Asymmetrical Information

So building muscle to help counteract the strain won't undo the damage

Technically, this is untrue. Muscle has a higher metabolic rate, which in turn aids in burning more fat.

Sigh?

Based on your photographs this appears to be a problem you don't have.

Wait a sec...there are photos of Jane?

So many questions.... What? Where? Why does no one ever tell me the important things? Is there a photo section of the blog? Are there photos of Mindless? So there is absolutely no chance that "Jane" is merely the feminine alter ego of Mindless (a minor possibility based on the 6'2" thing)? Does it strike anyone else as a little creepy that I am this excited by the possibility of photos of someone I apparently believe could be Mindless in a dress and a wig? (Not that there's anything wrong with that). Is this all some sort of cruel tease, leading up to a link for a pay-per-view site featuring Jane working at a quarry, or designing a modernist building, or at trial for protecting the integrity of her work?

(Note to self - Cut back on afternoon sugar consumption).

I recall a seeing a real photo once. (I could only wish to look like that.) I recall a lot of photos that bore a great resemblence to Cousin It. I don't recall any photos that indicated any sort of weight problem.

Photos of Mindless in the blogosphere have been very sadly lacking (sorry, but my blood sugar gets more bounced-up by beefcake than by cheesecake).

SomeCallMeTim my little liberal buddy....

Yes, Jane is a real woman, not mindless in a dress and she really is 6'2" and she's quiet pretty now that she has a decent haircut. There are photos floating around this site. Got to the archives and dig deep.

Right where I thought it was, scroll down the October 2003 archives for a photo of Jane, Tim. She really does look like that, except I've never actually seen the top of her head, so I can't confirm if the part is straight or crocked normally.

In fact, there is a picture of Mindles in his biography below. Unfortunately, this picture appears to be outdated. Perhaps Jane could put the October 2003 picture in her biography. It is a flattering picture and its spirit, the picture shows a tastefully dressed and aristocratic looking Jane at work with her messy desk in the background, suits an intellectual blog like Asymmetrical Information. The mess on the desk is the mess of a productive, intelligent person, i.e., it looks like my desk.

Back to the subject of the post. Starting about two years ago I started to lose some weight. It was much needed, as I am about 5'11" and weighted about 225 lbs. For the last year my weight has stayed at about 169-175 lbs. It took me about a year to lose the 50-55 lbs. It was not easy, but after taking the weight off I have had few problems. I suspect that part of the reason I have kept the weight off so far is that some of the habits I acquired losing the weight have stayed with me. Also, I found that losing about 5 lbs. a month, though not pleasant, is not that hard if you really try. My secret was to eat less and excercise more, which I know is boring to hear. I suspect that losing weight much faster, e.g., 20 lbs. in a month, would be quite difficult and perhaps dangerous without medical supervison. In any case, I just wanted to offer encouragement to anyone else who wants to loose weight.

Kate:

Thanks for the pointer. I looked at the photo from October. Love the height, love the hair, love the suit. Hate the glasses - there is something slightly schoolmarm-ish/dominatrix-ish about them, and not in the good way.

But very cute - so cute that I'm going to (a) ignore that she was wrong (sort of) about the Dems on Estrada (on Oct. page) and, (b) assume that the approving link to J. Goldberg at the Nat'l Review (top of Oct. page) is a result of a seriously drunken evening or a generally drunken boyfriend.

Next project, Kate - how do we move her to her rightful place in the DLC? At a minimum, the Dems offer glasses in a much prettier shade of rose, and they are no more useless in providing foresight.

There is a cute picture of her at tech central station; go to "select an author" and pull up Megan McArdle. But I prefer the dominatrix look, hee-hee.

Oh Tim, that's not gonna happen. I personally think it's just an overdeveloped sense of teenage rebellion (which she acquired in college), but try telling her that. On the other hand, she knows where I live nad has a very big dog that she can sic on me if I keep talking about her as if she doesn't read her own message-boards. When you get right down to it, she pretty much believes the same things I do. The difference is in how she feels it should be executed. That's where our political views differ.

Adipose tissue is basically an endocrine organ, which is something we've only realized in the past ten to 20 years. The older picture was of a passive lipid repository, but there are a variety of hormones secreted from fat cells.

Of course, there are several other unlikely tissues that turn out to be endocrine glands on the side (like the heart), but the mass of adipose tissue makes it a big player.

This has given us in the drug industry a lot of ideas for new therapies, but (unfortunately) many of them are very difficult to address. Finding small drug molecules to alter the signaling of big peptide receptors is very, very difficult - which is why there isn't an insulin pill, among other things.

