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: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:04:39 GMT

In article <168BAA2A6.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.193914.9338@netcom.com>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
>>In article <168B88793.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
> 
>>>Exercise? I think you would have a tough time proving that lower income
>>>people get less exercise, especially since the most labor-intensive jobs
>>>(housekeeping, childcare, etc.) are usually poorly paid.
>>
>>Once again, you can work yourself to death and not get any exercise. The
>>two are not equivalant.
>>
>Rich, I think you're confused. Aerobic exercise is the best as far as the
>cardiovascular system is concerned; weight-bearing exercise is best for
>the skeletal system, etc. Housework, with bending, lifting, etc. uses an
>impressive number of calories, but may not be aerobic. That's okay, because
>while aerobics may an excellent form of exercise, it's not the only
>one.

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.
  
>>>And last, women are genetically more likely to gain and retain weight
> 
>>Curiously, this sounds like another stereotype. Perhaps the men just
>>get more excercise day to day.
> 
>No Rich, curiously, this sounds like differential human physiology
>between the sexes. Women's metabolisms on average are more efficient
>(ie require less fuel to maintain life) then men's of comparable height/weight.

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?

>Men get more exercise? It would be nice if you could attempt to prove it,
>but for now it sounds like another stereotype.

You missed the difference between work and exercise, or deleted it from
the text. Twenty minutes of walking is good exercise. Housework is hard
work, but not aerobic, or sustained aerobic for long enough.

>I have been collecting data for a few years now on morbidly obese people
>who elect to have gastroplasties (stomach staplings). There are more women
>who present, and they average about 150% of their ideal body weight (based on
>sex and height). The men in my study average 212% above their ideal body
>weight at the initial exam. There are other striking differences between the
>groups, but oddly enough I have found little difference in exercise levels.

Are you serious? 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.

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? 

>Diane


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism