Those "fitness" coaches on your friends-list...

[Riviera de la Mancha]

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Remind them, publicly, that "thinness" is not "fitness". You do not get fitness from a surgery slab. Fitness requires physical exertion, which they have not performed.

It's possible to be in peak physical form, and appear fat as hell, and it's possible to be pencil thin, and 1 foot in the grave. You can not ever get fitness without effort.

I was jiving until you said that its possible to be "in peak physical form, and appear as fat as hell".

If someone appears "fat as hell", then they are not, as a point of fact, 'fit', as fitness and the amount of excess fat needed to be "fat as hell" are in-congruent.

Actually, you're wrong on 2 fronts:

1: Being fat =/= being unhealthy in general. There are certain health complications that come with BEING fat, but simply being fat does not guarantee these concerns will arise.

2: When I said "appear fat as hell", what I'm referring to mostly, is those who have "a 6-pack in back of the fridge". Meaning that they're actually rather ripped, but happen to have it hidden under a layer of fat that makes them just look like they're fat as hell, when they really aren't.

To point: UFC fighter "Big Country" Roy Nelson.

The guy has historically looked like he'd be gasping for air after 3 minutes, yet if you talk to anyone who's fought him, that belly is solid rock. And he can outlast some of the best. He's in MUCH better shape than he looks ( although he HAS slimmed down a fair deal, in recent times ). Because he has some really good ab muscles, and had a healthy layer of fat covering them, giving the outward appearance of just being a lazy, fat b*****d.

I love how your 'you are wrong' argument for #1 is essentially 'You are right, but I want to tell you you are wrong'. That you recognize that certain health complications follow being fat is to agree with me. The proposition that someone can be fat as hell and fit are indeed in-congruent as a general matter, especially when the evidence shows a very high correlation with health and weight gain.

2.) What you point out is what you omitted when you chopped my post, which is so curiously always the case when people chop up my posts; they remove the part that addressed their comment. Roy Nelson is probably 'athletic' but his fitness is almost certainly minimal. He is likely what many fighters in the more extreme weight classes are; built to perform their task in their weight class. I have little doubt that the man can perform the tasks he was trained to do, but I seriously doubt he has any serious range of motion, or that he is particularly flexible, or that he can even do a great deal of cardio activity. This is most likely why he is cutting weight; fitness and being 'fat as hell' is largely a romantic notion.

Show me a fat Roy Nelson who can, say, complete the Ninja Warrior challenge and I will start to come around.

[Shark Bacon]

Yuck. Delete them. I always do. I had a "friend" that weighed like 400 pounds and ate nasty s**t every day- tons of fast food and suppers like cheeseburger pizza and other grossness (I know this because she shares EVERYTHING on Facebook). Never did anything to lose any weight. Then opted for weight loss surgery. She lost a ton of weight, then paraded it around on Facebook like she was the greatest thing ever. And people congratulated her on how much weight she lost. Like, really?

Anyway, five years later, she's getting fat again- those surgeries aren't some magical miracle. If you don't change your habits, you gain the weight back. Stomachs stretch.

End rant. Just delete them. Not even worth your time to argue.

[from blue to]

Sounds like there were some liars rotting away beneath all that fat just waiting to be exposed.

[X of Castigation]

All i know is that if I could afford steroids I'd take them.

[black_wing_angel]

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Remind them, publicly, that "thinness" is not "fitness". You do not get fitness from a surgery slab. Fitness requires physical exertion, which they have not performed.

It's possible to be in peak physical form, and appear fat as hell, and it's possible to be pencil thin, and 1 foot in the grave. You can not ever get fitness without effort.

I was jiving until you said that its possible to be "in peak physical form, and appear as fat as hell".

If someone appears "fat as hell", then they are not, as a point of fact, 'fit', as fitness and the amount of excess fat needed to be "fat as hell" are in-congruent.

Actually, you're wrong on 2 fronts:

1: Being fat =/= being unhealthy in general. There are certain health complications that come with BEING fat, but simply being fat does not guarantee these concerns will arise.

2: When I said "appear fat as hell", what I'm referring to mostly, is those who have "a 6-pack in back of the fridge". Meaning that they're actually rather ripped, but happen to have it hidden under a layer of fat that makes them just look like they're fat as hell, when they really aren't.

To point: UFC fighter "Big Country" Roy Nelson.

The guy has historically looked like he'd be gasping for air after 3 minutes, yet if you talk to anyone who's fought him, that belly is solid rock. And he can outlast some of the best. He's in MUCH better shape than he looks ( although he HAS slimmed down a fair deal, in recent times ). Because he has some really good ab muscles, and had a healthy layer of fat covering them, giving the outward appearance of just being a lazy, fat b*****d.

I love how your 'you are wrong' argument for #1 is essentially 'You are right, but I want to tell you you are wrong'. That you recognize that certain health complications follow being fat is to agree with me. The proposition that someone can be fat as hell and fit are indeed in-congruent as a general matter, especially when the evidence shows a very high correlation with health and weight gain.

Again, just because it's common, doesn't mean it's guaranteed. Your point was that if you're "fat as hell" you ARE unhealthy. My point is that it's not mutually exclusive, even if common. So no, it's not "you're right, but I wan to tell you you are wrong". You're just wrong.

Quote:

2.) What you point out is what you omitted when you chopped my post, which is so curiously always the case when people chop up my posts; they remove the part that addressed their comment. Roy Nelson is probably 'athletic' but his fitness is almost certainly minimal.

I don't know....the guy has a history of going the distance, win or lose. That's not an easy task for someone "unhealthy".

Quote:

He is likely what many fighters in the more extreme weight classes are; built to perform their task in their weight class. I have little doubt that the man can perform the tasks he was trained to do, but I seriously doubt he has any serious range of motion,

You accuse me of conflating health with athleticism, yet you're the one bringing up "minimal range of motion", which is a component of athleticism, and has ******** to do with overall health.

"Health" is things like having diabetes, or blood sugar problems. Of which, I know of none that he's ever suffered. For all we know, he's in damn decent health, even if he's had a history of carrying a big ol' keg around his midsection. Because, as I said, although there are some health complications that typically follow weight gain, simply gaining weight will not guarantee their onset.

Quote:

or that he is particularly flexible, or that he can even do a great deal of cardio activity.

3 rounds in the UFC is pretty decent cardio, dude.

Quote:

This is most likely why he is cutting weight; fitness and being 'fat as hell' is largely a romantic notion.

I'm of the mind it's probably an unconcerned side-effect of his training regimen. He does indeed do a lot of cardio for his continuing UFC career. It's kinda hard to stay fat when you do that.

Quote:

Show me a fat Roy Nelson who can, say, complete the Ninja Warrior challenge and I will start to come around.

Which, again, is ATHLETICISM. Not general health.

I couldn't complete ninja warrior, but I'll goddamn sure ace a general health exam. I have done it 3 consecutive years, now, since joining my current job, which offers wellness incentives on an annual basis. Which comes back to my original point, which directly contradicts yours, that "while there are health detriments that typically follow high weight, they are not mutually exclusive". Hell, skinny people can get those same problems.

[Riviera de la Mancha]

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Remind them, publicly, that "thinness" is not "fitness". You do not get fitness from a surgery slab. Fitness requires physical exertion, which they have not performed.

It's possible to be in peak physical form, and appear fat as hell, and it's possible to be pencil thin, and 1 foot in the grave. You can not ever get fitness without effort.

I was jiving until you said that its possible to be "in peak physical form, and appear as fat as hell".

If someone appears "fat as hell", then they are not, as a point of fact, 'fit', as fitness and the amount of excess fat needed to be "fat as hell" are in-congruent.

Actually, you're wrong on 2 fronts:

1: Being fat =/= being unhealthy in general. There are certain health complications that come with BEING fat, but simply being fat does not guarantee these concerns will arise.

2: When I said "appear fat as hell", what I'm referring to mostly, is those who have "a 6-pack in back of the fridge". Meaning that they're actually rather ripped, but happen to have it hidden under a layer of fat that makes them just look like they're fat as hell, when they really aren't.

To point: UFC fighter "Big Country" Roy Nelson.

The guy has historically looked like he'd be gasping for air after 3 minutes, yet if you talk to anyone who's fought him, that belly is solid rock. And he can outlast some of the best. He's in MUCH better shape than he looks ( although he HAS slimmed down a fair deal, in recent times ). Because he has some really good ab muscles, and had a healthy layer of fat covering them, giving the outward appearance of just being a lazy, fat b*****d.

I love how your 'you are wrong' argument for #1 is essentially 'You are right, but I want to tell you you are wrong'. That you recognize that certain health complications follow being fat is to agree with me. The proposition that someone can be fat as hell and fit are indeed in-congruent as a general matter, especially when the evidence shows a very high correlation with health and weight gain.

Again, just because it's common, doesn't mean it's guaranteed. Your point was that if you're "fat as hell" you ARE unhealthy. My point is that it's not mutually exclusive, even if common. So no, it's not "you're right, but I wan to tell you you are wrong". You're just wrong.

Quote:

2.) What you point out is what you omitted when you chopped my post, which is so curiously always the case when people chop up my posts; they remove the part that addressed their comment. Roy Nelson is probably 'athletic' but his fitness is almost certainly minimal.

I don't know....the guy has a history of going the distance, win or lose. That's not an easy task for someone "unhealthy".

