From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:33:59 GMT

In article <168BE97BD.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.210439.27220@netcom.com>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
>>The issue here is in the subject line, "Subject: Re: Why are many
>>low-income women fat?". Fat is only burned by aerobic exercise, therefore
>>aerobic exercise is a requirement to be non-fat, or lose fat. And if you
>>are seriously out of shape, aerobic exercise is the only exercise you will
>>benefit from.
> 
>Fat is only burned by aerobic exercise? If you have absolute proof of
>this, 

If you have absolute proof on -anything-, anything at all (except for
purely logical proofs) then you may well win some Nobel Prizes. Failing
that, your request for absolute proof shows that you do not do science.

>        do not delay- tell the medical community *immediately*. 

Do you think that -I- did the research?

>                                                                 Gee, all
>this time I thought that fat was burned when your caloric output exceeded
>your caloric intake! 

Such a simplistic model for the nineties.

>                        Can I cite you in my next article?  Seriously, you
>haven't taken any physiology courses in your life have you? It's okay-
>I've only taken one computer course.

Feel free.
  
>>This is new. Most women are smaller (shorter and less massive) than most men,
>>and because of this require less fuel. Where do you get your info for
>>men and women of "comparable height/weight"? Are you claiming that
>>there are metabolic differences which make the fat-burning/muscle-building
>>processes significantly different for men and women?
>>
>  Simply put, yes. If you really want references, and I can find some
>that I feel are accessible enough for you (maybe a Cosmo article?) I'll
>be glad to supply them.

Gee, sorry, never read Cosmo. Since _Science_ (dreadfully expensive to
subscribe to, even harder to keep up with) and _Science_News_ will not
do, and I do not get Cosmo, perhaps we can just discuss the subject?
  
>>None of the morbidly obese are getting enough exercise,
>>and probably have not been for quite some time. At this point, they will
>>probably go anerobic at a fast walk. It is more that likely that they
>>are equivalant because nothing equals nothing.
> 
>True, their caloric intake exceeds their caloric output.

As does almost everyone's. The average American's diet has, what, from
3000-5000 calories a day. Do you claim that the average American burns
3000-5000 calories a day? How many hours of continuous exercise would
that require? And yet, only some of these people are fat. How can that
be?
  
>>And curiously, if you postulate a more efficient female metabolism, it would
>>seem odd that, on the average, the men are 212% over while the women are
>>only 150% over. Do your figures show the men eating, what, 50% more than
>>the women?
> 
>My figures are based on my own clinical experience. FYI, a person who is
>212% of his ideal body weight is 112% over 

>(I'll write slowly). 

Do you feel superior writing condesending crap like this? If so, that will
be the only positive thing, the reinforcement of your attitude problem.

>                                                                  Women
>have been shown to be more likely to seek help earlier than men, so their
>level of obesity is generally less at the initial exam. Men tend to gain
>quite a bit more weight before they admit to having a problem. 

This makes sense.

>                                                                If you can
>your hands on some back issues of "Obesity Surgery" or back copies
>of the newsletter of the National Bariatric Surgery Registry (U of Iowa) you'll
>begin to realize that there *are* people who have done a significantly
>greater amount of work in this than you have, and we have the conceit to think
>that we might know a little bit more.

Firstly, I did not claim to have done -any- work in this area, your assertion
is based upon your preconceptions, not my post. Secondly, the surgical
solution of dietary and exercise problems would not lead to a natural
understanding of the problem. 

I'd be curious to find out how many liposuction patients stay in their
fat-reduced state for a reasonable leangth of time. I suspect that those
who do did so because of dietary changes and because they started to
exercise.

And lastly, your presentation of yourself as an authority is about the
weakest fallacious argument you can possibly make. If you really know
what you are talking about, you should have no need to make such claims.
And since you spent more time talking about your credentials than the
subject, I suspect that you are not much of an authority. Feel free to
demonstrate that this is just a poor first impression.


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism