UK women are 'fattest in Europe'

I hope it's just a typo and he meant mass.

If he meant to say mass, then the article "the" should not be there. And even if corrected, the claim is still bit vague. All useful power comes from the mass (as in fat)? All useful power comes from muscle mass (duh)?

I'd rather not fight, but if forced to choose, if it's wrestling, I'd rather fight a skinny guy. But if it's a real fight, I'd fight the fat guy. At least then if it looks like I'm losing I can outrun him. Besides, overweight guy is less likely to work out (assuming obviously that that overweight is fat, not muscle)
 
Can you please elaborate? I've never trained my ass but then again I'm not a fighter. Of course it's not all arm strength and there are a lot of other muscle groups involved when landing a punch (most of these muscle groups are not trained by simply having a lot of fat). But ass strength? Do explain please.
The ass strength is really important for landing good punches.
 
Donkey punches?
 
I'd rather have such government intrusion than obese children. Letting your kids become obese is a form of child neglect.

Depends on how fat they are.
There's a wide spectrum between chubby and 'will probably have his first heart attack before he turns twenty'.
See, the problem is... what are we using to measure it? BMI?
Every body is different.

Now, how about those kids right on the cusp? If your kid is overweight by 1 kilogram, and mine is right at the right weight... do you really think it is ok that you get punished?

What will this punishment include? Normally neglect = losing custody of the neglected child...

Is this an anglo-saxon thing?
Weren't you just in CA? Didn't you see a ton of fat Mexicans?
 
I hope it's just a typo and he meant mass.

Nnnnope. Anyone who thinks the power in a punch mainly depends on arm strength has never learned to throw a proper punch. Arm strength has relatively little to do with the matter; good punching power is generated from the legs pushing off the ground, and transmitted via the hips (i.e. the ass). A strong (and explosive) lower body is a requirement for throwing punches that can do much more than sting and annoy the opponent.

(I've got about 11 years of martial arts practice behind me. Full-contact karate, kickboxing, some Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, even a little Aikido and some faffing about with wooden versions of Japanese samurai weapons way back. Never made it beyond the "mediocre amateur" level but I've thrown a few punches in my time and learned a little about how to do that.)
 
Nnnnope. Anyone who thinks the power in a punch mainly depends on arm strength has never learned to throw a proper punch. Arm strength has relatively little to do with the matter; good punching power is generated from the legs pushing off the ground, and transmitted via the hips (i.e. the ass). A strong (and explosive) lower body is a requirement for throwing punches that can do much more than sting and annoy the opponent.

(I've got about 11 years of martial arts practice behind me. Full-contact karate, kickboxing, some Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, even a little Aikido and some faffing about with wooden versions of Japanese samurai weapons way back. Never made it beyond the "mediocre amateur" level but I've thrown a few punches in my time and learned a little about how to do that.)

I admit, I have only basic combat training. And like I said, there are a lot of muscle groups involved. And I admit, arm strength as a term is very misleading, as pectoral muscles are not arm muscles (they do, however, contribute to the strength of a punch for example). I suppose upper body strength is much better term.

I have this friend who is a bodybuilder. And I mean a serious body builder. I suppose this is only anecdotal evidence but he does throw stronger punches than anyone else (duh). We measured this with a device that measures punch strength. I go to the gym with him, and I can't say how "explosive" his lower body is but his upper body is certainly strong. And second, if you want to try and estimate how much feet and hips contribute, try punching sitting down (it would look weird I suppose). Now while a punch thrown when sitting down is obviously not as strong as a punch thrown when feet contribute too, it does give you some idea how much of it relies on upper body strength alone. And, although I have not actually measured the difference, I can certainly say that my punch, when sitting down, is strong enough to do more than just "sting and annoy".

By the way, wouldn't having extra fat make lower body less "explosive"?
 
See, the problem is... what are we using to measure it? BMI?
Every body is different.

Body fat % seems to be a good idea.
People are different, but not that different. If the kid is just chubby or slightly overweight there's no need fot intervention, but this kid for example is clearly over the line.

 
I have this friend who is a bodybuilder. And I mean a serious body builder. I suppose this is only anecdotal evidence but he does throw stronger punches than anyone else (duh).

And if he's actually a serious bodybuilder (and not just one of those fools who do a million arm exercises and nothing else), then he definitely has some serious lower-body strength.

By the way, wouldn't having extra fat make lower body less "explosive"?

This is a pretty iconic picture of a fat guy doing a vertical leap from standing:



No shortage of explosiveness there.
 
This is a pretty iconic picture of a fat guy doing a vertical leap from standing:


No shortage of explosiveness there.

And that is your average fat guy, and not say, a bodybuilder (seriously, are you kidding me?!)