Quote:

He is likely what many fighters in the more extreme weight classes are; built to perform their task in their weight class. I have little doubt that the man can perform the tasks he was trained to do, but I seriously doubt he has any serious range of motion,

You accuse me of conflating health with athleticism, yet you're the one bringing up "minimal range of motion", which is a component of athleticism, and has ******** to do with overall health.

"Health" is things like having diabetes, or blood sugar problems. Of which, I know of none that he's ever suffered. For all we know, he's in damn decent health, even if he's had a history of carrying a big ol' keg around his midsection. Because, as I said, although there are some health complications that typically follow weight gain, simply gaining weight will not guarantee their onset.

Quote:

or that he is particularly flexible, or that he can even do a great deal of cardio activity.

3 rounds in the UFC is pretty decent cardio, dude.

Quote:

This is most likely why he is cutting weight; fitness and being 'fat as hell' is largely a romantic notion.

I'm of the mind it's probably an unconcerned side-effect of his training regimen. He does indeed do a lot of cardio for his continuing UFC career. It's kinda hard to stay fat when you do that.

Quote:

Show me a fat Roy Nelson who can, say, complete the Ninja Warrior challenge and I will start to come around.

Which, again, is ATHLETICISM. Not general health.

I couldn't complete ninja warrior, but I'll goddamn sure ace a general health exam. I have done it 3 consecutive years, now, since joining my current job, which offers wellness incentives on an annual basis. Which comes back to my original point, which directly contradicts yours, that "while there are health detriments that typically follow high weight, they are not mutually exclusive". Hell, skinny people can get those same problems.

Are you kidding? Range of motion has a ton to do with overall health. Reduced range of motion is a product of Inflexibility. This is often, for example, a cause of muscular imbalance. An imbalanced muscular system causes poor posture, balance issues, and can lead to serious injuries when sudden movements are required. The body is a total system, so its simply nonsensical to think health is limited to whether or not you suffer from serious problems like diabetes or get heart attacks.

As to your assessment that health problems are simply "common" but not guaranteed, I am sure you are the guy who looks at a slot machine which says 'Pays out 15% of the time' and say 'Well, its not guaranteed that it will NEVER pay out...', amirite?

You can be "of the mind" all you want, but the simple truth is that health is not, as a general matter, compatible with being 'fat as hell'. Being 'fat as hell', is at best compatible with certain niche activities, such as heavyweight+ bouts or being a linebacker in football. Its not compatible with overall health.

[black_wing_angel]

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

I was jiving until you said that its possible to be "in peak physical form, and appear as fat as hell".

If someone appears "fat as hell", then they are not, as a point of fact, 'fit', as fitness and the amount of excess fat needed to be "fat as hell" are in-congruent.

Actually, you're wrong on 2 fronts:

1: Being fat =/= being unhealthy in general. There are certain health complications that come with BEING fat, but simply being fat does not guarantee these concerns will arise.

2: When I said "appear fat as hell", what I'm referring to mostly, is those who have "a 6-pack in back of the fridge". Meaning that they're actually rather ripped, but happen to have it hidden under a layer of fat that makes them just look like they're fat as hell, when they really aren't.

To point: UFC fighter "Big Country" Roy Nelson.

The guy has historically looked like he'd be gasping for air after 3 minutes, yet if you talk to anyone who's fought him, that belly is solid rock. And he can outlast some of the best. He's in MUCH better shape than he looks ( although he HAS slimmed down a fair deal, in recent times ). Because he has some really good ab muscles, and had a healthy layer of fat covering them, giving the outward appearance of just being a lazy, fat b*****d.

I love how your 'you are wrong' argument for #1 is essentially 'You are right, but I want to tell you you are wrong'. That you recognize that certain health complications follow being fat is to agree with me. The proposition that someone can be fat as hell and fit are indeed in-congruent as a general matter, especially when the evidence shows a very high correlation with health and weight gain.

Again, just because it's common, doesn't mean it's guaranteed. Your point was that if you're "fat as hell" you ARE unhealthy. My point is that it's not mutually exclusive, even if common. So no, it's not "you're right, but I wan to tell you you are wrong". You're just wrong.

Quote:

2.) What you point out is what you omitted when you chopped my post, which is so curiously always the case when people chop up my posts; they remove the part that addressed their comment. Roy Nelson is probably 'athletic' but his fitness is almost certainly minimal.

I don't know....the guy has a history of going the distance, win or lose. That's not an easy task for someone "unhealthy".

Quote:

He is likely what many fighters in the more extreme weight classes are; built to perform their task in their weight class. I have little doubt that the man can perform the tasks he was trained to do, but I seriously doubt he has any serious range of motion,

You accuse me of conflating health with athleticism, yet you're the one bringing up "minimal range of motion", which is a component of athleticism, and has ******** to do with overall health.

