PDA

View Full Version : Heart disease, death linked to slim thighs



megimoo
09-07-2009, 04:21 PM
Leg size may be a more accurate indicator of risks than the waistline. We know having a large waistline is unhealthy. But larger thighs, it appears, may protect against heart disease and premature death.

A study published on BMJ.com, the website of the British Medical Journal, found that men and women whose thighs are less than 23.6 inches have a higher risk of premature death and heart disease compared with those with thighs exceeding that size. Having thighs that are even bigger, however, confers no added benefit. The study is the first to suggest that thigh size matters. The measurement...


http://www.denverpost.com/ci_13273769?source=rss

Gingersnap
09-07-2009, 08:44 PM
This idiocy has to stop.

The primary risk factor for heart disease is........wait for it..............AGE.

For reasons known best known to the Lord, most people lose face, chest, and limb fat as a byproduct of aging. Belly fat, however, tends to increase. In whole population studies, most examples of heart disease will happen to people with extra belly fat and proportionally slimmer arms, legs, butts, faces, and upper chests. BECAUSE THEY'RE OLD.

This just in - a primary risk factor for senile dementia and putting green lawn satisfaction is gray hair. :rolleyes:

wilbur
09-07-2009, 09:05 PM
This idiocy has to stop.

The primary risk factor for heart disease is........wait for it..............AGE.

For reasons known best known to the Lord, most people lose face, chest, and limb fat as a byproduct of aging. Belly fat, however, tends to increase. In whole population studies, most examples of heart disease will happen to people with extra belly fat and proportionally slimmer arms, legs, butts, faces, and upper chests. BECAUSE THEY'RE OLD.

This just in - a primary risk factor for senile dementia and putting green lawn satisfaction is gray hair. :rolleyes:


Why so bent out of shape over a study? Are we to believe your ad hoc, non-expert opinion is worth more than professionals doing what appears to be rigorous research?

I am certainly open to the possibility that it might be poor research, but my experience tells me that its more likely to be yet another victim of pop-sci journalism.... but even in this case, the article doesn't seem TOO bad, though I haven't looked at the original material... but the anti-science streak runs deep in the modern conservatives... for shame.

megimoo
09-07-2009, 09:48 PM
Why so bent out of shape over a study? Are we to believe your ad hoc, non-expert opinion is worth more than professionals doing what appears to be rigorous research?

I am certainly open to the possibility that it might be poor research, but my experience tells me that its more likely to be yet another victim of pop-sci journalism.... but even in this case, the article doesn't seem TOO bad, though I haven't looked at the original material... but the anti-science streak runs deep in the modern conservatives... for shame.But the study is from the UK,the land of Rationed Socialized Medicine and Old Aged Medical death quotas .

It's just a ploy to have them gain weight and great bloody fat thighs . How many fat old folk have you snuffed today doctor ?

Gingersnap
09-07-2009, 10:03 PM
Why so bent out of shape over a study? Are we to believe your ad hoc, non-expert opinion is worth more than professionals doing what appears to be rigorous research?

I am certainly open to the possibility that it might be poor research, but my experience tells me that its more likely to be yet another victim of pop-sci journalism.... but even in this case, the article doesn't seem TOO bad, though I haven't looked at the original material... but the anti-science streak runs deep in the modern conservatives... for shame.

I write technical research papers which is why this kind of thing is so annoying. Correlation is not even a kissing cousin to causation, as you should know.

I have no bone to pick with medical research in general. However, as someone who has written a number of narrowly worded grant applications for a number of narrowly worded grants, I know a stretch when I see it and this is one.

This type of "research" isn't actually useful but it does pump more money into the field of food policy regulation. It also needlessly alarms people over 50 who are very likely to have slim thighs and a relatively thick waist regardless of race, gender, or activity level.

wilbur
09-07-2009, 11:09 PM
I write technical research papers which is why this kind of thing is so annoying. Correlation is not even a kissing cousin to causation, as you should know.

I have no bone to pick with medical research in general. However, as someone who has written a number of narrowly worded grant applications for a number of narrowly worded grants, I know a stretch when I see it and this is one.

