Two many Fat Girls

Two many Fat Girls

Post by MJuri » Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:47:41


On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 04:33:26 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi

Quote:



>[snip]

>To Dot and Matt -- another thought on competitive sports: take a look at the
>gender balance in a step aerobics some time and test the hypothesis about the
>ranks of endurance being lined with men. I think this underlines my point about
>competitiveness -- the notion of a noncompetitive sport (like step aerobics)
>is somewhat perplexing to most men.

>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi
>http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

        Yes this is an excellant point. The percentage of women in
step, aerobic even some things like kick boxing classes is MUCH higher
than men. OTOH I'd say the weight room is much more weighted toward
men probably 3:1 or so. The aerobic room, running, cycling, rowing,
steppers etc seems to be fairly equal although guestimating more
tilted towards men.
        I live in a middle sized town 150,000 or so. The entire
surrounding area is appr 250,000 population. We have quite a few
"endurance" sports club and probably 15-20 local road running races
each year. Local meaning within a 15-20 minute drive. We also have
several cycling, rowing, adventure type races throughout the year all
local.  
        I think Donavan hit a very good point as the more competitive
the sport is it seems the higher the male participation. Aerobics etc
non competition for the most part, has very low male participation.
The races, pretty much entirely competitive, has a large male
presence. The races generally have even a higher male percentage than
the running clubs, which can be a bit less competitive and more
social.
        As I stated earlier I think this is drifting closer to a 50/50
split though.

~Matt

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by jj » Wed, 04 Feb 2004 09:23:53

Quote:


> >>Maybe it's all the cheese and brats Wisconsin's putting out, Then the
> >>corn from Iowa.

> >I can tell you what it is, I think.  Out here, there's a bit of the
> >vegetarianism/health food bug, which infects even meat-eaters like me, so we
> >mix our diets well.  And there's a bit more of the exercise bug -- you've
> >never
> >seen so many aerobics studios, martial arts studios, and fitness clubs.  And
> >the Midwest "steak and potatoes" diet is not our everyday meal -- it might be
> >a
> >meal for every 2 or 3 weeks.  My folks are Indiana farm-bred people, and yet
> >I
> >have experimented (in the past) with vegetarianism and fasting.  California
> >welcomes kooks like me without making us feel like the freaks we probably
> >are!

> Probably more of a cultural and social thing.  Yes, the people in Wisconsin,
> Minnesota and such are, uh, call them "supersized."  But, every year one
> magazine (Men's Health?) does a contest about the fattest place in America.
> The proverbial winner?   Houston, and usually half of their top ten is from

It was actually Detroit this year.

Anyway --

This "study" by Men's Fitness Magazine is junk science. What's really sad is
that other sources report it as if scientific fact. You know what
operationalizations (ways to measure) obesity they used? Things such
as number of pizza and ice cream places, weather, and number of
sporting goods stores. That tells us nothing about what the people
actually look like.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) did a study that was much more
scientific. They looked at more predictable factors such as actual
diets, amounts of exercise, and BMIs. Their list of the top five
fattest was San Antonio, Tx; Gary, In; Jackson, Miss.; Fort Wayne, In;
and Shreveport, LA.

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Larry McMaha » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 04:31:18




:> Salmon's not good for you either unless it's wild.

: Yeah, I read recently that the farm-raised salmon is fed a lot of ***
: fish that's loaded with PCBs. Does anyone have more info on this topic?

: It's praticularly troubling, because everyone's been shouting "Eat more
: salmon because the omega-3 fatty acids are so good for you!" We've been
: eating it 1-2 times per week, and the article I read said once a month
: max for farm-raised salmon.

: --Harold Buck

This is just one of the reasons I eat only wild caught Alaskan Salmon.

Larry

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Phil M » Wed, 04 Feb 2004 10:52:32



Quote:
> I've gone from 220lbs to now 185lbs and working towards
> 175lbs. Within the last two weeks, by tracking my caloric intake and
> expenditure, I've lost 9 pounds. No special diet, no "will power", no
> starving, nothing special, just knowing that the food choices (caloric
> intake) and exercising (caloric expenditure) I can control the weight,
> up or down.

