From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: men in their thirties who never dated
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:43:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: convex.ewright.717781394
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <aa+p3aj@lynx.unm.edu> blowfish@carina.unm.edu (rON.) writes:

>In article <ewright.717696345@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>Finally, I am far from being the only person who the physical fitness
>>movement attacks for not having a perfect body.  Indeed, it's hardly
>>possible to watch television without seeing commercials that tell you
>>how out of shape Americans are, how they need to exercise more, all the
>>awful things that are going to happen if they don't, etc. 

>Because, Edward, what they are saying is true! Did you ever stop to think
>of that?  Americans, in general, are not very physically fit. 

Do you have any evidence to prove that?

>They do need to exercise more, 

Circular.  Americans need to exercise more because they are not fit
because they need to exercise more...

>lose weight, 

True, in many cases.  However, exercise will not always cause
people to lose weight.  It depends on the type of exercise you
do.  Look at any professional wrestler or football player.  Look
at the official head of the US fitness program, Mr. Arnold Schwartz-
enegger.  How much do you suppose those guys weigh?  (Hint: muscle
weighs more than fat.)
 
>stop smoking, 

Exercise won't cause you to stop smoking, either.  This is amptly
demonstrated by the fact that tobacco companies are among the leading
sponsors of major sports events.  They wouldn't do that if it though
it would reduce demand for their product.

>eat better, etc.

Maybe, but what is "better" is a matter of opinion.  I'll take
trout amandine, thank you, with a glass of apple cider and the 
white-chocolate mousse cake covered with raspberry sauce for 
dessert.  No raw carrots, gatorade, and Ultra Fuel for me.

>Being fit (and I'm not talking a rippling mass of muscle, but even just
>very light exercise, I think its been said that 20 minutes a day, 3 times
>a week, or 100-120+ beats per minutes exercise is enough to keep even the
>average american in shape) has benefits- longer endurance, faster recovery
>time from injury, less suseptibility to diseases, etc.

But the average American gets that much exercise already, not even
counting the things he does for exercise.  Why, if he just walks the
dog, he probably gets 20 minutes of exercise a day.  Mowing the lawn
is another 20 minutes of exercise.

I probably get less exercise than 98-99% of all Americans.  Yet Charlie
says that, according to his standards -- the standards of the DUMB Book 
of Diet and Fitness -- I must be considered "reasonably fit."  On the
other hand, Charlie also claims that a majority of Americans aren't fit.
Do you see a contradication in here somewhere?


>Let me, once again, tell you your argument back. (and the argument you should
>have used in the first place).
>"But the American Media portrays people who are not physically fit- those who
>are overweight, or are percieved as 'ugly' as being worth less than people who
>are physically 'fit'. The stereotypical 'hunk' >always< gets the stereotypical
>'babe'."

I'll agree with one addition.  The message also states that the
hunk *deserves* to get the girl.

>This, of course, is true.
>I don't know about you, though, Edward, but I stopped taking >my< role models
>from television a very long time ago.

Well, for "American media" you can subsitute "soc.singles" and it will
be just as true.
Newsgroups: soc.singles