Would you consider yourself physically healthy?

cdybeijing · **#21**

hyperpape wrote:

There's a long article in the New York Times Magazine from a few weeks ago, proving that everyone who eats sugar or HFCS dies. It claims that there's no important difference for health between the two, and links them both to metabolic syndrome.

A striking point that I first heard a few years ago is that there is one small way in which the obesity epidemic is a good thing. One partial cause of rising obesity is decreased smoking, and obesity is much less dangerous than smoking. There are other causes of obesity, but so far as we've traded one for the other, that's a good thing.

Could you please post a link to the recent Gary Taubes piece?

hyperpape · **#22**

@cdybeijing: Sure.

@kirkmc, I was registering my mild distaste for the tone of the article, as worth reading as it might be.

Joaz Banbeck · **#23**

kirkmc wrote:

...

I left the US 26 years ago. At the time, obese people were rare....

A couple of weeks ago, Nation Public Radio reported:

NPR wrote:

The U.S. Coast Guard puts out a number that is important for companies running ferry boats and charters. For safety reasons, the operators are supposed to estimate the weight of the people on board. You don't want to overload the boat. Since the 1960s, the Coast Guard has told boat operators to assume that the average person weighs 160 pounds.

Now, in keeping with America's changing waistlines, the Coast Guard has raised the average weight. Boat operators must now assume that people weigh 185 pounds, which means that some boat companies will have to carry fewer people.

kirkmc · **#24**

cdybeijing wrote:

I am intelligent enough to not get into an argument with you, as I know how that will proceed. Needlessly, I will point out that I never suggested a minimum based on scientific evidence. If a male of 175 lbs drank about 3 liters of water a day they would virtually assure optimal hydration. It is not necessary to drink this much water; it is not necessary to be optimally hydrated to pass your existence.

Obviously, all fluids contribute towards hydration. Individuals can judge for themselves what and how much they are putting into their bodies. If you have ever been truly hydrated for a consistent period of 1-2 weeks, you would know beyond a doubt what the impact on health and function is.

Also, the guideline of monitoring your urine color is a good one, until it is clear or nearly clear. That won't happen drinking a liter and a half a day, at least not for this 175 lb male.

There is no way to specify a set amount of water one needs. It depends on what you do, where you live (I live in the mountains, in a very dry area, and was thirsty all the time the first weeks here), and how much you sweat.

3 liters is _a lot_ of water. If you drink that much, I'd suggest seeing a doctor and getting checked for diabetes; thirst is one of the first signs of the disease.

It's important to point out that you can drink too much water; you can even die from it. (You die from hyponatremia, or too little sodium in the blood.) There are plenty of cases of this, and it happens occasionally to runners, especially of marathons, who think that they need to drink as much as possible.

BTW, this sentence:

Quote:

If you have ever been truly hydrated for a consistent period of 1-2 weeks, you would know beyond a doubt what the impact on health and function is.

is pure woo stuff. As if one could be insufficiently hydrated for any period of time without being thirsty. It is a common woo myth that you can be "chronically dehydrated." The body doesn't work like that; if you need water, you're thirsty. If you don't need water, you're not thirsty. It's naturally better to drink so you don't get thirsty, but that other myth that says "you're dehydrated before you're thirsty" is just a myth as well.

kirkmc · **#25**

hyperpape wrote:

@cdybeijing: Sure.

@kirkmc, I was registering my mild distaste for the tone of the article, as worth reading as it might be.

Ah, I didn't read the sarcasm. I agree with much of what he says, but he has little scientific proof for much of it.

cdybeijing · **#26**

kirkmc wrote:

cdybeijing wrote:

I am intelligent enough to not get into an argument with you, as I know how that will proceed. Needlessly, I will point out that I never suggested a minimum based on scientific evidence. If a male of 175 lbs drank about 3 liters of water a day they would virtually assure optimal hydration. It is not necessary to drink this much water; it is not necessary to be optimally hydrated to pass your existence.

Obviously, all fluids contribute towards hydration. Individuals can judge for themselves what and how much they are putting into their bodies. If you have ever been truly hydrated for a consistent period of 1-2 weeks, you would know beyond a doubt what the impact on health and function is.

Also, the guideline of monitoring your urine color is a good one, until it is clear or nearly clear. That won't happen drinking a liter and a half a day, at least not for this 175 lb male.

There is no way to specify a set amount of water one needs. It depends on what you do, where you live (I live in the mountains, in a very dry area, and was thirsty all the time the first weeks here), and how much you sweat.

3 liters is _a lot_ of water. If you drink that much, I'd suggest seeing a doctor and getting checked for diabetes; thirst is one of the first signs of the disease.

It's important to point out that you can drink too much water; you can even die from it. (You die from hyponatremia, or too little sodium in the blood.) There are plenty of cases of this, and it happens occasionally to runners, especially of marathons, who think that they need to drink as much as possible.

