Health / Food / Blood Pressure (merged)

gallois wrote:

Just look at how much people spend on buying a new bicycle or all that lycra gear and now added electric power. What’s wrong with the old vicars bike €50 from the local junk shop and why the lycra, you are unlikely to be going 100km on a Sunday morning averaging 25km hour.

I agree that most people are on the wrong bike, but not that newer bikes aren’t better than older bikes. The gears on a modern bike are far smoother; the brakes are better; if chosen carefully everything can be more reliable and easier to maintain. And if you get caught in a rainstorm, modern cycling clothing will chafe a lot less and dry out a lot sooner than jeans and a T-shirt.

I enjoyed cycling because although I have never been fast by roadie standards, I found it easy to go long distances. I had a flatmate who was reasonably sporty in her own way and not unfit, but who fatigued very quickly. An electric bike would have been good for her. One of my rather overweight colleagues has recently bought an electric bike and is now managing decent rides of 20-30 miles. The school gate monitor at my son’s school is 85 has always been a keen cyclist (perhaps part of why he is still working at 85) and has also just bought himself an electric bike. We have lots of 20% hills round here, so I can certainly see the appeal, and I think that electric bikes will make cycling a lot more accessible.

kwlf wrote:

Should we criticise those who haven’t the self discipline to keep off the chocolate?

Is chocolate really the big deal would be one part of the question.

I find the way you try to defend your consuming chocolate typical of the guilt instilled in people if they “succumb” to the temptation of chocolate or generally something they obviously like. My question is: In moderation and small quantities for a healthy normal weight person, what the hell is wrong with chocolate or cake? Or other “evil” foods people like? Isn’t there a huge difference between one like yourself who takes care and watches your diet and then have a piece of chocolate once a day and someone who lives on the stuff? Is it the same to see a fast food junkie who lives of McD and companies or one who has it as a treat once a month or more rarely?

Is complete denial and demonizing food the answer?

I think it is wrong to do that. First of all, it is human nature from the days of Eve and the apple that forbidden fruit tasts the best. Kids who are completely denied sweets, will find them and hide them or gobble them whenever they get the chance. Some adults do the same if they have a nagging spouse or similar. The climate this creates is one of distrust, antagonism and general unhappiness. I know people who all their life can not eat certain “healthy” food parents wish to force down their throths but, the moment they get the chance, will catch up on what their parents forbade them. Why are so many drug addicts and alcoholics out of “good homes”? Why are many people slim and slender until they reach the age where nobody naggs at them anymore? Why are many work desk drawers full of junk food?

I was not educated like this thankfully, nothing really was “forbidden” but we talked about things. Alcohol had no meaning to me till this day. I like the odd beer (mostly shandies) after a hard day of work and the odd glass of wine once or twice a year if someone else has one. Never had the incentive to try drugs or smoke, don’t drink coffee either. My “only” vice is being fat but I can’t blame that on anyone than myself (and yes, some of those mechanisms played into it) and I am working on it for myself now.

As to should we criticise all those who are overweight, in my own experience, constant nagging does not help but rather puts the overweight person into either a constant feeling of guilt and unhappyness, which then results in frustration eating and further weight gain, or it creates depression and mobbing. Constant criticism and looking down on people has not helped many people to loose weight, or if so under duress, then only temporary.

In my own experience, unless the person finds out for himself, with honest advise, not orders and threats, that a change of lifestyle is something he wishes to aspire to, all the spouses and doctors can talk all they want, they achieve the opposite. People in many ways fall back into denial and tantrum phases we know of 4 year olds when others want to rule their lifes. Being under constant scrutiny, being shamed, nagged and declared morally unfit persons will not make them change their ways for good, if at all they will relent for a short time and then revert back to their old ways. Jo Jo Effect, anyone?

Personally I have taken a concious decision to live more heathy and to loose weight for myself relatively recently and as the result of gaining full use of my left foot again after 4 years of failed treatments, thanks to a wonderful physiotherapist who previously worked for VFB Stuttgart, not for medicals, spouses or other external pressure factors, and also as the result of being a dad who wishes to give his daughter a fun life with outdoor sports and other things. I don’t deny myself anything totally, but I’ve reached the phase (a huge advancement for me) that I look at something and am able to ask the question, do I want to do / eat this now? Consequently, since the beginning of this, I have lost weight but also gained fitness. This is fun and satisfying. Trying to please others was not.

People who go this way will experience something else too: Their “success” is often ridiculed and even seen with misgiving by the very persons who previously nagged you for all these things. Some are fighting themselfs and are frustrated that you gain something while they do not. Some simply love nagging and are unhappy if you comply. This is one bit which can get a lot of people to give up again.

Regarding @Mooney_Driver s question earlier whetee being slightly overweight increases life expectancy: for some causes of death yes, for others no.

