M--Li wrote:
This is ridiculous. My thighs are pretty big (was a gymnast and a dancer for a million years and I pack on muscle easily) and measure 18.5 inches at their fattest point. I think anyone who has seen me in hotpants or a mini skirt could safely say I look very healthy!

Actually, you look damned healthy for someone who's over a million years old!

M--Li wrote:
This is ridiculous. My thighs are pretty big (was a gymnast and a dancer for a million years and I pack on muscle easily) and measure 18.5 inches at their fattest point. I think anyone who has seen me in hotpants or a mini skirt could safely say I look very healthy!

You are gonna die.

oh, wait.....

So am I and I have big thighs.

Damn.

We are all gonna die.

At least you will be a prettier corpse than me.

Tim Hammond wrote:

Responsible statistics 101: correlation does not equal causation.  Everyone who failed that lesson, go sit in the corner and talk about the statistical probability of an ignoramus correctly identifying the 37 sub-sub-cultures of punk narcissism in greater southwestern Bohemia.

LOL

I dont know anything about analysing statistics but i was thinking the other day in the doctors waiting room that you could say that a woman with grey hair had more chance of getting breast cancer, and you would probably (statistically) be right but that doesn't mean grey hair causes breast cancer I guess thats kind of the same thing.

Through Garys Eyes wrote:
...okay, after reading the entire document on the study published in the British Medical Journal (and reading between the lines), it appears that what they are actually saying is that...IF ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE EQUAL, LARGER THIGHS ARE BETTER THAN SMALLER THIGHS - UP UNTIL ABOUT 24" DIAMETER...

In other words, given 2 people of the same age, BMI, etc. - the one with bigger thighs (unless both have thighs larger than 24") is less likely to get heart disease or die.

Again doesn't that sort of agree with what i previously said, that there is less chance of heart disease if you carry your weight lower down rather than up top (waist, chest, arms, etc.)

I think thats pretty much down to genetics anyway, i carry most of my weight up top, i have no idea how you would deliberately lose weight from this area (rather than all over).

Tim Hammond wrote:

Responsible statistics 101: correlation does not equal causation.  Everyone who failed that lesson, go sit in the corner and talk about the statistical probability of an ignoramus correctly identifying the 37 sub-sub-cultures of punk narcissism in greater southwestern Bohemia.

correlation does not equal causation.
My psych prof. used to say that to us at least once a week.
He also came up with ridiculous charts.
Most of the time I find studies such as this used precisely as the op is.
'I really like x about a woman or man and this study justifies it.'
Or 'X look is in right now and this study justifies it as healthy'.
*Sigh*


L.

Through Garys Eyes wrote:
Actually, what has always baffled me more than anything is all the studies that indicate that people with a pear shape are healthier than people with an apple shape!

There have been so many studies that indicate this - I have to believe it...but it just seems SO counter-intuitive!!!

I dont know, if you think of it as the fat is more likely to settle around the heart in an apple shape then that kind of makes sense.

I know nothing about this sort of thing though, just a layman's attempt at rationalising it!

JadeDRed wrote:
I dont know anything about analysing statistics but i was thinking the other day in the doctors waiting room that you could say that a woman with grey hair had more chance of getting breast cancer, and you would probably (statistically) be right but that doesn't mean grey hair causes breast cancer I guess thats kind of the same thing.

You are totally correct...and that is why an established medical journal would never publish anything like your example.

I'm not trying to say that you should believe everything you read that is published in a medical journal - just understand that they have stringent criteria about what they publish...that it must meet strict scientific principles and protocols.  They don't accept simple correlation.

Through Garys Eyes wrote:
...okay, after reading the entire document on the study published in the British Medical Journal (and reading between the lines), it appears that what they are actually saying is that...IF ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE EQUAL, LARGER THIGHS ARE BETTER THAN SMALLER THIGHS - UP UNTIL ABOUT 24" DIAMETER...

In other words, given 2 people of the same age, BMI, etc. - the one with bigger thighs (unless both have thighs larger than 24") is less likely to get heart disease or die.

BTW - to all those who are saying that correlation doesn't equal causation...you should really learn about something called "scientific methodology".  Prestigious medical journals like the British Medical Journal do not publish studies that are based on simple correlation.

I do know a thing or two about scientific methodology.  It's been the basis of my living for many, many years.  Perhaps the British Medical Journal is an exception, but you'd be surprised what's been published in some very respected scientific journals.  You can't rule out garbage just because of the cover it's bound in.

That said, kudos to you for digging out and actually reading the primary article and for presenting the conclusion within its proper context.  If I wasn't in such a sour mood right now I might have done the same.  I dare say that all of us who've been discussing it without doing the due diligence that you did really don't have any business discussing it at all.

Steven Aiello wrote:
.

If you measure LESS then 18 inches around, your hearth failure risk sky rockets.

Around what?

Model Instincts wrote:
I mean 24" is the standard waist size of a high fashion model...so how 23.8" thighs pose a risk is beyond me.

I call BS on this report.