BTW, this sentence:

Quote:

If you have ever been truly hydrated for a consistent period of 1-2 weeks, you would know beyond a doubt what the impact on health and function is.

is pure woo stuff. As if one could be insufficiently hydrated for any period of time without being thirsty. It is a common woo myth that you can be "chronically dehydrated." The body doesn't work like that; if you need water, you're thirsty. If you don't need water, you're not thirsty. It's naturally better to drink so you don't get thirsty, but that other myth that says "you're dehydrated before you're thirsty" is just a myth as well.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

kirkmc · **#27**

cdybeijing wrote:

kirkmc wrote:

cdybeijing wrote:

I am intelligent enough to not get into an argument with you, as I know how that will proceed. Needlessly, I will point out that I never suggested a minimum based on scientific evidence. If a male of 175 lbs drank about 3 liters of water a day they would virtually assure optimal hydration. It is not necessary to drink this much water; it is not necessary to be optimally hydrated to pass your existence.

Obviously, all fluids contribute towards hydration. Individuals can judge for themselves what and how much they are putting into their bodies. If you have ever been truly hydrated for a consistent period of 1-2 weeks, you would know beyond a doubt what the impact on health and function is.

Also, the guideline of monitoring your urine color is a good one, until it is clear or nearly clear. That won't happen drinking a liter and a half a day, at least not for this 175 lb male.

There is no way to specify a set amount of water one needs. It depends on what you do, where you live (I live in the mountains, in a very dry area, and was thirsty all the time the first weeks here), and how much you sweat.

3 liters is _a lot_ of water. If you drink that much, I'd suggest seeing a doctor and getting checked for diabetes; thirst is one of the first signs of the disease.

It's important to point out that you can drink too much water; you can even die from it. (You die from hyponatremia, or too little sodium in the blood.) There are plenty of cases of this, and it happens occasionally to runners, especially of marathons, who think that they need to drink as much as possible.

BTW, this sentence:

Quote:

If you have ever been truly hydrated for a consistent period of 1-2 weeks, you would know beyond a doubt what the impact on health and function is.

is pure woo stuff. As if one could be insufficiently hydrated for any period of time without being thirsty. It is a common woo myth that you can be "chronically dehydrated." The body doesn't work like that; if you need water, you're thirsty. If you don't need water, you're not thirsty. It's naturally better to drink so you don't get thirsty, but that other myth that says "you're dehydrated before you're thirsty" is just a myth as well.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Ok, prove it. Give me a link to a serious (non-woo) scientific article saying that comment you made above has any validity at all.

BTW, you might want to look at this:

http://saveyourself.ca/articles/water.php

And this, more technical article:

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/283/5/R993.full

Kirby · **#28**

cdybeijing wrote:

...

I am intelligent enough to not get into an argument with you, as I know how that will proceed. ...

BaghwanB · **#29**

kirkmc wrote:

There are lots of myths about water that float around - for example, the myth that drinking coffee makes you lose more water than what you consume with the coffee...

If that was true, I would have been a dessicated husk around 15 years ago. In one period of my life, I spent years drinking practically nothing but coffee and the occasional soda (and very rare fruit juice or Gatorade-style drink).

Thankfully now I'm a little (little...) more moderate about my coffee intake.

Bruce "Jitterbug" Young

jts · **#30**

I had the opportunity to ask a doctor the hydration question this weekend. She said that you should drink as much water as you lose in a day. This varies from person to person, but she says doctors often tell people to drink two nalgenes a day if they aren't sure (that's about 2L). She also said that pedialyte is, indeed, more hydrating than water, and water more hydrating than soda.

Now, obviously if you have some website that you trust more than an American medical professional, I can say nothing more.

hyperpape · **#31**

jts wrote:

Now, obviously if you have some website that you trust more than an American medical professional, I can say nothing more.

This presumes 1) that there is agreement among medical professionals (do doctors in Europe also say this?) and 2) that they are basing their advice on what the accumulated knowledge of medical professionals--one article I read said that the advice originated from a misreading of a study. Also, since drinking eight glasses definitely doesn't seem to hurt you, unlike some historically bad medical advice, it's not so likely to be revised.

Now, am I going to go up to a doctor and say "you're wrong, because I've read stuff online?" No, I'm usually not quite that dumb. But I might still harbor my doubts.

kirkmc · **#32**

There are lots of things that doctors get wrong. Fortunately, most of them are not life-threatening. There are lots of ideas that have become common that turn out to be false. (The NYT has a column where they look at health myths and say whether they are true or false.)

For example, the myth that spinach has a lot of iron was based on a mistake made more than 130 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinach#Sp ... d_the_myth

tealeaf · **#33**

kirkmc wrote:

There are lots of things that doctors get wrong. Fortunately, most of them are not life-threatening. There are lots of ideas that have become common that turn out to be false. (The NYT has a column where they look at health myths and say whether they are true or false.)

For example, the myth that spinach has a lot of iron was based on a mistake made more than 130 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinach#Sp ... d_the_myth

kirkmc, that link says that the story about the mistake 130 years ago was the myth, and that it was vitamin A content, not iron, that led to spinach being chosen as Popeye's favourite food.

