Re: Calorie restriction vs muscularity for general health ?
From: Jan (shantigiri_at_luukku.com)
Date: 08/15/04
- Next message: fresh~horses: "Re: British druggists push OTC statins in pubs"
- Previous message: Robert: "Re: Excerpt: The Truth About the Drug Companies by Marcia Angell"
- In reply to: seuss: "Re: Calorie restriction vs muscularity for general health ?"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Calorie restriction vs muscularity for general health ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Aug 2004 22:51:54 -0700
"seuss" <seuss@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<10ht05j38o2hp2d@news.supernews.com>...
>
> I've seen several studies that show that fit fat people are better off than
> unfit thin people. It also appears that BMI doesn't matter much up to
> around 30; the optimum may be higher than the conventional 20-25; and being
> thin (ie BMI <20) is as unhealthy as being fat (BMI 30) - but this may be
> because some thin people are thin because they're already ill.
>
>
> Perhaps I should rephrase my question. I'm not ill. I'm fairly fit
> (cardiovascular) and getting fitter. I work out with weights and
> aerobically. My BMI is about 22. Should I maintain my current diet &
> weight and therefore not acquire further muscle, or should I eat more and
> build muscle slowly while minimising fat gain? If I do gain (primarily)
> muscle, is there a point at which that weight gain is deleterious to my long
> term health? Are those calorie-restriction people onto something or not?!
I think that your question is a good one. I have always thought that
preserving the health of the whole organism, preserving its ideal
functioning, is the most important factor in long term health. I think
that this is often overlooked by people who do a lot of weightlifting.
In order to gain weight to reach BMI of 30, I think that you have to
do a lot of anaerobic exercise. As far as I know, doing anaerobic
exercise leads to free radical formation, which is not good of course.
However, I think that doing little weightlifting is good so that you
can preserve your muscle mass.
These are just my thoughts, I have no results to back them.
I have read some studies that the conventional BMI 20-25 is actually
too high:
Willett writes: "A similar trend has been seen in the Nurses' Health
Study - among nonsmokers, those with stable weights and BMIs as low as
17 (someone who is five feet five and weighs one hundred pounds) died
at slightly lower rates than women with BMIs between 21 and 25."
(Willett: Eat, Drink and Be Healthy).
The risk of many illnesses - especially diabetes - start to rise
already from the BMIs over 21. _If_ the leanness is not due to
illness, it is healthy to have even leaner body weight from the
standpoint of long survival. The highest rate of survival might be
around BMI 19-20 if you don't count those people who have lost weight
because of some serious illness. (Perhaps there is some nutritional
epidemiologist who can correct me if I am not right.)
To answer your question: I think that your BMI 22 is very good. I can
not see any health reason why you should gain more muscle weight. I am
in favor of leanness and aerobic exercise (+ little weigthlifting).
Jan
- Next message: fresh~horses: "Re: British druggists push OTC statins in pubs"
- Previous message: Robert: "Re: Excerpt: The Truth About the Drug Companies by Marcia Angell"
- In reply to: seuss: "Re: Calorie restriction vs muscularity for general health ?"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Calorie restriction vs muscularity for general health ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|