Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On July 20, 1984, Fixx died at age 52 of a fulminant heart attack, after his daily run on Vermont Route 15 in Hardwick. The autopsy revealed that atherosclerosis had blocked one coronary artery 95%, a second 85%, and a third 70%.[3] Although there were opponents of Fixx's beliefs[who?] who said this was evidence that running was harmful, medical opinion continued to uphold the link between exercise and longevity.[4] In 1986 exercise physiologist, Kenneth Cooper, published an inventory of the risk factors that might have contributed to Fixx's death.[5] Granted access to his medical records and autopsy, and after interviewing his friends and family, Cooper concluded that Fixx was genetically predisposed (his father died of a heart attack at age 43 and Fixx himself had a congenitally enlarged heart), and had several lifestyle issues. Fixx was a heavy smoker prior to beginning running at age 36, he had a stressful occupation, he had undergone a second divorce, and his weight before he took up running had ballooned to 220 pounds (100 kg).[6]
Aside from that I think the article you posted was pretty good
And it still shows that long distance running wasn't going to fix any of that.
If he changed his diet and other poor habits but he wasn't doing all that running, would he have lived past 52? That's an interesting question.
I do a 5k a couple times a week when I can and that's plenty as far as I'm concerned. And coincidentally right in line with that article.
I hope it's true! lol
Actually I have and the only proponents seem to be Paleo enthusiasts that write blogs. They are usually trying to sell you something as well. In order to sell you something they have to convince they are right but they do not use any peer researched data to present their arguments. They just their own present their own theories to convince you they are right.
Actually I have stumbled on to 2 post paleo blogs that are worth reading, The Danny Roddy Weblog and Matt Stone's 180 degree health blog. Veterans of self experimentation, both disassemble paleo dogma and explain what's wrong with it. They've got e-books for sale sure but offer freebies also. Highly educational and informative.
Dan Roddy is a retired musician and has no real credentials. Matt Stone has no credentials either. So uh, thanks but no thanks.
Mr. Roddy and Mr. Stone write blogs are based on their independent studies and personal self experimentation. They are independent investigators who offer their interpretation of various health theories based on their own personal experiences.
Credentials do not matter that much when it comes to topics like public health; there are so many who despite an "education" maintain closed minded, hypocritical, conformist & authoritarian views. Even "credentialed professionals" like Joseph Mercola, Dr. Oz and Andrew Weil spread disinfo; most of the media just repeats scripted info and lies that the masses are used to hearing, like fish oil is the cure for everything. I think you have to have an inner discernment to know what to believe and who to follow. If you don't have that than you should listen to whoever appeals you to the most.
Joseph Mercola kindly explains how we've all been dumbed down lol
"Mr. Roddy and Mr. Stone write blogs are based on their independent studies and personal self experimentation. They are independent investigators who offer their interpretation of various health theories based on their own personal experiences. "
"Mr. Roddy and Mr. Stone write blogs are based on their independent studies and personal self experimentation. They are independent investigators who offer their interpretation of various health theories based on their own personal experiences. "
Exactly.
If, by "independent investigators" you mean "people who do google searches," then yeah they're independent investigators. Just like me.
Unlike me, however, Mr. Roddy and Mr. Stone don't come here to tell anyone about their "discoveries." I, on the other hand, don't have a blog. What does this mean, in terms of credibility? Absolutely nothing. And that is exactly the point. Mr. Roddy and Mr. Stone have as much credibility as I do. The biggest difference, insofar as credibility is concerned, is that I actually -have- a City-Data presence. They do not.
This is so true. Same with everything else from bp to temperature and everything else involved in the functioning of our bodies. We're not mannequins, we are living biological systems which react to a million different factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonChick
There's no such thing as permanent weight loss. Your weight fluctuates almost daily, and hormones change with age. Your caloric needs change, and you can't adjust for those changes -before- they occur. You can only respond to them -after- they've occured. So there's no way for you to know that "in exactly 3 years, 2 months, and 25 days, I will begin my hormonal shift, and start gaining weight. The day before, I shall empty out my kitchen and prepare for a new menu." You have to get to that point first. And when that happens, you will already have begun gaining.
There's no way to eat -exactly- the same kinds of foods when you're 15, as you eat when you're 63, and weigh exactly the same every year inbetween.
You have to change your eating and exercise patterns to adjust to your body's changing needs. And you can't do that, until you notice that your body's needs are, in fact, changing.
That is why there's no such thing as "permanent" weight loss. You -will- gain and lose weight throughout your life. But if you're careful, and attentive to your body's changing needs, that gain and loss will be marginal.
Genes still determine most of our life. Sure, we can improve ourselves using the theories we like best (and boy are there health theories out there!), but regardless of what we do, we cannot change our genetic makeup.
We all know people who have taken good care of themselves and exercised, who became ill and/or died young from all manner of causes.
Still, mortality is scary, and we keep seeking that magic formula to avoid death or distance ourselves from it as much as possible.
My ancestors from Spain never walked into a gym, never kept a diet, never refrained from eating certain foods, and they lived well into their 90s and some their 100s, and they ate lots of grease and fats. There's too much we don't know.
On July 20, 1984, Fixx died at age 52 of a fulminant heart attack, after his daily run on Vermont Route 15 in Hardwick. The autopsy revealed that atherosclerosis had blocked one coronary artery 95%, a second 85%, and a third 70%.[3] Although there were opponents of Fixx's beliefs[who?] who said this was evidence that running was harmful, medical opinion continued to uphold the link between exercise and longevity.[4] In 1986 exercise physiologist, Kenneth Cooper, published an inventory of the risk factors that might have contributed to Fixx's death.[5] Granted access to his medical records and autopsy, and after interviewing his friends and family, Cooper concluded that Fixx was genetically predisposed (his father died of a heart attack at age 43 and Fixx himself had a congenitally enlarged heart), and had several lifestyle issues. Fixx was a heavy smoker prior to beginning running at age 36, he had a stressful occupation, he had undergone a second divorce, and his weight before he took up running had ballooned to 220 pounds (100 kg).[6]
Aside from that I think the article you posted was pretty good
The thing with genetics that makes it a slippery slope, is that some people use it as an excuse to -not- take care of their health. "Oh well who cares if I eat this twinkie, I'm genetically inclined toward obesity. This extra 50 pounds I have hanging off my thighs and stomach is genetic, not cause of the twinkie. I could go on a healthy, balanced diet today, and join a gym and become its most active member, and I'll still weigh 50 pounds too much tomorrow, because it's GENETIC."
And that can't be further from the truth.
Yes, there is a -propensity- toward obesity if you have the genetics for it. But again - if you are aware of that, then you can adjust for it, and maintain a healthy weight and a fit body. Apply genetics to anything "lung cancer runs in the family so who cares if I smoke 2 packs a day. I"ll get lung cancer regardless." "Alcoholism is genetic on my mother's side. So don't give me any crap about the 6-pack I drink every night, buster. I'm destined to be an alcoholic, and no amount of abstaining will prevent it."
Well guess what. Death is genetic too. Think about the implications of that, while you munch your twinkie, wash it down with beer, and smoke a Camel when you're finished.
Genes determine our -present existence.- They don't predict our future. They only predict the -capacity- for certain future issues. Your brown hair is genetic. Your baldness is genetic. Your alcoholism is not genetic. However, the *potential* to become addicted to alcohol, IS genetic. So if you avoid drinking in the first place, you won't become an alcoholic.
Same with obesity. If you spend your life being careful of what you eat, and how you exercise, you will "beat" the "genetic" propensity toward obesity, and not become obese.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