"Health" is things like having diabetes, or blood sugar problems. Of which, I know of none that he's ever suffered. For all we know, he's in damn decent health, even if he's had a history of carrying a big ol' keg around his midsection. Because, as I said, although there are some health complications that typically follow weight gain, simply gaining weight will not guarantee their onset.

Quote:

or that he is particularly flexible, or that he can even do a great deal of cardio activity.

3 rounds in the UFC is pretty decent cardio, dude.

Quote:

This is most likely why he is cutting weight; fitness and being 'fat as hell' is largely a romantic notion.

I'm of the mind it's probably an unconcerned side-effect of his training regimen. He does indeed do a lot of cardio for his continuing UFC career. It's kinda hard to stay fat when you do that.

Quote:

Show me a fat Roy Nelson who can, say, complete the Ninja Warrior challenge and I will start to come around.

Which, again, is ATHLETICISM. Not general health.

I couldn't complete ninja warrior, but I'll goddamn sure ace a general health exam. I have done it 3 consecutive years, now, since joining my current job, which offers wellness incentives on an annual basis. Which comes back to my original point, which directly contradicts yours, that "while there are health detriments that typically follow high weight, they are not mutually exclusive". Hell, skinny people can get those same problems.

Are you kidding? Range of motion has a ton to do with overall health. Reduced range of motion is a product of Inflexibility. This is often, for example, a cause of muscular imbalance. An imbalanced muscular system causes poor posture, balance issues, and can lead to serious injuries when sudden movements are required. The body is a total system, so its simply nonsensical to think health is limited to whether or not you suffer from serious problems like diabetes or get heart attacks.

True enough. I had misunderstood what you meant by "range of motion". So I'll give you that.

Quote:

As to your assessment that health problems are simply "common" but not guaranteed, I am sure you are the guy who looks at a slot machine which says 'Pays out 15% of the time' and say 'Well, its not guaranteed that it will NEVER pay out...', amirite?

Well 15% =/= 0%, now does it?

Quote:

You can be "of the mind" all you want, but the simple truth is that health is not, as a general matter, compatible with being 'fat as hell'.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

But entertaining you, if there is indeed an invariable, direct link, then why do skinny people often suffer from the exact same health concerns? And why do fat people sometimes not?

Quote:

Being 'fat as hell', is at best compatible with certain niche activities, such as heavyweight+ bouts or being a linebacker in football. Its not compatible with overall health.

Because you say so?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Actually, you're wrong on 2 fronts:

1: Being fat =/= being unhealthy in general. There are certain health complications that come with BEING fat, but simply being fat does not guarantee these concerns will arise.

2: When I said "appear fat as hell", what I'm referring to mostly, is those who have "a 6-pack in back of the fridge". Meaning that they're actually rather ripped, but happen to have it hidden under a layer of fat that makes them just look like they're fat as hell, when they really aren't.

To point: UFC fighter "Big Country" Roy Nelson.

The guy has historically looked like he'd be gasping for air after 3 minutes, yet if you talk to anyone who's fought him, that belly is solid rock. And he can outlast some of the best. He's in MUCH better shape than he looks ( although he HAS slimmed down a fair deal, in recent times ). Because he has some really good ab muscles, and had a healthy layer of fat covering them, giving the outward appearance of just being a lazy, fat b*****d.

I love how your 'you are wrong' argument for #1 is essentially 'You are right, but I want to tell you you are wrong'. That you recognize that certain health complications follow being fat is to agree with me. The proposition that someone can be fat as hell and fit are indeed in-congruent as a general matter, especially when the evidence shows a very high correlation with health and weight gain.

Again, just because it's common, doesn't mean it's guaranteed. Your point was that if you're "fat as hell" you ARE unhealthy. My point is that it's not mutually exclusive, even if common. So no, it's not "you're right, but I wan to tell you you are wrong". You're just wrong.

Quote:

2.) What you point out is what you omitted when you chopped my post, which is so curiously always the case when people chop up my posts; they remove the part that addressed their comment. Roy Nelson is probably 'athletic' but his fitness is almost certainly minimal.

I don't know....the guy has a history of going the distance, win or lose. That's not an easy task for someone "unhealthy".

Quote:

He is likely what many fighters in the more extreme weight classes are; built to perform their task in their weight class. I have little doubt that the man can perform the tasks he was trained to do, but I seriously doubt he has any serious range of motion,

You accuse me of conflating health with athleticism, yet you're the one bringing up "minimal range of motion", which is a component of athleticism, and has ******** to do with overall health.

"Health" is things like having diabetes, or blood sugar problems. Of which, I know of none that he's ever suffered. For all we know, he's in damn decent health, even if he's had a history of carrying a big ol' keg around his midsection. Because, as I said, although there are some health complications that typically follow weight gain, simply gaining weight will not guarantee their onset.