This type of "research" isn't actually useful but it does pump more money into the field of food policy regulation. It also needlessly alarms people over 50 who are very likely to have slim thighs and a relatively thick waist regardless of race, gender, or activity level.

Prior experience tells me, that if we were to read the source material, we would probably not find such inferences in the actual paper. Nine times out of ten, the massive stretching comes at the hand of journalists... who present every mundane paper they write about as a paradigm changing scientific revolution.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the paper (nor as quick to accept it as truth)... but we can let it sit out there as free floating information, for which we have no satisfactory resolution... in the time the paper might get debunked, or perhaps it will inspire further research, and we might find doctors measuring our thigh diameters in annual physicals in the near future... and lives might possibly pro-longed as a result.

Getting mad at the science is the wrong reaction... get mad at the journalists and mad at the public for having naive expectations that this type of article can be taken seriously.

Rockntractor
09-07-2009, 11:13 PM
Prior experience tells me, that if we were to read the source material, we would probably not find such inferences in the actual paper. Nine times out of ten, the massive stretching comes at the hand of journalists... who present every mundane paper they write about as a paradigm changing scientific revolution.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the paper (nor as quick to accept it as truth)... but we can let it sit out there as free floating information, for which we have no satisfactory resolution... in the time the paper might get debunked, or perhaps it will inspire further research, and we might find doctors measuring our thigh diameters in annual physicals in the near future... and lives might possibly pro-longed as a result.

Getting mad at the science is the wrong reaction... get mad at the journalists and mad at the public for having naive expectations that this type of article can be taken seriously.

Have you ever thought about writing a book for insomniacs?

Gingersnap
09-07-2009, 11:27 PM
Getting mad at the science is the wrong reaction... get mad at the journalists and mad at the public for having naive expectations that this type of article can be taken seriously.

I am a scientist. I guess I've got an insider ticket for mocking my own profession even if this isn't my own field. I've certainly mocked my own field on this board and in professional journals when I felt the subject warranted it.

I'm not mad at "science" (whatever that could mean); I'm annoyed at the way we have to "do" science.

There is no unbiased, disinterested, knowledge-is-truth entity willing to dispense research money for open-ended studies. There is almost no money available for basic research - including government sources and including non-American government sources.

What little there is mostly in private hands. It's considered a cost-of-doing business by some pharma, tech, and engineering firms.

And you know what? It's always been this way. There was never any period of scientific, leash-free, blue-skying. That's a product of Hollywood. The fabled Ivory Tower - uncorrupted by the filth of profit or glory. Nothing more than a beautiful myth and look at how well we have actually done despite that.

wilbur
09-07-2009, 11:37 PM
I am a scientist. I guess I've got an insider ticket for mocking my own profession even if this isn't my own field. I've certainly mocked my own field on this board and in professional journals when I felt the subject warranted it.

I'm not mad at "science" (whatever that could mean); I'm annoyed at the way we have to "do" science.

There is no unbiased, disinterested, knowledge-is-truth entity willing to dispense research money for open-ended studies.


Well, it would be nice to have that, I agree.



There is almost no money available for basic research - including government sources and including non-American government sources.

What little there is mostly in private hands. It's considered a cost-of-doing business by some pharma, tech, and engineering firms.

And you know what? It's always been this way. There was never any period of scientific, leash-free, blue-skying. That's a product of Hollywood. The fabled Ivory Tower - uncorrupted by the filth of profit or glory. Nothing more than a beautiful myth and look at how well we have actually done despite that.

Then where is the "idiocy" you referred too? Is it that you don't see a superficially evident reason for why this particular study was useful or worthy of funds, after skimming the article?

Rockntractor
09-07-2009, 11:53 PM
Well, it would be nice to have that, I agree.



Then where is the "idiocy" you referred too? Is it that you don't see a superficially evident reason for why this particular study was useful or worthy of funds, after skimming the article?

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/asleep-computer-istock-de.jpg?t=1252381916
Now look what you did Wilbur!