The underappreciated role of muscle in health and disease [pdf]
ajcn.nutrition.org
ajcn.nutrition.org
This makes logical sense. Given that people with CF do not process fats correctly, tend to be severely underweight yet are highly prone to developing CF Related Diabetes, fat just about can't be the right explanation as to cause.
On the other hand:
The central thesis of the glucose–fatty acid cycle is that elevated plasma FFA concentrations limit glucose uptake in muscle by inhibiting the oxidation of glucose (33). Thus, according to this theory, the genesis of insulin resistance lay entirely with the increased availability of FFAs, and the muscle responded normally to that signal to limit glucose uptake and oxidation.
Can anyone tell me: If you are chronically insufficiently oxygenated for some reason (like lack of lung function), would that contribute to this process? I mean, it sounds to me like insufficient oxygenation of the system would play a role here.
Any takers?
Body composition and strength are just as important, if not more important, than weight, especially as one ages. The reason this is ignored is that there's only so much you can do to significantly improve your body composition and strength without exercise and healthy eating.
> Nonetheless, the maintenance of adequate muscle mass, strength, and metabolic function has rarely, if ever, been targeted as a relevant endpoint of recommendations for dietary intake.
It's kind of sad that the "official" recommendations basically ignore what even the most inexperienced personal trainer could tell you.
There's a lot we don't know about the human body, but based on what we do know, it's asinine to believe that folks can eat horribly and live sedentary lifestyles without serious consequence. That, however, is what magic pill research effectively promises.
I gladly acknowledge that possibility, but you should acknowledge the likelihood that the medical community is roughly correct in its belief that obesity does in fact cause a huge number of health related problems regardless of whether this is "primary". My claim above does not rest on obesity being the dominant factor.
> it's asinine to believe that folks can eat horribly and live sedentary lifestyles without serious consequence.
Misunderstanding someone's claim and then suggesting that their beliefs are asinine is not a good way to get people to engage productively with you.
The topic of cholesterol provides many examples of this. For years, it was widely believed that raising the levels of HDL cholesterol would reduce the risk of heart disease. On that belief alone, many doctors regularly prescribed niacin to patients. Yet a few years ago, a study basically revealed that while niacin did raise HDL levels, it didn't reduce heart disease risk[1]. What's worse, more recent studies have revealed that niacin may have exposed patients to unacceptable risk[2].
To be clear: if you were ever diagnosed as having low HDL cholesterol, there's a good chance that your doctor would have recommended that you consider a treatment that not only would have been ineffective but exposed you to risk. All based on a widely-promoted hypothesis we now have ample evidence is flawed.
On the topic of obesity, there is growing evidence that obesity is not the cause of a significant number of the most expensive health problems thought of as being caused by or strongly associated with obesity. Take Type 2 diabetes. Recent studies[3] show that it's a very complex condition, and genetics likely plays a more significant role than thought. Somewhat disturbingly, a longitudinal study published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine found that "An intensive lifestyle intervention focusing on weight loss did not reduce the rate of cardiovascular events in overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes." That calls into question the notion that even weight loss is a panacea for Type 2 diabetes.
You may not like my use of the word asinine, but if you're going to suggest that a magic pill for obesity "would deliver hundreds of billions of dollars worth of improved health outcomes in the US," you should at least have some evidence to back it up. To do that, however, you have the very high barrier of establishing that a) obesity in meaningful part causes the costly conditions promoted as being obesity-related and b) reduction of obesity would provide a significant enough benefit to eliminate a meaningful portion of the costs associated with these conditions. More and more research shows this is not the case.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/health/policy/27heart.html
[2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/taking-niacin-for-the-heart-may-...
[3] http://consumer.healthday.com/diabetes-information-10/misc-d...
That is to say, which do you think you'd have better luck with, convincing a segment of the population to take a pill once a day, or to adopt a diet that will have advantageous results?
Edit: And this ignores that you could go with both, of course.
So zero rate fresh vegetables and fruit, and fresh meat if you can manage that with the legal system (because it is processed). Then whack 25% on everything else.
Now.. I shall make the comment to bring the downvotes! But I am tough so I shall do it.
Bacon should be in the 25% tax bracket.
-karma here I come...
I am afraid that taxes would be a boomerang is this case. The industry will just lower production costs to offset the taxes. Lowering the costs meaning that crap food will be crapier and here we go again...
The latest research indicates sodium and fat are nowhere near as harmful as recently thought, and that high calorie + high carb diets are the biggest culprits by far.
Which makes perfect sense. The obesity problem in America skyrocketed with the expansion not of fat and sodium and bacon consumption - bacon had been consumed in large quantities for decades prior to the obesity boom - but with the extreme increases in sugar consumption, carb consumption, and sedentary lifestyles.
I'd argue bacon should be tax free, because it's far healthier than what most Americans are eating day to day. We should encourage its consumption, for it's low calorie, low carb, low sugar and high protein - which is exactly what we should be encouraging.
Average long term weight loss for diet 2.0 or 7.1kgs(only 55% of people responded so huge selective bias could be present)
I think the gap is nonexistent or much closer than you think. It looks like pills are pretty close to as effective at causing weight loss as changing your diet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_obesity#Medicatio... http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/5/579.short
As an aside, long-term (which is where we really care about "healthy" anyway), you would probably expect body builders to be healthier than some classes of athletes, with various circumstances obviously influencing that.
Professional sports are notoriously rough on the body (and mind) long-term. It's not a secret that athletes in certain sports (e.g. american football, boxing) often have debilitating health issues in their later years stemming from their career. I'd say Arnold is doing a hell of a lot better health-wise than Muhammad Ali, for example.
Replying to your question: if you compare two identical women differing only in their percentage of muscle mass, yes, one is healthier than the other.
As for the body builders; this is a tricky question, but I don´t think they are healthier than the general population...muscle mass being completely irrelevant.
EDIT: Rest/Recovery is necessary. Specifically, it's important not to increase the amount of metabolic requirements you stress yourself with too rapidly before the body has time to adapt. The body can adapt to stress and become stronger (hormesis) but it takes time, rest, and nutrition.
Depends what you mean by "healthy." Plenty of overweight people live long lives.
I don't think anyone would disagree that muscles are desirable and that exercise helps, or that being overweight is a bad thing. But there's quite a lot of disagreement about the severity of the problem. If you look around, there are many old and overweight people. They got to that point without having the kind of muscle mass you're talking about.
A more persuasive approach is probably to focus on the benefits, rather than the implied downside of not having "health." For example, I had no idea that exercise would have such a profound effect on my brain. My mind is sharper when I exercise compared to when I don't. At least, it was true for me. Could be placebo effect, but, then again, the placebo effect is measurable, so sometimes it helps.
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people and more useful in general.”
See: Einstein, Newton, Aristotle, Tesla, Edison, Stephen Hawking et al. Brain has proven to be vastly more important and useful, than brawn, for thousands of years.
Bill Gates being particularly strong would not add anything to his overall value proposition, in fact I'd argue it's entirely irrelevant.
And I wouldn't swap with Stephen Hawking, so presumably I value my strength levels and lower intelligence more highly than his much, much greater intelligence and virtually non-existent strength.