Quote:

or that he is particularly flexible, or that he can even do a great deal of cardio activity.

3 rounds in the UFC is pretty decent cardio, dude.

Quote:

This is most likely why he is cutting weight; fitness and being 'fat as hell' is largely a romantic notion.

I'm of the mind it's probably an unconcerned side-effect of his training regimen. He does indeed do a lot of cardio for his continuing UFC career. It's kinda hard to stay fat when you do that.

Quote:

Show me a fat Roy Nelson who can, say, complete the Ninja Warrior challenge and I will start to come around.

Which, again, is ATHLETICISM. Not general health.

I couldn't complete ninja warrior, but I'll goddamn sure ace a general health exam. I have done it 3 consecutive years, now, since joining my current job, which offers wellness incentives on an annual basis. Which comes back to my original point, which directly contradicts yours, that "while there are health detriments that typically follow high weight, they are not mutually exclusive". Hell, skinny people can get those same problems.

Are you kidding? Range of motion has a ton to do with overall health. Reduced range of motion is a product of Inflexibility. This is often, for example, a cause of muscular imbalance. An imbalanced muscular system causes poor posture, balance issues, and can lead to serious injuries when sudden movements are required. The body is a total system, so its simply nonsensical to think health is limited to whether or not you suffer from serious problems like diabetes or get heart attacks.

True enough. I had misunderstood what you meant by "range of motion". So I'll give you that.

Quote:

As to your assessment that health problems are simply "common" but not guaranteed, I am sure you are the guy who looks at a slot machine which says 'Pays out 15% of the time' and say 'Well, its not guaranteed that it will NEVER pay out...', amirite?

Well 15% =/= 0%, now does it?

Quote:

You can be "of the mind" all you want, but the simple truth is that health is not, as a general matter, compatible with being 'fat as hell'.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

But entertaining you, if there is indeed an invariable, direct link, then why do skinny people often suffer from the exact same health concerns? And why do fat people sometimes not?

Quote:

Being 'fat as hell', is at best compatible with certain niche activities, such as heavyweight+ bouts or being a linebacker in football. Its not compatible with overall health.

Because you say so?

Haha, just remind me to ALWAYS bet against you if you can look at 15% odds and think that's a good bet.

The problem with your question is that it assumes that, because I argue that being healthy is generally incompatible with being "fat as hell", I therefore assume that being 'skinny as hell' means that the person is healthy. I have never said that. Ever.

Again, its not compatible because when you look at health holistically, the people in those extremes are designed to meet their demands instead of being healthy. Health is balance for the person, and a person who is described as 'fat as hell' is not, by definition, balanced.

[black_wing_angel]

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

I love how your 'you are wrong' argument for #1 is essentially 'You are right, but I want to tell you you are wrong'. That you recognize that certain health complications follow being fat is to agree with me. The proposition that someone can be fat as hell and fit are indeed in-congruent as a general matter, especially when the evidence shows a very high correlation with health and weight gain.

Again, just because it's common, doesn't mean it's guaranteed. Your point was that if you're "fat as hell" you ARE unhealthy. My point is that it's not mutually exclusive, even if common. So no, it's not "you're right, but I wan to tell you you are wrong". You're just wrong.

Quote:

2.) What you point out is what you omitted when you chopped my post, which is so curiously always the case when people chop up my posts; they remove the part that addressed their comment. Roy Nelson is probably 'athletic' but his fitness is almost certainly minimal.

I don't know....the guy has a history of going the distance, win or lose. That's not an easy task for someone "unhealthy".

Quote:

He is likely what many fighters in the more extreme weight classes are; built to perform their task in their weight class. I have little doubt that the man can perform the tasks he was trained to do, but I seriously doubt he has any serious range of motion,

You accuse me of conflating health with athleticism, yet you're the one bringing up "minimal range of motion", which is a component of athleticism, and has ******** to do with overall health.

"Health" is things like having diabetes, or blood sugar problems. Of which, I know of none that he's ever suffered. For all we know, he's in damn decent health, even if he's had a history of carrying a big ol' keg around his midsection. Because, as I said, although there are some health complications that typically follow weight gain, simply gaining weight will not guarantee their onset.

Quote:

or that he is particularly flexible, or that he can even do a great deal of cardio activity.

3 rounds in the UFC is pretty decent cardio, dude.

Quote:

This is most likely why he is cutting weight; fitness and being 'fat as hell' is largely a romantic notion.

I'm of the mind it's probably an unconcerned side-effect of his training regimen. He does indeed do a lot of cardio for his continuing UFC career. It's kinda hard to stay fat when you do that.