+1000

Rika LaRogue wrote:
Why haven't I had a heart attack yet?

You drink omega acids by the bucket?

You drink wine by the case?

You eat fish by the trawler load?

awardagency wrote:
http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/03/2052314.aspx

Ok so this was really kind of a joke at first, I didn't think it would spark so much controversy.  There are some people on this thread who are trying to "get my goat" from a past post I'm assuming, but beyond that yes according to some very valid medical journals my OP and the report was true. 

As far as being tiny and not being athletic I wasn't saying that at all.  Really most women of any size can be attractive, heck look at Queen Latifa, I think she's bangin!

This post was kind of a little poke at the modeling agencies I've worked with.  I did some head shots for a male model 5'10" and he weighed 135 lbs.  He agency told him he was fat and needed to loose 10lbs.

I love you all, including shapes sizes and colors.  Sometimes a little joke is just a little joke.  Please don't take it personally as I have a dry sarcastic sense of humor = )

Steven

Aryx wrote:
1) It's the combined measurement of both thighs that the report is talking about. Measure one thigh, and then the other and add them up. No, they typically are not the same measurement around.

2) When will the schools start teaching the difference between 'then' and 'than'? Oh, and drop the 'y', and add 'ies'.

I read the report - I wondered if maybe that was what they were talking about - but the original document clearly says that they measured the right thigh at the thickest part just below the buttock.

Mae Vetere wrote:
I think this study is a hoax. Some people are smaller framed and no matter what they do, they can't get their thighs this big.

Yes.

Tim Hammond wrote:

I do know a thing or two about scientific methodology.  It's been the basis of my living for many, many years.  Perhaps the British Medical Journal is an exception, but you'd be surprised what's been published in some very respected scientific journals.  You can't rule out garbage just because of the cover it's bound in.

That said, kudos to you for digging out and actually reading the primary article and for presenting the conclusion within its proper context.  If I wasn't in such a sour mood right now I might have done the same.  I dare say that all of us who've been discussing it without doing the due diligence that you did really don't have any business discussing it at all.

I better go read it when I get home tonight.  I have no problem discussing it based on the abstract tho.  they  can live or die on the abstract.

Steven Aiello wrote:
Actually I would almost find this backlash about the correlation between thigh size and heart failure funny, but doesn't it seem a little odd that a group of photographers would presume to know more about medical data then the British Journal of medicine?

Really you guys no more about medicine then doctors?   Hummmmmmmm

*Shrug*
Steven

really ... everyone knows photographers know more about law , not medicine

p.s. its a l10-year longitudinal study using a sample of about 2500 so even getting a reliable correlation is gonna be a hard sell.

Rhiannon Davis wrote:
23.8 inches for a thigh? That's the size of most high fashion models' waist's.

Around both thighs if you measure that around both thighs. There is no way they are talking about just one thigh. No way!

A N G I E wrote:

Around both thighs if you measure that around both thighs. There is no way they are talking about just one thigh. No way!

Understand that the population of this study was NOT fashion models...and the mean age of the group was high 40's.

Through Garys Eyes wrote:
...on the other hand...I am usually totally appalled by some of the studies that pharmaceutical companies have used to prove that their newest drug is effective.

A fairly typical scenario:  to prove that a cold relief medication works, they might have a control group of 100 people with a cold (who get a sugar pill) and an experimental group of 100 with a cold (who get their new drug).  Typical results: 47 of the control group get relief from their symptoms...and 55 of the experimental group get relief.  The new drug MUST be effective!!!  LOL

* If you think I'm exagerating, think again!  You would be SO surprised at how little evidence has been used to justify the use of some drugs to treat some diseases!

I've read some interesting stuff lately about how the placebo effect is actually getting stronger. An unexpectedly high proportion of people who are given sugar pills to treat depression see measurable improvements, in some cases almost as high as those given prozac.

While the study the OP talks about does indeed seem to show correlation, i'm not sure it rules even the reverse, couldn't people with strong hearts end up with bigger thighs...

Jay Leavitt wrote:
Correlation does not equal causation - basic science!

If small thighs = heart disease you must then equally believe that pirates are divine beings, and their disappearance is directly related to global warming. the chart proves it.

It'll be interesting to see if the uptick in piracy really cool global temperatures

Sian White wrote:
Some people really are dim - because of course fashion models and long distance runners with their skinny thighs are really healthy.

Erm hello - high risk group for heart attack anyone?

Why would this study be BS - it's pointing out the obvious - you get too skinny, it's not good. If you're fat up top and skinny down their, it's worse then the other way round. The further away your fat is from your heart, the better ergo cankles are better then a beer belly. It isn't rocket science.

That isn't what it's saying. It's saying if you have two people with identical bmi and other risk factors for heart disease then the one with the larger thighs will be less likely to have a heart attack.

I don't know about you lot, but i have little ability to control where i put on pounds. This might be an interesting clinical indicator, but it's not telling you to go out and eat up.

Edit: Sorry, confused your post with someone else. Long week