By the way, I forgot to mention, the anabolic state induced by fatness may or may not induce significant hormonal changes. If it does, these changes may or may not be beneficial. Point is, the burden of proof is on you.

In adults, the kind of prolonged anabolic state induced by fat is common with obese people and people with eating disorders, so it is a bit questionable if it beneficial. And if it produces hormonal imbalances, it may in fact be detrimental. For example, bodybuilders who take testosterone without estrogen blockers will develop a tolerance for testosterone, while their body will start producing extra estrogen to fix the imbalance, which in turn will make the said person more womanly (growing man boobs for example). So all in all if you want to claim being fat alone packs on muscle, I would like you to prove it. In bodybuilding it is important to get enough calories but that does not prove getting calories will pack on muscle.
 
And that is your average fat guy, and not say, a bodybuilder (seriously, are you kidding me?!)

Not a bodybuilder; an elite-level olympic weightlifter. Certainly not an average fat guy, but a fat guy nonetheless. We're talking 160 kg on a guy who stands maybe 175 cm tall. And as you can see (especially if you google up some other pictures of the same guy where his gut is easier to see -- dude's name is Shane Hamman) a lot of those kilograms are fat. Yet this guy has won more weightlifting contests than anyone in his country with 30 or 40 kg less fat on them. (A hypothetical guy who weighed the same but was all muscle and less fat would surely be even better, but that hypothetical guy doesn't exist, or at least he can't compete in olympic weightlifting because they test quite rigorously for drugs there and there's no way that hypothetical guy can be like that without having used a lot of drugs.)

So all in all if you want to claim being fat alone packs on muscle, I would like you to prove it.

You are reacting as if this is some kind of shocking claim, it is really quite basic knowledge and a number of studies have shown this since forever. Take a relatively untrained person (i.e. someone with no more muscle mass than average) and overfeed him for a while without letting him train or anything, and he will gain weight; about one-third of the weight he gains for the first long while will be muscle, even while just sitting on his butt all day. There's nothing difficult or problematic about this; the difficulty lies in how the other two-thirds of the weight gain will be fat, and this is generally not desirable for most people. All the finicky details of diet and exercise programs are so because they seek to increase the relative muscle gain, and/or help you retain muscle and lose relatively more fat when you lose weight. But the fact is, that every single obese person you see walking around the place has got significantly more muscle under all that fat than a skinny person would have.

In the big strength sports (well, weightlifting and powerlifting more so than strongman contests, because strongman contests have a bigger element of endurance to them), it is utterly obvious that packing on extra mass even if only from fat is advantageous, at least up to some point (and that point is pretty obese; just look at all the superheavyweight record holders since forever). The long-term health effects of walking around for years and years with a lot of extra fat on you are another matter altogether.
 
Not a bodybuilder; an elite-level olympic weightlifter. Certainly not an average fat guy, but a fat guy nonetheless. We're talking 160 kg on a guy who stands maybe 175 cm tall. And as you can see (especially if you google up some other pictures of the same guy where his gut is easier to see -- dude's name is Shane Hamman) a lot of those kilograms are fat. Yet this guy has won more weightlifting contests than anyone in his country with 30 or 40 kg less fat on them. (A hypothetical guy who weighed the same but was all muscle and less fat would surely be even better, but that hypothetical guy doesn't exist, or at least he can't compete in olympic weightlifting because they test quite rigorously for drugs there and there's no way that hypothetical guy can be like that without having used a lot of drugs.)

What exactly are you arguing here? That somebody who lifts weight is stronger than someone who doesn't (duh)? That people who lift weights also put on fat? *Captain Obvious out*

You are reacting as if this is some kind of shocking claim, it is really quite basic knowledge and a number of studies have shown this since forever. Take a relatively untrained person (i.e. someone with no more muscle mass than average) and overfeed him for a while without letting him train or anything, and he will gain weight; about one-third of the weight he gains for the first long while will be muscle, even while just sitting on his butt all day. There's nothing difficult or problematic about this; the difficulty lies in how the other two-thirds of the weight gain will be fat, and this is generally not desirable for most people. All the finicky details of diet and exercise programs are so because they seek to increase the relative muscle gain, and/or help you retain muscle and lose relatively more fat when you lose weight. But the fact is, that every single obese person you see walking around the place has got significantly more muscle under all that fat than a skinny person would have.

In the big strength sports (well, weightlifting and powerlifting more so than strongman contests, because strongman contests have a bigger element of endurance to them), it is utterly obvious that packing on extra mass even if only from fat is advantageous, at least up to some point (and that point is pretty obese; just look at all the superheavyweight record holders since forever). The long-term health effects of walking around for years and years with a lot of extra fat on you are another matter altogether.