Quote:

Show me a fat Roy Nelson who can, say, complete the Ninja Warrior challenge and I will start to come around.

Which, again, is ATHLETICISM. Not general health.

I couldn't complete ninja warrior, but I'll goddamn sure ace a general health exam. I have done it 3 consecutive years, now, since joining my current job, which offers wellness incentives on an annual basis. Which comes back to my original point, which directly contradicts yours, that "while there are health detriments that typically follow high weight, they are not mutually exclusive". Hell, skinny people can get those same problems.

Are you kidding? Range of motion has a ton to do with overall health. Reduced range of motion is a product of Inflexibility. This is often, for example, a cause of muscular imbalance. An imbalanced muscular system causes poor posture, balance issues, and can lead to serious injuries when sudden movements are required. The body is a total system, so its simply nonsensical to think health is limited to whether or not you suffer from serious problems like diabetes or get heart attacks.

True enough. I had misunderstood what you meant by "range of motion". So I'll give you that.

Quote:

As to your assessment that health problems are simply "common" but not guaranteed, I am sure you are the guy who looks at a slot machine which says 'Pays out 15% of the time' and say 'Well, its not guaranteed that it will NEVER pay out...', amirite?

Well 15% =/= 0%, now does it?

Quote:

You can be "of the mind" all you want, but the simple truth is that health is not, as a general matter, compatible with being 'fat as hell'.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

But entertaining you, if there is indeed an invariable, direct link, then why do skinny people often suffer from the exact same health concerns? And why do fat people sometimes not?

Quote:

Being 'fat as hell', is at best compatible with certain niche activities, such as heavyweight+ bouts or being a linebacker in football. Its not compatible with overall health.

Because you say so?

Haha, just remind me to ALWAYS bet against you if you can look at 15% odds and think that's a good bet.

No risk, no reward.

And I don't recall anyone saying anything about 15% being "good odds". I believe the comment made was that "Well it's not guaranteed that it'll NEVER pay out." Which is objectively true, if it's stated that "this machine pays out 15% of the time". That means that 15 times out of 100, it WILL indeed pay out.

Quote:

The problem with your question is that it assumes that, because I argue that being healthy is generally incompatible with being "fat as hell", I therefore assume that being 'skinny as hell' means that the person is healthy. I have never said that. Ever.

No, but it is somewhat implied. And again, if skinny people, aside from simply not being guaranteed good health, but can indeed be stricken with the EXACT SAME health concerns as a heavier individual...then why would you assume it is indeed a guarantee that a heavy person will be unhealthy? Especially when "healthy" is rather broadly defined, here.

Quote:

Again, its not compatible because when you look at health holistically, the people in those extremes are designed to meet their demands instead of being healthy. Health is balance for the person, and a person who is described as 'fat as hell' is not, by definition, balanced.

As defined by whom, exactly?

[Riviera de la Mancha]

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Again, just because it's common, doesn't mean it's guaranteed. Your point was that if you're "fat as hell" you ARE unhealthy. My point is that it's not mutually exclusive, even if common. So no, it's not "you're right, but I wan to tell you you are wrong". You're just wrong.



I don't know....the guy has a history of going the distance, win or lose. That's not an easy task for someone "unhealthy".



You accuse me of conflating health with athleticism, yet you're the one bringing up "minimal range of motion", which is a component of athleticism, and has ******** to do with overall health.

"Health" is things like having diabetes, or blood sugar problems. Of which, I know of none that he's ever suffered. For all we know, he's in damn decent health, even if he's had a history of carrying a big ol' keg around his midsection. Because, as I said, although there are some health complications that typically follow weight gain, simply gaining weight will not guarantee their onset.



3 rounds in the UFC is pretty decent cardio, dude.



I'm of the mind it's probably an unconcerned side-effect of his training regimen. He does indeed do a lot of cardio for his continuing UFC career. It's kinda hard to stay fat when you do that.



Which, again, is ATHLETICISM. Not general health.

I couldn't complete ninja warrior, but I'll goddamn sure ace a general health exam. I have done it 3 consecutive years, now, since joining my current job, which offers wellness incentives on an annual basis. Which comes back to my original point, which directly contradicts yours, that "while there are health detriments that typically follow high weight, they are not mutually exclusive". Hell, skinny people can get those same problems.

Are you kidding? Range of motion has a ton to do with overall health. Reduced range of motion is a product of Inflexibility. This is often, for example, a cause of muscular imbalance. An imbalanced muscular system causes poor posture, balance issues, and can lead to serious injuries when sudden movements are required. The body is a total system, so its simply nonsensical to think health is limited to whether or not you suffer from serious problems like diabetes or get heart attacks.

True enough. I had misunderstood what you meant by "range of motion". So I'll give you that.

