved being with her," Deen told Yeas & Nays. "She probably ate more than any other guest I've ever had on the show —she kept eating even during commercials." Deen taught Obama how to fry shrimp during a TV segment in September before the 2008 presidential election. "You know what their favorite foods are — it's hot wings, you know, those kinds of foods that are not necessarily top-of-the-list healthy foods, so she's no different than the rest of us," ...</div></div>

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/1/0/3/0/7/4/9/Fat-ass-Michelle-Obama-38490266040.jpeg

A GOOD AXE HANDLE WIDE (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/yeas-nays/2011/10/paula-dean-michelle-obama-likes-fried-food-too#ixzz1aYgGdK3z)

Soflasnapper
10-12-2011, 07:09 AM
Tryin' to keep it classy, but just doesn't understand the concept.

New depths of boorishness set here; congratulations! To you and your ilk. Most people realize as soon as they are adults what kinds of personal attacks are low. class.

What's YOUR waist size, clown?

LWW
10-12-2011, 10:24 AM
I wear a 46 chest/38 waist athletic fit suit and an 18 neck/33 sleeve athletic fit dress shirt.

I was recently, last year, all the way back down to the mid 170's ... but I actually was getting weak at that point. I hang between 200-205 now and am at 22.5% body fat and can bench in the 240 range although I usually work out at 200.

Any more questions, fire away.

Oh, BTW, if you would ever ... even <span style='font-size: 17pt'>ONCE</span> ... chastise charlotte/woofie/aitch/stench/snoopy for their far more vicious attacks over the appearance of Christie/Coulter/Palin/Cheney/Bush/Bachman/myself and others then you would certainly have a moral superiority argument.

Since you never have, you come across as nothing more than a hyper-partisan hypocrite troll.

Anything else I can help you with?

Soflasnapper
10-12-2011, 04:34 PM
So you recently, in this past year, packed on 30 to 35 pounds of fat?

(It sure wasn't lean body mass muscle, unless you juiced up, and even then, it couldn't be.)

And you mention 22.5% BF as if that were a good number? (You're overweight, as that number is too high.)

38" waist says it all.

BTW, your picture (if unretouched) compares two young childless women in their 20s to a woman with two children in (at least) her later 40s.

Proper comparison would require they drop some kids, age 25 years, and then compare.

Qtec
10-13-2011, 03:45 AM
'How low can you go?'

Well,........ you just broke the record. You hate Obama so much you hate his wife. WTF!

Q..how sad

LWW
10-13-2011, 04:13 AM
It's a shame you insist upon acting like you know something when you don't.

Over 30 and male, anything under 23% BF is considered lean.

Continue to amuse me.

Soflasnapper
10-13-2011, 03:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a shame you insist upon acting like you know something when you don't.

Over 30 and male, anything under 23% BF is considered lean.

Continue to amuse me. </div></div>

Says here (http://www.csgnetwork.com/bodyfatcalc.html) it's considered 'high.' And anything above 17% is considered high for men. You are closer to 'very high' (2-3 points away) than to even 'average.' And 'average' doesn't mean lean, or very lean.

Body Fat Percentages Comparison Table
Fat Level Men (%) Women (%)
Very Low 7-10 14-17
Low 10-13 17-20
Average 13-17 20-27
High 17-25 27-31
Very High above 25 above 31

NOBODY with a 38" waist is lean unless they're a professional athlete, or perhaps very tall (and big) indeed. (OKC basketball star Kevin Durant at 7'+ has a 28" waist.)

Another source has it as follows:

Men
Age .........Underfat Healthy Range Overweight Obese
20-40 yrs Under 8% 8-19% 19-25% Over 25%
41-60 yrs Under 11% 11-22% 22-27% Over 27%
61-79 yrs Under 13% 13-25% 25-30% Over 30%

Source: Gallagher et al. Am J Clin Nut 2000; 72:694-701

Here (http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/library/blbodyfatcharts.htm)

eg8r
10-13-2011, 09:45 PM
I wouldn't consider it lean myself, but whatever. For the first time in probably 15 years I can now wear a size 34. I still have way too much body fat but that is steadily going down.

eg8r

LWW
10-14-2011, 04:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wouldn't consider it lean myself, but whatever. For the first time in probably 15 years I can now wear a size 34. I still have way too much body fat but that is steadily going down.

eg8r </div></div>

I certainly wouldn't call it ripped ... but most people are well above that.

My source on the BF levels is the guide which came with our TANITA body fat measuring weight scale. HERE (http://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/body-fat-percentage-calculator) is a source backing up those figures.