I agree with the above comments about the photos, so I'll move on-topic. The ABCNews site has a related story today about treating diabetes by microsurgery to remove abdominal fat. Sorry, I don't have the link handy.

Kate:

On the one hand, I want to say "Don't give into defeatism. Now is the time for all good womyn...."

But on the other hand, I understand about big dogs and the women who wield them. (FWIW - Much to my dismay, I recently found out that there is a similar principle about big men and the women who wield them). Anyway, I can certainly understand your concern, and perhaps we should stop writing about She Who Cannot Be Named.

But perhaps, from time to time, I can pick your brain about a very similar friend of mine? Her name in Enaj.

Obesity is a huge and growing killer, in the United States just slightly behind smoking. Moderately obese people live two to five years less than normal-size folks. For the severely obese, the reduction in life span may be five to 10 years.

Okay, so we should be a bit concerned about obesity. But speaking as someone who has a lot more to worry about in this than Megan, let's keep things in perspective. The average 3.5 year loss in lifespan is less than 5% of a typical 75 year life. Trading 3.5 years of old age for 51.5 years of complacent adulthood may not be a bad deal.

Which reminds me of an illustrative joke. An old man celebrating his 100th birthday was asked his secret to a long life. "I watch what I eat, avoid fats, sugar, salt, and alcohol. Why, this birthday cake is made from whole wheat flour and tofu!"

"And this regimen has helped you live 100 years?"

"Yup! And it feels even longer!"

On the topic of photos, haven't any of you guys heard of links? For those of you who don't want to go wading through the 10/03 archive, here's a direct link to Megan's picture. Or see her in living color at Tech Central Station.

Mindles' rather outdated photo is here. And it's "Mindles", not "Mindless", you pinko-commie types!

Okay, so we should be a bit concerned about obesity. But speaking as someone who has a lot more to worry about in this than Megan, let's keep things in perspective. The average 3.5 year loss in lifespan is less than 5% of a typical 75 year life. Trading 3.5 years of old age for 51.5 years of complacent adulthood may not be a bad deal.

Is this ignoring the fact that said persons don't typically keel over and die 3.5 years sooner after a normal life, but rather that those 51.5 years of complacent adulthood may be accompanied by diabetes, hypertension, shortness of breath, and perhaps a non-fatal heart attack or two, along with associated medical treatments and stresses to one's friends and relatives?

I don't think we're merely talking about carrying an extra 15 pounds of unnecessary girth or whatever, but actual obesity, which can be quite bad for quality of life long before death.

Anony-mouse, given the way the federal government has been fiddling with the definition of obesity, it's hard to say what they mean. The CDC goes strictly by BMI (body-mass index), by which standard someone as tall as Megan is unlikely to be obese. They also make a distinction between overweight (BMI of 25-29.9) and obesity (BMI of 30+), but then say "According to the NIH Clinical Guidelines... all adults (aged 18 years or older) who have a BMI of 25 or more are considered at risk for premature death and disability as a consequence of overweight and obesity."

One problem is that they're measuring correlation rather than causation. It's not just that fat people get diabetes, but that diabetics are fat. Insufficient exercise is probably a better correlation to things like diabetes and heart disease, but that's much harder to measure.

And, true, obese people don't just keel over quietly at age 71.5; of course, non-obese ones don't just keel over quietly at age 75, either. IANAD (I am not a doctor), but my impression is that everyone dies of something, sooner or later.

BTW, here's the BMI formula from CDC, using English measures: 703 x weight in lbs/(height in inches)^2. (That's the human formula; not sure how to calculate BMI for mice, sorry. I'd guess you don't get to count your tail.) The 703 is a constant from converting from the metric BMI calculation, which is simpler: Weight in kg/(height in meters)^2.

Good BMI is considered between 18.5 and 24.9. So if Megan is 6'2", she'd better weigh at least 144 lbs, or she'll be underweight, which probably has its own set of dangers (blowing away with the wind springs to mind). But she'd have to weigh 194 before she was "overweight", let alone obese.

The Guardian has a story here about how fat isn't really bad for you. Of course, it's the Guardian, but it does make some interesting points.

BMI seems skewed to me. I'm 6' 5" and weigh about 235 lbs. 10 years ago, when I was in college, I weighed about 200 lbs. After college I started working out with weights. I've gained only about an inch in the waist, most of the additional weight is muscle mass. But according to the BMI charts, now I'm overweight. Shouldn't there be an adjustment there for body fat %?

And the Guardian article made sense, seemed reasonable and was reassuring. How eerie.

Comments are Closed.