Quote:

As to your assessment that health problems are simply "common" but not guaranteed, I am sure you are the guy who looks at a slot machine which says 'Pays out 15% of the time' and say 'Well, its not guaranteed that it will NEVER pay out...', amirite?

Well 15% =/= 0%, now does it?

Quote:

You can be "of the mind" all you want, but the simple truth is that health is not, as a general matter, compatible with being 'fat as hell'.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

But entertaining you, if there is indeed an invariable, direct link, then why do skinny people often suffer from the exact same health concerns? And why do fat people sometimes not?

Quote:

Being 'fat as hell', is at best compatible with certain niche activities, such as heavyweight+ bouts or being a linebacker in football. Its not compatible with overall health.

Because you say so?

Haha, just remind me to ALWAYS bet against you if you can look at 15% odds and think that's a good bet.

No risk, no reward.

And I don't recall anyone saying anything about 15% being "good odds". I believe the comment made was that "Well it's not guaranteed that it'll NEVER pay out." Which is objectively true, if it's stated that "this machine pays out 15% of the time". That means that 15 times out of 100, it WILL indeed pay out.

Quote:

The problem with your question is that it assumes that, because I argue that being healthy is generally incompatible with being "fat as hell", I therefore assume that being 'skinny as hell' means that the person is healthy. I have never said that. Ever.

No, but it is somewhat implied. And again, if skinny people, aside from simply not being guaranteed good health, but can indeed be stricken with the EXACT SAME health concerns as a heavier individual...then why would you assume it is indeed a guarantee that a heavy person will be unhealthy? Especially when "healthy" is rather broadly defined, here.

Quote:

Again, its not compatible because when you look at health holistically, the people in those extremes are designed to meet their demands instead of being healthy. Health is balance for the person, and a person who is described as 'fat as hell' is not, by definition, balanced.

As defined by whom, exactly?

Haha, what it means is that you have a really skewed sense of what odds are needed to say that the machine will not "generally" pay out. Most sane people would look at a machine that pays out only 15% of the time and say 'That machine doesn't generally pay out.' or 'Winning is generally incompatible with that machine'. Not you though! rofl And indeed, that has been my position; being "Fat as hell" is not generally compatible with being healthy. It may be compatible, at best, with being athletically inclined for particular sports or activities.

Haha, about the only way the negative is "implied" is if you think illogically, as that assumption is a classical fallacy. Its the reasoning equivalent of believing that because I say I don't like pepperoni as a topping for pizza, I must therefore like banana peppers, reasoning that because I don't like pepperoni (which is a meat) I must therefore dislike all meats and must like vegetables. Its totally nonsensical. Its entirely possible that I simply don't like pepperoni and maybe prefer other meat toppings.

And the definition I use is the common sense reading of "fat as hell", which conveys excess, or beyond the normal range. Same with saying someone is "skinny as hell" - such a person is so skinny as to be beyond what is considered normal and acceptable. It is in the extreme.

[black_wing_angel]

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

Are you kidding? Range of motion has a ton to do with overall health. Reduced range of motion is a product of Inflexibility. This is often, for example, a cause of muscular imbalance. An imbalanced muscular system causes poor posture, balance issues, and can lead to serious injuries when sudden movements are required. The body is a total system, so its simply nonsensical to think health is limited to whether or not you suffer from serious problems like diabetes or get heart attacks.

True enough. I had misunderstood what you meant by "range of motion". So I'll give you that.

Quote:

As to your assessment that health problems are simply "common" but not guaranteed, I am sure you are the guy who looks at a slot machine which says 'Pays out 15% of the time' and say 'Well, its not guaranteed that it will NEVER pay out...', amirite?

Well 15% =/= 0%, now does it?

Quote:

You can be "of the mind" all you want, but the simple truth is that health is not, as a general matter, compatible with being 'fat as hell'.

Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

But entertaining you, if there is indeed an invariable, direct link, then why do skinny people often suffer from the exact same health concerns? And why do fat people sometimes not?

Quote:

Being 'fat as hell', is at best compatible with certain niche activities, such as heavyweight+ bouts or being a linebacker in football. Its not compatible with overall health.

Because you say so?

Haha, just remind me to ALWAYS bet against you if you can look at 15% odds and think that's a good bet.

No risk, no reward.

And I don't recall anyone saying anything about 15% being "good odds". I believe the comment made was that "Well it's not guaranteed that it'll NEVER pay out." Which is objectively true, if it's stated that "this machine pays out 15% of the time". That means that 15 times out of 100, it WILL indeed pay out.

Quote:

The problem with your question is that it assumes that, because I argue that being healthy is generally incompatible with being "fat as hell", I therefore assume that being 'skinny as hell' means that the person is healthy. I have never said that. Ever.