When I was at 175 lbs I was, on memory, 12% BF. Too low for my comfort level as I had to nearly starve to maintain that with my exercise level.

Part of my current dilemma ... adding about 15 lbs in the last 5 mths ... is that I have developed a severe left forearm injury that just isn't getting better very fast and that has caused me to cease the weight regimen. I have increased my cardio, but the weights keeps creeping on.

I'm going to probably go the cortisone shot route if this doesn't start improving soon.

That being said ... the way the left has attacked Christie, Gingrich, Palin and others over looks/build and then to take offense at this is hypocrisy plain and simple.

Qtec
10-14-2011, 04:35 AM
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/376371/thumbs/r-MICHELLE-OBAMA-DRESS-huge.jpg

Looks ok to me.

Q

eg8r
10-14-2011, 07:39 AM
OK? She looks like the latest drugged up Whitney Houston pictures on the net. Other than that she does look pretty slim.

eg8r

eg8r
10-14-2011, 07:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That being said ... the way the left has attacked Christie, Gingrich, Palin and others over looks/build and then to take offense at this is hypocrisy plain and simple. </div></div>I absolutely agree.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-14-2011, 08:29 AM
Your source does not state the ranges you cited originally. You said your number was 'lean' for men over 30. Actually your source has 20% as 'good' (not 'excellent' = 'lean') for a 30 yo, and says anything above that (for ages 30-40) is either fair or poor and calls for weight loss. Had you said as of age 40+, the source would have backed you up, although that disagrees with the two sources I cited.

This newest source is likely a faulty one, as their last claim quoted below is false. Fat loss does NOT require exercise, and diet alone certainly can and does result in fat loss, and achieving a healthful body fat percentage, quite apart from any exercise.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> For men between age 20 and 40, 10% to 20% body fat is generally good to excellent. For men age 40+ to 60+, 19% to 23% is considered good to excellent.

If the body fat percentages for both age groups are higher than the highest listed healthy percentage or lower than the lowest healthy percentage, the result may be considered fair or poor. As such, seeking a way to lose fat is necessary. Fat loss is not that difficult, but does require some sort of exercise program, diets alone will not help with fat loss.</div></div>

Then you say this:

the way the left has attacked Christie, Gingrich, Palin and others over looks/build and then to take offense at this is hypocrisy plain and simple.

I am not aware of people attacking Palin for her body or her looks. Both are in fine form, making any such attack on those lines pitifully false.

Now both Christie and Gingrich are massively overweight. Christie looks like he just ate Michelle. But attacking a MAN'S weight or looks isn't sexist.

If ANYONE has been attacked for his/her looks, few have gotten more of that than former Speaker Pelosi. I can't even begin to count up the number of references to botox I've heard the right gleefully fling out there like so much monkey poo.

Good luck with rehabbing that injury. Sounds painful. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

eg8r
10-14-2011, 08:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fat loss does NOT require exercise, and diet alone certainly can and does result in fat loss, and achieving a healthful body fat percentage, quite apart from any exercise.</div></div>You are right but the problem with this is that most people then associate it with "diets" which historically are unsustainable. Generally the idea is not just to lose the fat but to keep it off. Without any form of exercise if you look like a pear when you are fat then you will basically just look like a smaller pear as you lose weight. Another issue is people equate fat loss to weight loss and they are two different things. The end result is the same if you are not doing any exercise but for healthy individuals it is not the weight that is the biggest issue it is the fat.

eg8r

LWW
10-14-2011, 03:32 PM
Diet alone won't cause fat loss, at least not at anything approaching substantial and/or long lasting.

Sorry to bring you the truth.

Soflasnapper
10-14-2011, 05:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Diet alone won't cause fat loss, at least not at anything approaching substantial and/or long lasting.

Sorry to bring you the truth. </div></div>

Actually, diet alone is the only thing that can do it in any short time frame. It's about the reverse of what you say.

Exercising can be very helpful for <u>maintaining</u> weight loss, particularly if it boosts lean body mass and basal metabolism. It's nearly useless as an episodic or temporary measure for fat loss, unless it becomes a life-long habit and is continued indefinitely. Even then it is a very slow process.

If exercise were sufficient by itself, you wouldn't find professional athletes, elite college athletes, or dancers with a weight problem, and you do find them. To work on it, they do not redouble their already high level of activity and exercise-- they watch their training tables' food offerings more closely.

Reason: the amount of calories that can be used in a short time of exercise is minor, and so minor that a trip to the juice bar for a smoothie, or a single beer, might very well undo the calorie deficit benefit from that hour of exercise.