Bingo! My diet exactly. Was 245, now 173 just by tracking everything and
limiting calorie intake while gradually increasing my running mileage.

  -Phil

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Terry Mors » Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:07:03

Quote:

> Yeah, I read recently that the farm-raised salmon is fed a lot of ***
> fish that's loaded with PCBs. Does anyone have more info on this topic?

Five Reasons Not to Buy Farmed Salmon:

http://SportToday.org/
--
terry

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by onefre » Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:39:50


Quote:


> > Salmon's not good for you either unless it's wild.

> Yeah, I read recently that the farm-raised salmon is fed a lot of ***
> fish that's loaded with PCBs. Does anyone have more info on this topic?

Yeah, I first heard about it on the Today morning show...
http://SportToday.org/
http://SportToday.org/
http://SportToday.org/
http://SportToday.org/
http://SportToday.org/
 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Dot » Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:08:04

Quote:


>>Things that are king (coho) or red (sockeye) seem to be labelled as such
>>- premium quality.

> Kings are chinook (tshawytscha), coho are a different species
> (kisutch).

oops. I knew I shoulda just kept to kings, reds, silvers - I always
mess-up the other names. Thanks.

Quote:
> If you look at nutrient tables, you'll see there are

>>different levels of nutrients in the different ones, with the kings and
>>reds being the earlier season fish and higher in nutrients (not sure if
>>this is coincidence or cause/effect).

> Springers/Summer season salmonids spent more time migrating up the
> river system before spawning in the Fall.  Therefore, over time they
> have evolved to store higher levels of fat and nutrients to sustain
> themselves.  Also, these fish have higher metabolic rates as the river
> water is warmer in the summer.  Therefore, they need even more
> nutrients and fat to survive.

> Fall run and winter run salmonids do not migrate as far and they
> travel in colder water (which lowers their metabolic rate).
> Therefore, they have less omega-3 oils and nutrients.

Thanks for this explanation. The levels showed such a consistent
decrease with lateness in season that I figured there must be a reason.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Jonathan Qui » Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:01:13

My understanding from something Ed Burke wrote is that the 4:1 ratio
of carbs to protein within a half hour after a workout replenishes
your glycogen stores more rapidly than carbs alone. Of course, the
protein is also necessary to rebuild and repair muscles...
Quote:

> Hmmm. I've always thought that neither rice nor beans provided complete
> protein, but that together they do and my nutrition pamphlet here agrees.
> Not so???
>     And I also thought that consuming protein after a hard ride was
> important to rebuild damaged muscle tissue - that carbs were important to
> consume before or during a ride for energy. Both the Armstrong/Carmichael
> Performance Program book and the Friel training book seem to say the same
> thing.
> --

> Steve Juniper
>                         "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere."



> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:04:31 -0500, "Proctologically Violated??"

> >         TenKMan is essentially correct.  It turns out that almost all
> >vegetables/fruits are significantly more expensive than meat, PER CALORIE.
> >Asparagus, per calorie, is thru the roof.  There are only a few vegetables
> >that are substantially cheaper than meat, per calorie: potatoes, corn,
>  rice,
> >and some beans.  Do the math.
> >          Now the question is, of the "cheap foods", which are the best?
> >Clearly more information leads to better/more economical choices, but
>  still,
> >"good quality" food is by no means cheap. Goddamm salmon costs a fortune.
> >          But rice is likely the saving grace.  Unbeknownst to most people,
> >it is in fact a complete protein, just not as dense as meat--which is in
> >fact a very, very good thing, the opinion of bodybuilding 'roidheads
> >notwithstanding.  Also, there are some studies floating around suggesting
> >the protein in rice has some extra benefits, altho they slip my mind.

> Two problems with rice:  (1) very little protein or fiber content,
> even though what little protein it has may be complete (2) high
> glycemic index of most types of rice.

> >          Is chicken "healthier" than meat?  Maybe.  But more important
>  than
> >the type of meat is the *cut* of the meat.  Most meats, chosen properly,
>  can
> >be quite lean.  Just have to choose yer hormone.

