On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 07:07:53 -0600, Philip <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Robert Kesterson wrote:
>> Maybe.  My point was that I spent the first 37 years of my
>> life on the SAD, ....  And at the end of those 37 years, other than
>> being a little overweight*, I did not have any major health issues.
>
> And that's what I and several other people here were talking about--many
> times people say "But I'm in perfect health other than..." and then give  
> one of the symptoms of modern foods syndrome (aka the diseases of  
> civilization), such as "being a little overweight."

I don't really disagree with you, however, I want to point out that at  
least in my case, my contention is that even being overweight had more to  
do with my activity level than my diet.  Throughout my young life (through  
my early 20's), I was "skinny as a rail", and heard every "bean pole"  
reference possible.  Then in my early 20's I started slowly gaining  
weight.  It took me 15 years to put on the extra weight.  My diet during  
those 15 years did NOT change -- my activity level did!  I went from being  
a kid who spent all his spare time hiking and fishing to an adult who  
spent all his time sitting in front of a computer, with very little spare  
time, and what little spare time I did have was typically spent doing more  
computer stuff.  I wasn't much into television, but with that exception  
was very much a "couch potato".  I was not averse to phsyical activity, I  
just seldom had the need or the time.  When I finally decided it *had* to  
change, and got off the couch (or computer chair), the weight came off.  I  
am firmly convinced I could still be eating the SAD today, just paying  
more attention to the quantities, and maintain my weight.

> I'll use a fictional example based loosely on your figures to illustrate  
> a
> point (and I hope this doesn't come across as picking on you,

No, not at all.

> doesn't really matter--ballpark figures will suffice for the example. A
> medium framed man of 6' 4" height is by American standards (which are
> heavier than the HG norm) supposed to range within 171-187 lbs. (which of
> course doesn't take into account percent muscle mass--but my  
> understanding
> is that HG's tend to be more muscled than Americans, not less).

The HG's must be *really* thin, then.  At my lightest bodyweight in recent  
years, I was 185 lbs.  At that weight, I was lean enough to clearly see  
the lower abdominal muscles, and some of the veins on top of them.  I  
wasn't quite "cover model" lean, but pretty close.  For me to get down to,  
say, 175, I would have to lose muscle mass, something I don't have that  
much of to start with.  (It could be done -- in high school I was about  
165 at this height, but I would not choose to be that thin again.  I'd  
have trouble showering if I turned sideways.  :-) )

> Since HG's tend to be fairly well muscled, BMI if anything likely 
> underestimates the level of obesity of moderns compared to HG's.

Exactly.  Which is one of the reasons I dislike BMI as a measure of  
anything.

> So what is considered "normal" in the U.S. today is not
> necessarily what is optimal.

Of that, I have absolutely no doubt.  Everybody I know singles me out as  
an unusual example of robust good health.  I see it just the opposite --  
I'm nothing special at all, *everyone* should be this healthy.

-- 
   Robert Kesterson
   [log in to unmask]