Another reason: exercise first uses blood sugar, and NEXT uses glycogen, before any fat is lost at all. The use of blood sugar drops the blood sugar levels, and prompts strong hunger urges which are impossible to overcome over any extended period of time.

There is no amount of exercise that cannot be overcome (and easily overcome) at the dinner table.

eg8r
10-14-2011, 06:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If exercise were sufficient by itself, you wouldn't find professional athletes, elite college athletes, or dancers with a weight problem, and you do find them. To work on it, they do not redouble their already high level of activity and exercise-- they watch their training tables' food offerings more closely.

</div></div>You are placing way too much on the diet and not fairly integrating both. If diet was the only thing that helped one lose the weight and "do it quickly" then we would see an extremely fat Michael Phelps. He can eat up to 6-8000 calorie meals. The only reason he can do that and keep his body under control is because his "exercise" is burning it off. He is burning extraordinary amounts of calories during his practice and no "dieted" meal at the dinner table would give him the energy to keep going.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-14-2011, 07:02 PM
That's not a counter example to what I said. The guy doesn't need to lose weight, and he eats proportionally to his energy output, which is immense, and at levels no regular person could hope to match.

Similarly, the guys whose work is harvesting the tall timber eat hugely, maybe 8,000 calories a day, and do not gain weight, but neither are they skinny. They can't be, and still do that kind of heavy work all day.

The body has a finely tuned homeostatic mechanism to maintain certain things in certain ranges, and it will definitely create compelling urges to eat according to energy output. That will make intense exercise counterproductive to weight loss, assuming dietary restriction is tried at the same time.

Here's a question for you. For the wrestlers or boxers or others whose competition is determined by body weight, who are tremendously active in their training, when they need to make weight, do they double up their exercise, or diet?

eg8r
10-14-2011, 08:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The guy doesn't need to lose weight, and he eats proportionally to his energy output, which is immense, and at levels no regular person could hope to match. </div></div>Neither did those athletes you were referring to. You were trying to make the example that simply eating less will help an athlete lose weight and Michael Phelps is the perfect example to prove otherwise.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The body has a finely tuned homeostatic mechanism to maintain certain things in certain ranges, and it will definitely create compelling urges to eat according to energy output.</div></div>I think you are typing to "hear" yourself talk. Again, in Phelps example, "urges" have nothing to do with what he is eating while training. Simply put, if you don't add the full beforehand you will not be able to have the same level of energy output. If he did not eat that much food then he would not be able to train as long which means he will not be able to burn off the calories and he will start to gain weight.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For the wrestlers or boxers or others whose competition is determined by body weight, who are tremendously active in their training, when they need to make weight, do they double up their exercise, or diet?</div></div>Neither, they start training in a plastic bag and do everything they can to drain all the water weight from their body. Right after their weigh in they go stuff themselves to get back to the natural weight they were before they started purging all the water.

I see that are going to argue tooth and nail till the very bitter end but you will not find many successful trainers or dieticians that tell you to just change the way you eat while sitting on the couch and all will be fine.

eg8r

LWW
10-15-2011, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Diet alone won't cause fat loss, at least not at anything approaching substantial and/or long lasting.

Sorry to bring you the truth. </div></div>

Actually, diet alone is the only thing that can do it in any short time frame. It's about the reverse of what you say.

Exercising can be very helpful for <u>maintaining</u> weight loss, particularly if it boosts lean body mass and basal metabolism. It's nearly useless as an episodic or temporary measure for fat loss, unless it becomes a life-long habit and is continued indefinitely. Even then it is a very slow process.

If exercise were sufficient by itself, you wouldn't find professional athletes, elite college athletes, or dancers with a weight problem, and you do find them. To work on it, they do not redouble their already high level of activity and exercise-- they watch their training tables' food offerings more closely.

Reason: the amount of calories that can be used in a short time of exercise is minor, and so minor that a trip to the juice bar for a smoothie, or a single beer, might very well undo the calorie deficit benefit from that hour of exercise.

Another reason: exercise first uses blood sugar, and NEXT uses glycogen, before any fat is lost at all. The use of blood sugar drops the blood sugar levels, and prompts strong hunger urges which are impossible to overcome over any extended period of time.

There is no amount of exercise that cannot be overcome (and easily overcome) at the dinner table.



</div></div>

You are splitting hairs ... imagine that.

Let's use a fictitious obese person, let's say they weigh 250 lbs with a 40% body rat mass.

That's 150 lbs of non fat, and 100 lbs of fat.

With diet alone let's say they lose 50 lbs. The average breakdown of this process will yield fat loss ... normally about 30% of the weight loss being fat ... so it is true that the person will drop from 100 lbs of fat to only 85 lbs. They will also have fell from 150 lbs of non fat to 115 lbs of non fat. So, although they will have lost some fat ... the body will have consumed more than that in muscle as the system perceives starvation. The persons BF will have went from 40% to 42.5%. They will have, in reality, become fatter.

OTOH, someone doing the same thing through cardio and weight regimens will have a ratio more like -60 lbs of fat and +10 lbs of lean body mass. That same person's ratios will now look something like 160 lbs of non fat and 40 lbs of fat ... or a 20% BF content.

LWW
10-15-2011, 07:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Similarly, the guys whose work is harvesting the tall timber eat hugely, maybe 8,000 calories a day, and do not gain weight, but neither are they skinny. They can't be, and still do that kind of heavy work all day.</div></div>

You are confusing "SKINNY" with "LEAN" is your issue hear.

Skinny is a low body mass index, or weight to height.

Yes, a 300 lb NFL player of WWE performer will be obese using the BMO as a guide.

OTOH, that same 300 pounder may have a 12% BF rating ... which is why they are considered lean, they have very little body fat as a potion of body weight.

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/24400000/Triple-H-triple-h-24411363-473-700.jpg

Explain to this guy that he's obese.

Soflasnapper
10-15-2011, 01:46 PM
I see that are going to argue tooth and nail till the very bitter end but you will not find many successful trainers or dieticians that tell you to just change the way you eat while sitting on the couch and all will be fine.

Trainers, no. They are training a person for fitness, strength, endurance, etc., and all of that requires movement of the body against resistance, in addition to dietary modifications they also (probably incompetently) recommend. (There are few topics more myth-ridden than body building and weight loss.)

Dieticians, sure you will. At about 40 years of age, beginning an exercise regime is dangerous enough to require a full physical and cardio-workup, to avoid the chance of sudden death caused by working out. Sudden death from exercise exertion occurs every year, even among young persons in the prime of their health, and even when their participation in that exertion has medical screening required ahead of time. Current recommendations for 'exercise' are actually not that at all, and instead, are for physical 'activity' at very mild levels, comparable to working in the yard gardening, or light housework, for 30 minutes a day, not even all at one time, and involving not even heavy breathing. Which is to say, not even what most people would call exercising, at all.

Or at least those are the expert recommendations in the literature, as I've learned from the 20 hours of continuing education required biannually to keep my state nutritional counselor license, which I've had for close to 20 years now.

Soflasnapper
10-15-2011, 01:58 PM
No, I am not mistaking skinny for lean.

It's well known that the BMI index is faulty for extremely muscular athletic body types.

The number of 6'2" to 6'4" 255 pound people who are not actually fat is very small, relative to the population. Most persons with those vital statistics are actually fat, as to be lean at that weight and height, one needs to be very bulked up, far beyond what any amateur who was not in a body building or strength related profession can possibly achieve. Even some who ARE so employed, thinking offensive linemen, are STILL fat, by BF percentage. (As their massive overlapping waistlines surely proves.)

eg8r
10-15-2011, 09:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dieticians, sure you will. At about 40 years of age, beginning an exercise regime is dangerous enough to require a full physical and cardio-workup, to avoid the chance of sudden death caused by working out.</div></div>Your gross exaggerations are expected since you choose not to live in reality. If this is what you were afraid of then you would never drive a car in America you would be too afraid. Basically anyone that thinks they are going to lose weight and keep it off by changing what they eat alone are kidding themselves. If you were really scared about this rare event then go see a doctor get checked out and a clean bill of health and then lose weight the intelligent way which includes a change in food intake along with an exercise program.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-16-2011, 12:46 PM
Since it's clear you do not believe I know what I'm talking about, check out this extended look (http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/suddendeath/suddendeath.html) at sports and sudden death from exercising.

The author is actually motivated to somewhat discount the dangers of exercise with regard to heart attacks and sudden deaths, and yet includes the following information:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The screening of young athletes for potentially fatal cardiovascular disease has received special attenion by the American Heart Association, who have set the following recommendations. These can be applied also to the older exercising population:

Mandatory pre-participation medical screening including medical and family history and physical examination for all athletes.
Pre-participation evaluation to be conducted before high school and repeated every 2 years.
Athletic screening to be performed by an appropriately trained medical professional.
Auscultation of the heart to be conducted while the patient is lying and then standing, to identify structural cardiovascular abnormalities.
Inclusion of brachial artery blood pressure measurement in the seated position. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Regular exercise reduces the overall risk of sudden death in persons with latent coronary artery disease, yet acutely increases the risk of sudden death during exercise for those with heart disease that predisposes to sudden death. </div></div> By 'acutely,' the author means '600% to 700% higher' as can be found in the text.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is clear that there are many people with latent heart disease, especially coronary heart disease, who are able to exercise quite safely without the risk of sudden death. How these are to be distinguished on clinical grounds from those at risk of sudden death during exercise has yet to be established. Accordingly a more pragmatic approach would seem justified. The following guidelines probably represent the current consensus.

All persons over 50 should undergo cardiovascular screening before starting any type of exercise program. Younger persons (less than 50 years of age) who are either already participating or who wish to start exercising should first be interviewed for a family history of conditions associated with sudden death and screened for symptoms and clinical signs of cardiovascular disease, and for risk factors for heart disease. When either the family history is suggestive, or clinical suspicion is raised, or risk factors such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia or cigarette smoking are present, subjects should undergo maximal exercise testing for measurement of exercise performance and the electrocardiographic response to exercise. When abnormalities are detected, further specialist cardiological investigation including echocardiography and possibly coronary angiography is indicated. Conditions in which echocardiography is useful in the evaluation of athletes are listed in Table 3. Subjects with identified cardiac disease should then exercise under supervision, at least initially.

Table 3: Conditions in which echocardiography is used in evaluating athletes

Suspected congenital heart disease
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Right ventricular dysplasia
Pericarditis
Myocarditis
Ischemic heart disease
Suspected valvular disease
Unexplained cardiac murmur
Unexplained abnormal ECG
Anomalies of the coronary arteries
Arrhythmias

But even when these guidelines are followed, less than 20% of subjects at risk of developing a cardiac event during exercise will be identified. Thus Siscovick and his colleagues have argued that routine exercise testing is of limited value for assessing the risk of exercise in middle-aged men. Similarly, Thompson and colleagues have suggested the "physicians can recommend exercise to asymptomatic adults without great concern for possible cardiovascular complications... The risk of exercise is small and suggests that the routine exercise testing of healthy subjects before exercise training is not justified."

The recommendations that I have made specifically for persons who are already active in sport are based on studies of sudden death in marathon runners. These include:

Runners should not assume that completing a marathon will ensure total immunity from coronary heart disease or that reattainment of that distance after a heart attack will prevent progression of that disease;
Runners should seek medical advice and not force themselves when exertional symptoms develop;
When consulted by symptomatic runners, doctors should not exclude the possibility of coronary or other life-threatening heart diseases such as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, simply because the athlete is physically fit.
There is a much lower prevalence of coronary artery disease in females younger than 65 years. Indeed females of 45 years of age, with a typical history of angina pectoris, have only a 55% likelihood of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas the same clinical findings in a 65 year-old female imply a greater than 90% chance of having significant coronary artery disease. Furthermore, diagnostic exercise testing is less accurate in women, because there is a higher rate of false-positive and false-negative tests. Therefore exercise testing using either thallium scintigraphy or echocardiography greatly improves the diagnostic accuracy of exercise tests in females.

In brief, this experience is in agreement with the conclusion of Thompson and colleagues to the effect that only athletes who are symptomatic should be exhaustively tested and discouraged from exercise when a life-threatening cardiac abnormality is discovered. Because in my experience the majority at least of adults who die suddenly during exercise, like James Fixx, have warning symptoms, this simple procedure could possibly reduce the incidence of sudden death during exercise by as much as 80%. Unfortunately, the condition will never be completely prevented because in about 20% of persons, sudden death remains the first symptom of heart disease that they experience. Some may even have undergone maximal exercise testing without incidence within a reasonably short time before their subsequent deaths.

While most emphasis is placed on the detection of latent coronary heart disease, detection of other conditions is also important. Thus persons with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy are at increased risk of sudden death during exercise. Current practice is that persons with this condition are encouraged to avoid all forms of physical activity, however gentle. Whether this is appropriate, and whether all forms of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy carry an equivalent risk of sudden death is not yet known. Even so, current practice is probably that the physical activity of persons with this condition should be restricted.

With regard to rheumatic heart disease, it seems that severe aortic stenosis is the form of valvular disease most frequently associated with sudden death. Furthermore, deaths in persons with rheumatic heart disease almost always occur in those in whom the diagnosis of serious heart disease is well established and whose exercise tolerance had already been severely restricted by their disease. Thus only those patients with rheumatic heart disease whose exercise tolerance is already restricted should further reduce physical activity. There is no firm evidence that the physical activity of asymptomatic persons with clinical evidence of (mild) valvular dysfunction as a result of rheumatic heart disease needs to be restricted, nor that physical activity detrimentally influences the course of their disease. It must be remembered that the heart of a person with rheumatic heart disease must beat 24 hours a day despite unfavorable hemodynamic loading. It is unlikely that the additional hemodynamic stresses of even one hour of exercise a day would materially influence the adaptations already made to compensate for the hemodynamic abnormalities caused by the valvular disease.

