However, none of this has worked for my SO, who is in menopause.
I've often wondered why (or if) middle westerners, who seem to eat a lot more beef than health-conscious northern Californians, dont have higher mortality rates.
All in all, though, I'd say diet and exercise works.
--- Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/8/07, ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
> > On 8 Jul, 2007, at 8:50 AM, Jerry Monaco wrote:
> > >
> > > Let me repeat, her claim is that practically all
> of the scientific
> > > evidence shows that there is nothing, absolutely
> nothing, you can do
> > > by diet and exercise to effect your weight-range
> in the long run.
> > > <...>
> >
> >
> > She (Gina Kolata) also made the claim that the
> emerging scientific
> > consensus is that being a little (or even a good
> bit) fat is better
> > than being a little thin, for which she offered
> only some correlation
> > evidence. All this was on NPR (The Brian Lehrer
> show) and Brian did
> > not push her on either the analysis or the
> scientific studies... but
> > when he did do that, I found that she was being
> sensationalistic and
> > absolutist -- I guess it sells books and makes you
> look like you
> > found a new "truth".
>
> Yes I agree with this completely. She overstates
> her case in order to
> sell books. But I don't think that her basic thesis
> is
> sensationalistic or that the truth is new. The
> weight range
> observations have been around for about thirty
> years. But she doesn't
> mention the fact that weight ranges are only made
> possible by a stable
> and inexhaustible supply of food which is a
> relatively recent
> phenomena for a mass society. She also doesn't
> mention the fact that
> there maybe several triggers for weight ranges and
> that the same
> person may have two different weight ranges
> depending on the
> environmental triggers, etc. I didn't hear the
> Brian Lehrer show.
> >
> > Her claim(s) itself is not easily falsifiable
> since it is not well-
> > stated formally. But using the most obvious
> formalisation would make
> > it possible, I believe, to provide
> counter-evidence in short order.
> > That said, a more nuanced version of the idea, no
> longer sensational
> > or novel unfortunately, would not only be
> substantial but also
> > progressive.
>
> On this point all I have to says is that she gives
> no clear definitions.
>
> But it was always a goal of my Italian great aunts
> to "fatten" up
> their kids. It was bad to be skinny in their view
> because if you get
> sick you have less "padding." I think peasants all
> over the world
> used to believe this. But has anybody actually done
> any research. In
> a world where most people go through periods of
> forced hunger at some
> point in their lives. being overweight is certainly
> a good buffer from
> the vicissitudes of poverty and famine.
>
> Maybe being a little "overweight" and getting a lot
> of exercise is
> good! But how do we define good? I would guess it
> was certainly
> "good" for Italian peasants in 1890. Was it good
> for middle class
> Americans in 1990? I am still going to guess that
> lack of exercise
> and lack of eating "good" food is the main problem
> with how Americans
> eat and the obsession with weight is just a class
> based cultural
> tyranny of beauty.
>
> I only looked through the book at the library the
> other day. I didn't
> read the book. What I saw was interesting and I
> wouldn't reject it
> out of hand.
>
> Jerry
>
> >
> > --ravi
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>