Tsk. I used to exercise much more than 3.5 hours a week. Gotta get back on that schedule.
2004-12-24 10:32 pm UTC (link) DeleteFreezeScreen Select
Yeah, but what exactly do the researchers count as exercise? Does a half-hour walk to and from the grocery store count towards those 3.5 hours? What about weight-lifting or yoga, neither of which really raise one's heart rate to the level of most cardiovascular exercise? 3.5 seems a rather high number to me, since most other sources I've seen claim that 60-90 minutes of cardiovascular exercise per week is sufficient, though more is always better.
(Reply to this)
2004-12-25 05:35 pm UTC (link) DeleteFreezeScreen Select
I don't have access to the New England Journal of Medicine right now, so I can't read the article and see how they defined exercise; the abstract is not enlightening.
Certainly, it's a higher number than I've seen cited before, either.
(Reply to this)
2004-12-26 07:51 pm UTC (link) DeleteFreezeScreen Select
i have to say... i don't consider weighing 135 at 5'2" as very "lean." dude. at least be honest about being overweight. say something like "not technically obese" or "barely obese" or something. "lean" certainly doesn't seem like the right term to use for someone that could be about 25 pounds over the ideal weight for their height. and i thought the term "obese" was supposed to be that you were 20% above your ideal weight. whatever happened to that? this is as ridiculous as my nurse trying to tell me that i'm not obese unless i'm 130 pounds so that i shouldn't worry about having gained weight.
(Reply to this)(Thread)
2004-12-26 07:54 pm UTC (link) DeleteFreezeScreen Select
not to mention... 55%, 95%, 140% chance of early death? who cooked up these funky numbers anyway? this country is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO overweight. as my sister would say "lay off the cheeseburgers, man."
(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)
2004-12-26 10:17 pm UTC (link) DeleteFreezeScreen Select
I didn't even notice the definition of lean. That's silly.
As for the percentages...those are percentage increases, which I tend to think are better expressed as fold. After all, 142% more likely does sound rather odd, whereas if you say 2.42x as likely, that's more intuitive.
But I totally missed that definition of lean. That's like the definition drift in clothing sizes.