Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> > I read something in the past week or so in some
> > newspaper or another
> > (gotta be either the Austin American-Statesman or
> > the Wall Street
> > Journal) that it's marginally better to be fat and
> > fit than thin and
> > unfit. I think the list from best to worst then
> > goes:
> >
> > thin and fit
> > fat and fit
> > thin and unfit
> > fat and unfit
> <snip>
>
> <little nitpick> More than marginally better,
> actually.
>
> And once you're over 65 or so, it's better to have an
> extra 10-15 pounds on-board as "metabolic reserve,"
> for recovering from severe illnesses like double
> pneumonia, or major surgery. I also think it's better
> for osteoporosis, as adipose cells produce some
> estrogen (which does affect bones positively).
Yeah. I've heard that people who weigh more are less likely to have
problems with osteoporosis, partly because the stress of carrying extra
weight with those bones helps strengthen them. Strenth exercising with
weights, and not even terribly heavy ones (i.e., max 5 lbs. per
handweight), will help a lot with that, as well. I'm sure that the
Bowflexing I do (when I do it, anyway) doesn't hurt -- if you have extra
muscle tissue, that's a fairly useable reserve if you get very sick,
better in some ways than fat.
Actually, if you're fat and fit, you could have just enough fat to be
covering a good muscular physique! :) In which case, if the fat is
distributed in a more healthy way, you could be in better shape in the
long run than people who weigh less!
> Debbi
> who won't have to worry about lack of padding over her
> seatbones either ;)
Well, if the padding would actually stay under the seatbones when I sat,
instead of spreading itself out, I'd be just a little more comfortable.
:)
Julia
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
