The problem with aruging the validity of weight loss from a scientific standpoint is that nobody can agree on what they mean when they say "weight loss." Does it mean any weight loss? A loss of X pounds? A reduction of adipose tissue only? A loss of a percentage of one's current mass? What percentage?
There isn't a good consensus on the definition of "overweight," either. The tool currently in use, the Body Mass Index, was conceived as a way to measure trends in large populations, it wasn't designed to be a benchmark of health
The benefits of weight loss are cloudy too -- research is indicating that increasing one's strength and cardiovascular endurance lead to more positive outcomes than just losing weight.
It hasn't even been determined that being fat is in and of itself unhealthy, because studies haven't proven that being fat directly causes any problem (excepting joint stress and even that's manageable).
So it boils down to an arguement for a phenomenon whose success you can't define, to address a problem whose criteria you can't agree on, for health benefits you can't demonstrate . . . and for that matter, that problem you're trying to correct might not be that harmful anyway. And ply me not with "common sense." Common sense tells us the world is flat.
-BJ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment