Interesting Reuters Story (Read 904 times)

The actual article is here: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/168/15/1638 BUT you will need to be logged onto a computer, usually either a hospital or University computer, that has a subscription to this Journal to access the full article. This relates to a bigger debate in science about whether publicly funded research should be publicly available. The success of PLoS (Public Library of Science) and their Journals bodes well for the future. PLoS is a nonprofit organization of scientists and physicians committed to making the world's scientific and medical literature a freely available public resource. The Chakravarty et al study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Institute on Aging, both part of the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the United States Deparrtment of Health and Human Services. In other words it was supported by your tax dollars.

I like the last sentence: "The study also showed that people cannot use the risk of injury as an excuse not to run -- the runners had fewer injuries of all kinds, including to their knees." Another great reason not to avoid running. Tom

"Our study shows you can still be healthy even if you are obese," Wylie-Rosett said. CAN is a loaded word. You CAN make the major leagues if you are obese but it is only going to hurt your chances and not help. You CAN be healthy and obese but you could be more healthy if you were not obese. I think this is just a "I'm ok-you're ok-it's ok to be fat" kind of group hug article. It is also interesting to see the awareness studies. I am going to make up the numbers here because I am too lazy to look them up but I saw a UK study showing something like 55% of adults were "overweight" in 2005 vs. 45% in 1990. But of those that fit in the "overweight"category 80% recognized themselves as such in 1990 while only 65% did in 2005. Meaning we look around and say "hey I'm not so bad..." Maybe the days of our floating chairs as in the movie Wall-E are not so far away.

It is also interesting to see the awareness studies. I am going to make up the numbers here because I am too lazy to look them up but I saw a UK study showing something like 55% of adults were "overweight" in 2005 vs. 45% in 1990. But of those that fit in the "overweight"category 80% recognized themselves as such in 1990 while only 65% did in 2005. Meaning we look around and say "hey I'm not so bad..." Maybe the days of our floating chairs as in the movie Wall-E are not so far away.

I believe this. Even at my heaviest I thought I was " just a bit overweight". I really didnt SEE that much difference between me at 185 and me at 145. I see a difference now but it isnt as dramatic as the pictures show. But I have noticed that I see people that I used to think were "really tiny" as normal weight now. Because they are the same size as me. But that took over a year of being at a healthy weight for me to see myself as the same size as them.

I read that and thought DUH, of course some overweight folks are healthy - I would bet anyone a six-pack of your favorite microbrew that family history is a major factor here. Arla

I see a problem with the study. From the jest of it, it seems that the study chose people that where already exercising. If you are in middle to late life and you are capable of heavy exercise that means you where healthy to begin with. If you weren't healthy you shouldn't be able to be very active. A better way to have done it (though probably not practical) would be to find a large group that had never previously exercised consistently, Have half of them begin exercise and the other group would not be allowed to exercise. Then check in on these two groups in 20 years or so. Would be great if humans made bettery guiena pigs, however though there is that whole thing called ethics. <-damn stupid rules lol stupid="" rules=""></-damn stupid rules lol>

Teresa, Believe it or not, your actual weight has less to do with your cholesterol than your genes and your eating habits. I'm consider rather thin, but my cholesterol climbed from 190 to something in the 200s a few years back. As my DR explained at the time, it is also a factor of getting older where you body doesn't process stuff the same way. If I remember right, it's a function of the liver. I have since found out that all 4 of my older siblings and my Mother has high cholesterol and all take medication to control and yet all still have high cholesterol. I manage my through the exercise (it helps) and more importantly, through diet. Unfortunetly, I'm not real strict on my diet but more selective. The mistake I made the first year, was that I ate a lot of salads with lots of salad dressings. My cholesterol went up. When I actually read the label on a bottle of salad dressing I understood why, they are all high in fat. We have swithced to lite or Fat free dressings now. I also switched form butter (love butter) to imitation stuff which is ligth. The wife has switch all oils over to sunflowe and olive oil. I eat a lot less red meat, I almost completely cut out McDonals/Burger King etc, going form 4-5 times a week to 4-5 times a year. I eliminated cheese from sandwichs, but still will eat cheese from time to time. Unfortunately, my wife loves cheeses and dishes with cheese like Chicken parmigan last night. Bottom line, is that my cholesterol is under 200 again and I go for my yearly physical in a few weeks. The Dr didn't like my level of HDL and LDL last year, but I haven't really changed much to improve them. One of the bad things I still use is regular Milk which is not good for you, but I hate skim milk. I know I have to try to get to like it (or tolerate it) and was just thinking about it the other day. My other problem, is that we eat out at least once week and very few restaurants offer low fat dressings. I've been considering carrying my own. So my advice is this: 1. If you can, find out what your families history is 2. Take a look at your diet and look at ways you can change and pay attention to the labels.

And why has my cholesterol gone UP this past year, from 181 to 222?? I lost 14 pounds in that time, 35 pounds overall. I was running a little two years ago (when my cholesterol was 212), but I've run a LOT more this past year. My diet hasn't changed. Blech.