See this study in the renowned medical journal, The Lancet

3 632 674 people were included in the full study population; the following results are from the analysis of never-smokers, which comprised 1 969 648 people and 188 057 deaths. BMI had a J-shaped association with overall mortality; the estimated hazard ratio per 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was 0·81 (95% CI 0·80–0·82) below 25 kg/m2 and 1·21 (1·20–1·22) above this point. BMI was associated with all cause of death categories except for transport-related accidents, but the shape of the association varied. Most causes, including cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases, had a J-shaped association with BMI, with lowest risk occurring in the range 21–25 kg/m2. For mental and behavioural, neurological, and accidental (non-transport-related) causes, BMI was inversely associated with mortality up to 24–27 kg/m2, with little association at higher BMIs; for deaths from self-harm or interpersonal violence, an inverse linear association was observed. Associations between BMI and mortality were stronger at younger ages than at older ages, and the BMI associated with lowest mortality risk was higher in older individuals than in younger individuals

So basically, the risk of suicide, accidents or neurological diseases killing you is the lowest at BMI ranges 24 to 27 kg/m², for most other causes of death it’s lowest between 21 to 25 kg/m². So being at the higher end of the normal range 24 to 25 kg/m² ish seems to be a “sweet spot” for low mortality.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

In my own experience, unless the person finds out for himself, with honest advise, not orders and threats, that a change of lifestyle is something he wishes to aspire to, all the spouses and doctors can talk all they want, they achieve the opposite. People in many ways fall back into denial and tantrum phases we know of 4 year olds when others want to rule their lifes. Being under constant scrutiny, being shamed, nagged and declared morally unfit persons will not make them change their ways for good, if at all they will relent for a short time and then revert back to their old ways. Jo Jo Effect, anyone?

I agree with you entirely, and the point I was trying to make is that the environments we find ourselves in can be more or less enabling when it comes to eating healthily. It isn’t really an issue that most individuals can sort out themselves. Neither am I a particularly healthy person who eats a particularly healthy diet (though since getting my bike up and running again I am a lot fitter than I was). When I started work I was I was extremely fit, but the constant shift work surrounded by chocolates and crisps has taken its toll.

Some of my other bugbears are two for one deals in supermarkets. When it comes to food I think this leads to both overconsumption and wastage. I have never understood why a tiny 35g packet of crisps costs only slightly less than a 150g packet, and so on.

Hm, a follow-up question if I may. Being more in the weight class of @Mooney_Driver, I remember having received a letter from the CAA a while ago letting me know to reduce weight below a certain BMI level until the next medical examination.
Well, I turned 98% veg and my blood data are way better now, but still having some room to go weight reduction wise.
So, why are they still referring to BMI, in my view analyzing blood data (and whathever more) would make more sense?

kwlf wrote:

I agree with you entirely, and the point I was trying to make is that the environments we find ourselves in can be more or less enabling when it comes to eating healthily. It isn’t really an issue that most individuals can sort out themselves. Neither am I a particularly healthy person who eats a particularly healthy diet (though since getting my bike up and running again I am a lot fitter than I was). When I started work I was I was extremely fit, but the constant shift work surrounded by chocolates and crisps has taken its toll.

Agree… Working from home and being able to count calories for everything I eat helped a lot (back to normal weight, from 30+ BMI), although my diet is not healthy (sometimes I eat profiteroles or chocolate ganache cake?) I record everything I eat. I’m not sure how I’m going to cope back in the office with all the temptations around me!

kwlf wrote:

Some of my other bugbears are two for one deals in supermarkets. When it comes to food I think this leads to both overconsumption and wastage. I have never understood why a tiny 35g packet of crisps costs only slightly less than a 150g packet, and so on.

That really annoys me as well… When you do your online shopping and they have a deal you are about to miss (I do NOT need a second pack of cheese, I don’t eat it that much), this is emphasized and displayed on the screen in BOLD RED as if you are about to lose your house.

MikeWhiskey wrote:

So, why are they still referring to BMI, in my view analyzing blood data (and whathever more) would make more sense?

Ultimately, BMI is a relatively easy to use parameter. Of course it isn’t a sufficient predictor of health on its own, apart from the extreme ends of the scale. But neither is any lab parameter from blood tests. So, a doctor will always try to consider all information they have on the patient.

I think I’m right in saying that the CAA is interested in sleep apnoea as well as general health, and this is strongly correlated to obesity.

I wonder if there is some non-physiological association between better mortality and closeness to median weight within a society.

Typical people do typical things in a society that is generally safer for those who are typical.

Two (not very good) examples:

On the one hand, I guess doctors are better at diagnosing and treating the ailments they see most often, more medicines are available for them, etc.

On the other hand, the less common active outdoor activities become, the less safety provision there is for them.