You've made far too many points for me to properly respond to all without being more argumentative than even I am willing to be.
Many of the studies you cite come down to this: if you're going to be weak and ill, it's better to be weak and ill with padding and energy reserves.
It's still better, overall, to be non-weak, non-ill, and non-obese.
Please note that by "obese", I have never been referring to cosmetic obsessions with five or ten (or fifteen) pounds, or with normal middle-aged body profiles.
In one of your comments, you attributed several views as possible views of mine. I have espoused none. I meant what I said, and nothing further.
Neither did I say, or mean to imply, that *you* in particular were being defensive. Before, anyway. I do think that now. But, as I said, Anglo-American folks do have lots of reasons for defensiveness.
Do you recommend that tall males get sex changes and get several inches of bones removed from their legs so their shorter? No, of course not. But that's exactly what doctors are doing when they tell patients to cut calories and lose X amount of pounds rather than addressing lifestyle choices that are much more easily addressed than losing X amount of pounds and keeping them off permanently.
I half-agree with you. I agree in that I routinely correct doctors who focus too much on pounds and not enough on methods. When I've given people advice, I tell them to focus on how their body feels most of all; to weigh, if they do at all, not more than once a month; and to recognise that short-term weight loss or gain is a very poor indicator of health. I tell them that part of their goal should be to build muscle, and that since muscle is better than fat, that they may not actually lose much weight.
I disagree with your current tack in that most people who engage in any vaguely medically acceptable means of losing pounds and inches, even if they focus on such things excessively, will also generally be making positive lifestyle changes; the same is not at all true (as far as I know) for your rather melodramatic analogy.
I'm sorry if it seems to you like I'm nitpicking. I'm trying to keep the big picture in mind. In closing, I want to state that my basic position is, as I said, that the truth is in the rational middle; and if I say that some people are defensive, I also acknowledge that they are under attack.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-02-07 10:29 pm (UTC)Many of the studies you cite come down to this: if you're going to be weak and ill, it's better to be weak and ill with padding and energy reserves.
It's still better, overall, to be non-weak, non-ill, and non-obese.
Please note that by "obese", I have never been referring to cosmetic obsessions with five or ten (or fifteen) pounds, or with normal middle-aged body profiles.
In one of your comments, you attributed several views as possible views of mine. I have espoused none. I meant what I said, and nothing further.
Neither did I say, or mean to imply, that *you* in particular were being defensive. Before, anyway. I do think that now. But, as I said, Anglo-American folks do have lots of reasons for defensiveness.
I half-agree with you.
I agree in that I routinely correct doctors who focus too much on pounds and not enough on methods. When I've given people advice, I tell them to focus on how their body feels most of all; to weigh, if they do at all, not more than once a month; and to recognise that short-term weight loss or gain is a very poor indicator of health. I tell them that part of their goal should be to build muscle, and that since muscle is better than fat, that they may not actually lose much weight.
I disagree with your current tack in that most people who engage in any vaguely medically acceptable means of losing pounds and inches, even if they focus on such things excessively, will also generally be making positive lifestyle changes; the same is not at all true (as far as I know) for your rather melodramatic analogy.
I'm sorry if it seems to you like I'm nitpicking. I'm trying to keep the big picture in mind. In closing, I want to state that my basic position is, as I said, that the truth is in the rational middle; and if I say that some people are defensive, I also acknowledge that they are under attack.
cheers
adrian.