Higher up in the article it points out that spinach is a rich source of iron:

Quote:

"a 180 g serving of boiled spinach contains 6.43 mg of iron, whereas one 170 g ground hamburger patty contains at most 4.42 mg"

On topic, I view myself as really quite healthy. I don't do capoeira as much as this time last year due to lack of time because of my twins. That's led to me putting on a little bit of weight, but I'm still on the lower side of the ideal weight band for my height and age. I'd really like to get back down to my pre-twin weight and fitness.

I drink a scary amount of tea every day, and supplement it with water. I definitely get dehydrated very easily, which results in me getting headaches and feeling very lethargic. Sadly, I didn't realise this for quite a few years; it was only when I went to the doctor about the lethargy, and he suggested drinking more water, that I put two and two together. (I was worried about diabetes, but luckily that all came up negative.)

I'm also vegetarian, which doesn't intrinsically mean that you're more healthy, but my wife and I love to cook and we have a very varied diet with all the right things in it.

So everything's good here.

tealeaf · **#34**

The paper referenced from the Wikipedia article is well worth a read, regarding the Popeye/spinach link: http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Sutton_Spinach_Iron_and_Popeye_March_2010.pdf. (I love papers like that.)

There are also far more subtle issues related to how much iron you get from spinach according to how it's cooked, but this probably isn't the right place for that discussion.

kirkmc · **#35**

tealeaf wrote:

The paper referenced from the Wikipedia article is well worth a read, regarding the Popeye/spinach link: http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Sutton_Spinach_Iron_and_Popeye_March_2010.pdf. (I love papers like that.)

There are also far more subtle issues related to how much iron you get from spinach according to how it's cooked, but this probably isn't the right place for that discussion.

Not only how it's cooked, but also how much vitamin C you consume. Like many nutrients, there's an interplay with other nutrients.

kirkmc · **#36**

tealeaf wrote:

I'm also vegetarian, which doesn't intrinsically mean that you're more healthy, but my wife and I love to cook and we have a very varied diet with all the right things in it.

I was a vegetarian for a long time, then, when my son was born 20 years ago, started eating meat again. (I don't think it's wise to not give kids meat.) Honestly, I did feel better eating meat than before, even though I was cooking a varied range of foods. I don't eat a lot of meat - we're big on brown rice, locally baked whole-weat bread, and local vegetables - but we get some amazing lamb and chickens (again, local), and I wouldn't give them up for anything.

tealeaf · **#37**

kirkmc wrote:

(I don't think it's wise to not give kids meat.)

No offence, but I didn't want to leave this statement out there without disputing it (assuming that it's based on nutritional rather than moral or philosophical reasons). I'm raising my twins vegetarian, and I looked into it very carefully when making the decision to do that. I often run into an unfounded belief that children need to eat meat when growing up, not least from my own family and even from the occasional doctor. It's simply not true according to current mainstream research, provided that you eat a healthy and well-balanced vegetarian diet.

It's even possible to raise a child vegan and get all the necessary nutrients, but you have to be extremely careful, and would probably need include fortified or supplemented foods.

Having said that, it's much easier to get all your dietary requirements from meat so having meat in the diet is an easy (and, I admit, delicious) way to make up for deficiencies elsewhere.

I'm certainly not evangelising, but I felt obliged to counter what I view as another very persistent and unfounded urban myth. (Easy, if not most detailed, reference: http://www.vegsoc.org/health/ and http://www.vegsoc.org/document.doc?id=9)

(As an aside, I've been vegetarian for about five years, for ethical reasons, and can't say that I noticed any difference in energy when making the transition. My wife has been vegetarian from birth. We're both very healthy.

)

Fedya · **#38**

BaghwanB wrote:

If that was true, I would have been a dessicated husk around 15 years ago. In one period of my life, I spent years drinking practically nothing but coffee and the occasional soda (and very rare fruit juice or Gatorade-style drink).

Judging by your avatar, it looks like the old wives' tale about coffee putting hair on your chest is quite true.

{ducking}

jts · **#39**

kirkmc wrote:

There are lots of things that doctors get wrong. Fortunately, most of them are not life-threatening. There are lots of ideas that have become common that turn out to be false. (The NYT has a column where they look at health myths and say whether they are true or false.)

For example, the myth that spinach has a lot of iron was based on a mistake made more than 130 years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinach#Sp ... d_the_myth

There are also lots of things that Wikipedia gets wrong. There are also lots of things that people summarizing knowledge which they have gleaned from WP get wrong. On the whole, though, what doctors are taught in American medical schools is, for all that I care, the sine qua non of authoritative medical knowledge. (And, hyperpape, it's not that I think American doctors are better than European doctors, it's just that the education of an American doctor is a good benchmark; the rest of the OECD has comparable medical outcomes, but different countries have different educational and licensing requirements, and the US is on one extreme of the spectrum.)

BaghwanB · **#40**

Fedya wrote:

BaghwanB wrote:

If that was true, I would have been a dessicated husk around 15 years ago. In one period of my life, I spent years drinking practically nothing but coffee and the occasional soda (and very rare fruit juice or Gatorade-style drink).

Judging by your avatar, it looks like the old wives' tale about coffee putting hair on your chest is quite true.

{ducking}

Now if it'd just apply to the top of my head...

Bruce "Tonsure" Young

Would you consider yourself physically healthy?

Who is online