With regard to myocarditis, there is the question that it is a cause of sudden death in persons recovering from a viral infection. Accordingly, persons who suffer from a viral infection or who have had systemic manifestations of the infection (fever, myalgia and arthralgia) should be encouraged not to exercise vigorously for at least 14 days after their body temperature returns to normal and their myalgia and arthralgia subside. A persistent increase in the resting heart rate would also indicate continuing myocardial involvement and would be an absolute contraindication to vigorous exercise.</div></div>

eg8r
10-16-2011, 05:23 PM
You are right, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Like I said, if this is what you are scared of then don't drive your car on public roads, you have a better chance of dying there. If you are serious about fat loss then go get checked out and do what works which is adjust your diet and exercise. Common sense is the only way to go.

eg8r

LWW
10-17-2011, 04:19 AM
It's simply an excuse to not exercise.

If all one needs is a reason to do or not do something, any reason at all will do.

I better go in the basement in case an asteroid comes through the roof ... but then an earthquake might open the ground beneath the foundation ...

Soflasnapper
10-17-2011, 09:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are right, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Like I said, if this is what you are scared of then don't drive your car on public roads, you have a better chance of dying there. If you are serious about fat loss then go get checked out and do what works which is adjust your diet and exercise. Common sense is the only way to go.

eg8r </div></div>

Common sense would be to check with a medical professional for advice on what is appropriate or dangerous for a given person, based on taking a medical history, a family history, and certain other screens.

What I've provided is what they'd say if asked, and the kinds of screens they'd use to determine the appropriate and safe forms of exercise, if any.

Are you in favor of having all the currently existing screening for youths' sports participation ended? Would that be 'common sense,' or is continuing the screening regimes more common sense?

Here's news you apparently missed: Many people needing to lose weight are middle-aged or more, heart disease can be very advanced by the 20s, most people discover they have heart disease by having a heart attack, and roughly half of first heart attacks are fatal. That is all before we consider that heavier older people often have damage to the load-bearing joints that makes common exercising impossible from the pain or the added damage.

eg8r
10-17-2011, 10:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you in favor of having all the currently existing screening for youths' sports participation ended? </div></div>Nope, which is why I said check with a doctor.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's news you apparently missed: Many people needing to lose weight are middle-aged or more, heart disease can be very advanced by the 20s, most people discover they have heart disease by having a heart attack, and roughly half of first heart attacks are fatal. That is all before we consider that heavier older people often have damage to the load-bearing joints that makes common exercising impossible from the pain or the added damage.

</div></div>You are nothing more than a giant excuse maker. This season on Biggest Loser there is a middle aged and an older lady that cannot do all the same workouts due to injury or inability yet they still do exercise and they are still losing weight by taking a common sense approach to changing their diet and exercising.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-18-2011, 11:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Diet alone won't cause fat loss, at least not at anything approaching substantial and/or long lasting.

Sorry to bring you the truth. </div></div>

Actually, diet alone is the only thing that can do it in any short time frame. It's about the reverse of what you say.

Exercising can be very helpful for <u>maintaining</u> weight loss, particularly if it boosts lean body mass and basal metabolism. It's nearly useless as an episodic or temporary measure for fat loss, unless it becomes a life-long habit and is continued indefinitely. Even then it is a very slow process.

If exercise were sufficient by itself, you wouldn't find professional athletes, elite college athletes, or dancers with a weight problem, and you do find them. To work on it, they do not redouble their already high level of activity and exercise-- they watch their training tables' food offerings more closely.

Reason: the amount of calories that can be used in a short time of exercise is minor, and so minor that a trip to the juice bar for a smoothie, or a single beer, might very well undo the calorie deficit benefit from that hour of exercise.

Another reason: exercise first uses blood sugar, and NEXT uses glycogen, before any fat is lost at all. The use of blood sugar drops the blood sugar levels, and prompts strong hunger urges which are impossible to overcome over any extended period of time.

There is no amount of exercise that cannot be overcome (and easily overcome) at the dinner table.



</div></div>

Two things, I would add here.

Exercise resets the metabolic rate at which calories are burned, so it isn't really just about how many calories are burned during exercise, because as you build muscle, you burn more calories, even while resting.

Additionally, arobic exercise kills your appetite for hours, and increases fluid intake, both of which aid in weight loss.

If one eats healthily, practices both arobic (running or swimming, for example) AND muscle building exercises, weight lifting, even using just light weights, and repetition, they will lose excess weight, and keep it off, IF they eat healthily AND continue to exercise.

Most people eat the wrong foods.

G.

ugotda7
10-18-2011, 11:16 PM
Anybody have an extra $10K around?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...0,2838321.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-10k-asking-price-for-photo-with-michelle-obama-at-fundraiser-20111018,0,2838321.story)

When first lady Michelle Obama comes home to Chicago next Tuesday, a group photo with her at a campaign fundraiser won’t come cheap. The asking price for a ticket to a "family photo reception" is $10,000, according to an invitation to the event. The invitation specifies that there may be a maximum of six guests in the photo.

LWW
10-19-2011, 03:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two things, I would add here.

Exercise resets the metabolic rate at which calories are burned, so it isn't really just about how many calories are burned during exercise, because as you build muscle, you burn more calories, even while resting.

Additionally, arobic exercise kills your appetite for hours, and increases fluid intake, both of which aid in weight loss.

If one eats healthily, practices both arobic (running or swimming, for example) AND muscle building exercises, weight lifting, even using just light weights, and repetition, they will lose excess weight, and keep it off, IF they eat healthily AND continue to exercise.

Most people eat the wrong foods.

G. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>*DING*</span>

We have a winner.

Gayle in MD
10-19-2011, 08:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anybody have an extra $10K around?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...0,2838321.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-10k-asking-price-for-photo-with-michelle-obama-at-fundraiser-20111018,0,2838321.story)

When first lady Michelle Obama comes home to Chicago next Tuesday, a group photo with her at a campaign fundraiser won’t come cheap. The asking price for a ticket to a "family photo reception" is $10,000, according to an invitation to the event. The invitation specifies that there may be a maximum of six guests in the photo.

</div></div>
\


SO WHAT, SHERLOCK? No problem with any Repiglican campaigners that run, run, run, collect, collect, collect, like Palin and Newt....the professional Presidential campaigners, that know damn well they have no shot at ever being president, or even possibly ever running, but collect money for their pseudo campaigns, Newt's income for decades???

Palin's been collecting money from her nutjob supporters asking them to virtually pay her to "Think" about running!

Quit, while you're behind.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
10-19-2011, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tryin' to keep it classy, but just doesn't understand the concept.

New depths of boorishness set here; congratulations! To you and your ilk. Most people realize as soon as they are adults what kinds of personal attacks are low. class.

What's YOUR waist size, clown? </div></div>

Michelle Obama's approval ratings are through the roof! She isn't running for First Lady, she IS THE FIRST LADY.

Hence, the RW nutjobs are busy creating more absurd attacks using their usual mythology, due to her very high approval ratings......which is the repig inspiration for hypocritical....twisted skewed reality, more lies, as they launch their usual, twisted, slanted, unfair attacks.

To use Cain's juicy description, lol, apples and oranges...

G.

eg8r
10-19-2011, 11:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SO WHAT, SHERLOCK? No problem with any Repiglican campaigners that run, run, run, collect, collect, collect, like Palin and Newt
</div></div>But you forget your hypocrisy every time you pointed out that Palin was doing it just for the buck. Now when it is pointed out that your hacks are out for the buck you get pissy.

eg8r

ugotda7
10-19-2011, 02:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anybody have an extra $10K around?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...0,2838321.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-10k-asking-price-for-photo-with-michelle-obama-at-fundraiser-20111018,0,2838321.story)

When first lady Michelle Obama comes home to Chicago next Tuesday, a group photo with her at a campaign fundraiser won’t come cheap. The asking price for a ticket to a "family photo reception" is $10,000, according to an invitation to the event. The invitation specifies that there may be a maximum of six guests in the photo.

</div></div>
\


SO WHAT, SHERLOCK? No problem with any Repiglican campaigners that run, run, run, collect, collect, collect, like Palin and Newt....the professional Presidential campaigners, that know damn well they have no shot at ever being president, or even possibly ever running, but collect money for their pseudo campaigns, Newt's income for decades???

Palin's been collecting money from her nutjob supporters asking them to virtually pay her to "Think" about running!

Quit, while you're behind.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>

Just how retarded are you......I think we have an answer.

TOTAL IGNORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What a joke.

LWW
10-20-2011, 03:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Now, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>in the future, I am not going to write anything at all about them</span>, on those occasions, when one of my friends here, highlights their nastiness, and their failure to address the subject, at hand, and instead, reduce a thread to nothing more than juvenile attacks. I will not refer to any of them, in any way, at all, going forward.