> >          Excess protein, IMO, is more of a villian than fat.  And not just
> >my opinion, but of knowledgeable biochemists/physiologists/epidemiologists.

> And worst of all is excessive intake of rapidly digestible (high GI)
> carbs, like white bread and potatoes.  These are only useful
> immediately after strenous exercise.

> >Fat is an easier target, tho.
> >----------------------------
> >Mr. P.V.'d
> >formerly Droll Troll



> >> >Actually not true even at home.  Try making a nice salad with romaine
> >> >lettuce, spinach, carrots, and tomatoes.  Then eat fish once a week and
> >> >maybe pasta and grilled chicken ***s.  It is more expensive to eat
> >> >healthy than cheap and fatty.

> >> What of that group is expensive? Chicken ***s are not at the
> >> expensive end of the meats and there are a lot of fish that are
> >> relatively cheap. If you aren't buying prepared foods or precut meats
> >> designed to look pretty int the package and overcharge as a result,
> >> healthy eating is no more expensive than 'regular' eating.

> >> And the more expensive 'steak' fish are by and large the least
> >> healthy. Hate that, because I love tuna steak and wish it would count
> >> for something...

> >> Picking through the few healthy fast food items is also no more
> >> expensive - it just often isn't what you expect without a score card.
> >> Know some people that buy the fully loaded McDonalds filet sandwiches
> >> and think they are eating healthy.

> >> Curtis L. Russell
> >> Odenton, MD (USA)
> >> Just someone on two wheels...

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Dot » Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:14:00

Quote:



> [snip]

> To Dot and Matt -- another thought on competitive sports: take a look at the
> gender balance in a step aerobics some time and test the hypothesis about the
> ranks of endurance being lined with men. I think this underlines my point about
> competitiveness -- the notion of a noncompetitive sport (like step aerobics)
> is somewhat perplexing to most men.

> Cheers,

Actually, step aerobics *is* a competitive sport. This is just one link.
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/news/media-releases/2001/STEPfinalists200...

Is it the perception of noncompetitive or a lack of understanding of the
  sport or a perception that it's not, hmm, appropriate for guys to do.
  Along these same lines, some other sports may be perceived as
noncompetitive by others.

I've never done step-aerobics nor seen it done, but from commercials
I've seen and what people have told me, I think it is quite an aerobic
and strength workout. Some things we do in my xt class, I think may be
similar to step aerobics. I have heard of some runners, usually trail,
being interested in doing step aerobics to improve foot work although
I'm not sure they actually did it or not. Or maybe they were after the
babes ;)

I think Doug may be on to something with his comments about a safe zone.
But in a more general sense, I think there may be local issues of what's
"cool" or individual issues of goals and interests - combined with
availability - that drives the male/female ratios. Let's face it, not
everyone lives near fitness centers. Lyndon's locality is looking for
babes ;) ; we might be looking for adventure and challenge, like trails
and mountains - or as method of maintaining fitness during the week or
over winter for longer weekend hikes or jobs or whatever. I dunno.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people"
-Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

 
 
 

Two many Fat Girls

Post by Donovan Rebbech » Wed, 04 Feb 2004 22:31:02

Quote:




>> [snip]

>> To Dot and Matt -- another thought on competitive sports: take a look at the
>> gender balance in a step aerobics some time and test the hypothesis about the
>> ranks of endurance being lined with men. I think this underlines my point about
>> competitiveness -- the notion of a noncompetitive sport (like step aerobics)
>> is somewhat perplexing to most men.

>> Cheers,

> Actually, step aerobics *is* a competitive sport. This is just one link.
> http://www.newcastle.edu.au/news/media-releases/2001/STEPfinalists200...

Yes, you can make a competition of almost any sport. The fact remains that
there are enormous numbers of people who participate in step aerobics, and
almost none of them compete. We have step aerobics classes at our gyms, but
I haven't heard of any local competitions, and I bet most of the people in
those classes wouldn't even know where to look for a competition (in the
unlikely event that they were actually interested in finding one) I took some
aerobics classes once (with several different instructors), and I certainly
wasn't informed of any competitions.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/