Gaining some fat builds some muscles to carry that fat around. But it is this extra increase that you are arguing (?) that I am asking you to prove. If it is common knowledge then please, provide source(s). Mind you I'm talking about a case where person gets a lot of fat but does not exercise.
 
Body fat % seems to be a good idea.
People are different, but not that different. If the kid is just chubby or slightly overweight there's no need fot intervention, but this kid for example is clearly over the line.

I get your point, but mine is, you have to have a clear standard... there has to be a line...
Where does that line go exactly?
And the one KG over or under situation still presents itself...

Just a sticky place for gubbamint to get involved, I think.
 
Ugh, pictures of fat kids freak me out for some reason. Fat adults are disgusting too, but kids are freakier.
 
And if he's actually a serious bodybuilder (and not just one of those fools who do a million arm exercises and nothing else), then he definitely has some serious lower-body strength.



This is a pretty iconic picture of a fat guy doing a vertical leap from standing:



No shortage of explosiveness there.

I hope he does not put that picture on a dating website.
 
A large gut is a sign of success

(at least that's what my dad says)
 
Well, I suppose this is relevant:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/11/obese_cleveland_heights_child.html

County places obese Cleveland Heights child in foster care

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- An 8-year-old Cleveland Heights boy was taken from his family and placed in foster care last month after county case workers said his mother wasn't doing enough to control his weight.

At more than 200 pounds, the third-grader is considered severely obese and at risk for developing such diseases as diabetes and hypertension.

But even though the state health department estimates more than 12 percent of third-graders statewide are severely obese -- that could mean 1,380 in Cuyahoga County alone -- this is the first time anyone in the county or the state can recall a child being taken from a parent for a strictly weight-related issue.

[...]

Lawyers for the mother, a substitute elementary school teacher who is also taking vocational school classes, think the county has overreached in this case by arguing that medical conditions the boy is at risk for -- but doesn't yet have -- pose an imminent danger to his health.

They question whether the emotional impact of being yanked from his family, school and friends was also considered.

"I think we would concede that some intervention is appropriate," Juvenile Public Defender Sam Amata said. "But what risk became imminent? When did it become an immediate problem?"

Children are ordinarily removed from their homes for physical abuse, neglect or undernourishment.

Amata said that in his decades as a public defender, he has seen children left in homes with parents who have severe drug problems or who have beaten their children, with the reasoning that there isn't an immediate danger to the child.

In this case, Amata said, other than having a weight problem, the boy was a normal elementary school student who was on the honor roll and participated in school activities.

Records show the child's only current medical problem, sleep apnea, is being treated and that he wears a machine nightly that helps and monitors his breathing.

"They are trying to make it seem like I am unfit, like I don't love my child," the boy's mother said.

"Of course I love him. Of course I want him to lose weight. It's a lifestyle change, and they are trying to make it seem like I am not embracing that. It is very hard, but I am trying."

[...]

Last year, the boy lost weight but in recent months began to gain it back rapidly. That's when the county moved to take the child, records show.

The mother said that when she found out that other kids and a sibling might be giving her son extra food, she tried to put a stop to it and explain to him that he could eat only certain foods.

She tried to follow the recommendations of the doctors, such as getting him a bike and encouraging him to get exercise.

The mother wonders what role genetics plays in the boy's condition -- both she and his father and some other family members are overweight, she said. However, she also has a 16-year-old son who is tall and thin.

The mother agreed to enroll the child in a special Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital program called Healthy Kids, Healthy Weight.

[...]

Earlier this year, Dr. David Ludwig, Harvard University professor and pediatric obesity expert, urged children's services agencies to intervene in severe cases when parents have failed to address a weight problem that leads to imminent health risks.

Ludwig, the co-author of an article that appeared in the Journal of American Medical Association this summer, said other interventions should be tried first and that children should be removed only as a last resort.

The article cited the example of a 12-year-old patient of Ludwig's who weighed 400 pounds and had developed diabetes, cholesterol problems, high blood pressure and sleep apnea -- conditions that could kill her before the age of 30.

But others question whether a future risk is enough to separate a child from a family.

Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics and medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said that before a trend of removing children takes hold, the broader public-policy issue needs to be explored.

"A 218-pound 8-year-old is a time bomb," Caplan acknowledged. "But the government cannot raise these children. A third of kids are fat. We aren't going to move them all to foster care. We can't afford it, and I'm not sure there are enough foster parents to do it. "

[...]
 
Taking the child away was a bit too extreme in my opinion. I say let the mother keep the child, but send the child to fat camp.
 
 
Top Bottom