Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

I read several versions of that study as they quickly passed in and out of 
the news lists.  I imagined every very heavy person saying "See, I knew I was 
more healthy all along!!"   But it is worth looking at the actual stats they 
are 
using, from the NY times article:

"For example, 5-foot-8 people weighing less than 122 pounds are underweight. 
If they weighed 122 to 164 pounds, their weight would be normal. They would 
be 
overweight at 165 to 196, obese at 197 to 229, and extremely obese at 230 or 
over."

Someon 5'8" tall and 122 pounds is NORMAL weight according to the beginning 
assumption.    Geeeesh that's thiiiiin!  I mean terminal cancer or Auschwitz 
victim thin.  A person that thin, especiall a man, but this would be true for 
most women too, a person that thin is not carrying around any apreciable 
amount 
of muscle.  While the article says that the study:  " controlled for factors 
like smoking, age, race and alcohol consumption", it did not control for 
whether the extra pounds were in the from of fat or muscle.  Big difference.

Many people have looked at those charts saying the ideal weight for a 5'8" 
person is 122 to 164 and dismissed it as impractical.  Someone doing much 
vigorous work isn't going to be able to be that light.  The study suggests 
that the 
ideal weight is a FEW pounds heavier than the chart says, the 5'8" person 
weighing a bit more than 122 up to 175 or so.  And one possible explanation 
is 
that vigorous people will naturally be carrying round some muscle and muscle 
is 
heavy, almost twice as heavy as fat.

James