No, but it is somewhat implied. And again, if skinny people, aside from simply not being guaranteed good health, but can indeed be stricken with the EXACT SAME health concerns as a heavier individual...then why would you assume it is indeed a guarantee that a heavy person will be unhealthy? Especially when "healthy" is rather broadly defined, here.

Quote:

Again, its not compatible because when you look at health holistically, the people in those extremes are designed to meet their demands instead of being healthy. Health is balance for the person, and a person who is described as 'fat as hell' is not, by definition, balanced.

As defined by whom, exactly?

Haha, what it means is that you have a really skewed sense of what odds are needed to say that the machine will not "generally" pay out. Most sane people would look at a machine that pays out only 15% of the time and say 'That machine doesn't generally pay out.' or 'Winning is generally incompatible with that machine'. Not you though! rofl And indeed, that has been my position; being "Fat as hell" is not generally compatible with being healthy. It may be compatible, at best, with being athletically inclined for particular sports or activities.

Actually, you're the one skewing things, here.

You specifically said being fat as hell is NOT compatible with being healthy. Meaning 0% payout. 15% > 0%. Simple math. You never said s**t about "generally".

I myself never said that being fat generally does compare to being healthy. I said it CAN. 15% payout being compatible with this assertion, and directly contradictory to your own original statement.

But nice attempt to shift the goal-posts, anyway.

Quote:

And the definition I use is the common sense reading of "fat as hell",

"Common sense" typically being a replacement for "I can't back this s**t up. Just take my word for it."

[Riviera de la Mancha]

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

Riviera de la Mancha

black_wing_angel

True enough. I had misunderstood what you meant by "range of motion". So I'll give you that.



Well 15% =/= 0%, now does it?



Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

But entertaining you, if there is indeed an invariable, direct link, then why do skinny people often suffer from the exact same health concerns? And why do fat people sometimes not?



Because you say so?

Haha, just remind me to ALWAYS bet against you if you can look at 15% odds and think that's a good bet.

No risk, no reward.

And I don't recall anyone saying anything about 15% being "good odds". I believe the comment made was that "Well it's not guaranteed that it'll NEVER pay out." Which is objectively true, if it's stated that "this machine pays out 15% of the time". That means that 15 times out of 100, it WILL indeed pay out.

Quote:

The problem with your question is that it assumes that, because I argue that being healthy is generally incompatible with being "fat as hell", I therefore assume that being 'skinny as hell' means that the person is healthy. I have never said that. Ever.

No, but it is somewhat implied. And again, if skinny people, aside from simply not being guaranteed good health, but can indeed be stricken with the EXACT SAME health concerns as a heavier individual...then why would you assume it is indeed a guarantee that a heavy person will be unhealthy? Especially when "healthy" is rather broadly defined, here.

Quote:

Again, its not compatible because when you look at health holistically, the people in those extremes are designed to meet their demands instead of being healthy. Health is balance for the person, and a person who is described as 'fat as hell' is not, by definition, balanced.

As defined by whom, exactly?

Haha, what it means is that you have a really skewed sense of what odds are needed to say that the machine will not "generally" pay out. Most sane people would look at a machine that pays out only 15% of the time and say 'That machine doesn't generally pay out.' or 'Winning is generally incompatible with that machine'. Not you though! rofl And indeed, that has been my position; being "Fat as hell" is not generally compatible with being healthy. It may be compatible, at best, with being athletically inclined for particular sports or activities.

Actually, you're the one skewing things, here.

You specifically said being fat as hell is NOT compatible with being healthy. Meaning 0% payout. 15% > 0%. Simple math. You never said s**t about "generally".

I myself never said that being fat generally does compare to being healthy. I said it CAN. 15% payout being compatible with this assertion, and directly contradictory to your own original statement.

But nice attempt to shift the goal-posts, anyway.

Quote:

And the definition I use is the common sense reading of "fat as hell",

"Common sense" typically being a replacement for "I can't back this s**t up. Just take my word for it."

the simple truth is that health is not, as a general matter, compatible with being 'fat as hell'.-------------- Me

You sure you want to try that whole "never said..." thing again?

And I am sure that you use common sense for that purpose, but I don't. I use it when someone uses a term that has a generally understood meaning.

What I have seen that's much more common is people playing dumb (or perhaps not playing in some cases wink ) when they used a term that was broader than what they intended to convey. Later, when someone points this out, it becomes too difficult for them to admit they made a mistake, so they pretend that very commonly used expressions actually don't convey their common expression. They have a special, arcane definition that just so happened to be used right here and now. So, say, when someone uses the expression "fat as hell", its not being used to convey excessively fat, or too fat to be appropriate. Now, its being used to mean that the person is just 'really muscular' and in shape, save for having a ridge of belly fat. Its just sooooo obvi, amirite? rofl