G.</div></div>

Qtec
10-20-2011, 04:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> OK? She looks like the latest<u> drugged up </u>Whitney Houston pictures on the net. </div></div>

You could get a job at Fox News after military spending is cut in half.

Q

LWW
10-20-2011, 05:01 AM
MOOOO - chelle ...

http://clutchmagonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/michelle_obama_fat_cartoon_m.jpg

hondo
10-20-2011, 07:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tryin' to keep it classy, but just doesn't understand the concept.

New depths of boorishness set here; congratulations! To you and your ilk. Most people realize as soon as they are adults what kinds of personal attacks are low. class.

What's YOUR waist size, clown? </div></div>

I too was appalled at that post. He keeps setting the bar lower and lower. Pathetic!

hondo
10-20-2011, 07:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's a shame you insist upon acting like you know something when you don't.

Over 30 and male, anything under 23% BF is considered lean.

Continue to amuse me. </div></div>

Says here (http://www.csgnetwork.com/bodyfatcalc.html) it's considered 'high.' And anything above 17% is considered high for men. You are closer to 'very high' (2-3 points away) than to even 'average.' And 'average' doesn't mean lean, or very lean.

Body Fat Percentages Comparison Table
Fat Level Men (%) Women (%)
Very Low 7-10 14-17
Low 10-13 17-20
Average 13-17 20-27
High 17-25 27-31
Very High above 25 above 31

NOBODY with a 38" waist is lean unless they're a professional athlete, or perhaps very tall (and big) indeed. (OKC basketball star Kevin Durant at 7'+ has a 28" waist.)

Another source has it as follows:

Men
Age .........Underfat Healthy Range Overweight Obese
20-40 yrs Under 8% 8-19% 19-25% Over 25%
41-60 yrs Under 11% 11-22% 22-27% Over 27%
61-79 yrs Under 13% 13-25% 25-30% Over 30%

Source: Gallagher et al. Am J Clin Nut 2000; 72:694-701

Here (http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/library/blbodyfatcharts.htm) </div></div>

To be honest, none of that matters and is a diversion.
Even if Mr. Universe had posted what he did, it still shows him as the classless buffoon that most of us realize he is.
His hate for all things Obama knows no boundaries.

eg8r
10-20-2011, 07:54 AM
This is a lie she has said many many times.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-20-2011, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tryin' to keep it classy, but just doesn't understand the concept.

New depths of boorishness set here; congratulations! To you and your ilk. Most people realize as soon as they are adults what kinds of personal attacks are low. class.

What's YOUR waist size, clown? </div></div>

I too was appalled at that post. He keeps setting the bar lower and lower. Pathetic! </div></div>

Well, my friend, it should be expected. Michelle Obama is a favorite of Americans...over 80% approvals....WOW, and just as Nancy Pelosi blew away Repiglican Speakers, with her many, many amazing successes, as SOTH, while their own incompetant DO NOTHING Boehner, the Weeper, couldndn't pass gas if he had just eaten a bowl of beans....so as usual, they stoop to their filth, racism, and ugly natures, while insisting that the Right Wing NUTJOBS aren't racist. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Denial....that's their only response, denial, racism, lies and filth, we've watched it for over a decade now.

Eg., of all people, should never use the words LIE, or Hypocrite....so ignorant he can't see the difference between people like Palin who are money grubbing quitters, who aren't even running for anything, and Newt, with a history of collecting money under the pretense that he is going to run, even though he knows damn well, he'll never be elected for anything, ever again, but some are too stupid to see the difference between an elected president collecting campaign donations, and a fake like Palin, money grubbing, while pretending she's going to run, just like Newt has done, while having no intention of running for anything, and in fact, couldn't get through her own governorship, without quitting so that she could go for the bucks from the poor slobs who were too stupid to see through her scam.

Same stupid people who believed Bush's "No Nation Building" BS, before he Nation Built us into national bankruptsey!

RW Ignorance, filth and racism, make a pretty ugly presentation...particularly when blatant LIARS, don't even know the meaning of the word "lie." the kind of ignorance that tries to parlay ann estimate of job creation, into an intentional lie to the country, but can't grasp an out ad ut lie, Like Bush's imaginary Mushroom Clouds, and Mission Accomplished, LMAO!

Such is the result of their brain washed rhetoric...attacking the successful political Democratic public servants, who aren't on their filthy little team, AND those who support our Party's successful elected officials, who accomplish their goals, with their usual fly-by sniper style, juvenile attacks...that's what I call petty little intellectual cowards.

G.

eg8r
10-20-2011, 11:02 AM
The board troll ranted like crazy and not once touched the subject of this thread.

eg8r