Photographer
Westdahl Studio
Posts: 333
COEUR D ALENE, Idaho, US
Steven Aiello wrote:
This is no joke, all though I do find it funny...
Tonight on my (Michigan) local channel 7 news they did a story on thigh to heart health ratios.
Apparently if you measure LESS then 23.8 inches around at your thigh you have an elevated heart failure risk.
If you measure LESS then 18 inches around, your hearth failure risk sky rockets.
I was never really into the skinny ladies, guess science backs the guys who likes those athletic girls = )
I'll try and catch the rest of the report and update lol.
Peace and eat a cheese burger,
Steven More data please. The research appears to make assumptions rather than conclusions.
Photographer
Westdahl Studio
Posts: 333
COEUR D ALENE, Idaho, US
Victoria Julison wrote:
curious as to how they came to this conclusion... The conclusion comes from people who continue to advocate that fat people are as happy, as healthy, and as beautiful as people who live a healthy lifestyle. It is easy to lie to ones self.
Photographer
saiello
Posts: 1241
Ypsilanti, Michigan, US
Actually if you ladies/guy are really interested in this we were talking in my health class about how your body processes fats/carbs depending on when you eat them. This is from memory so don't take this is scripture, but if I do remember correctly there's something in the body that if you eat past (about) 7 to 8pm it's slightly different for each person the body will store the fat in the lower reigns of the body.
This could be 100% BS but heck I know know I carry my body fat almost exclusively in lower abdomen, my legs arms have always been rock solid, and I would do pretty much any rational thing to get rid of my spare tire lol. Maybe it works. *shrug*
Steve
Photographer
saiello
Posts: 1241
Ypsilanti, Michigan, US
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13456
Denver, Colorado, US
Digitoxin wrote:
Not according to the study. They, supposedly, found that smoking was not a contributing factor to their analysis. Read the study. It is as interesting as it is comical. Through Garys Eyes wrote:
That's actually NOT what the study said. For all the people who keep saying that correlation doesn't equal causation, let's look at what they did in the study (I'm going to paraphrase to simplify):
For analysis purposes, they put the participants into multiple groups and looked at the results within each group. Here are some of the groups they divided the participants into:
- smokers
- non-smokers
- people with diabetes
- people without diabetes
- obese people
- thin people
- people with family history of heart disease
- people without family history of heart disease
- and many more groups in a similar vein
What they found was that within each group, the ones who developed heart disease and/or died were the ones with the thin thighs.
In other words, no matter what OTHER factors are present - whether you are a smoker, have diabetes, have a family history of heart disease, etc. - you are at a higher risk for heart disease and death if you have thin thighs (they didn't say that smoking was not a factor in getting heart disease or dying, they said that whether you smoked or not - having thin thighs increased your risk).
AND they discuss that what they are talking about is thick, muscular thighs (like someone who walks for 30 minutes every day) versus thin, non-muscular thighs (like someone who just sits around and watches TV every day and never uses his legs).
It appears to me that the biggest problem with the study is how the media has reported it (it was just published on Thursday). In their rush to produce something sensational - they have been guilty of some sloppy reporting (IMO). If you read the abstract, it is not quite as cut and dry as the media is reporting it. Thank you for restating what I said. I added the bold this time. Mine is one sentence. Yours is several paragraphs. It says the same thing.
Model
VasilisaK
Posts: 4500
London, England, United Kingdom
That's just plain stupid. My thighs are 18'' (I just measured them for the first time in my life). I don't diet, I exercise regularly - they are just the size that my thighs are meant to be.
Model
JadeDRed
Posts: 5620
London, England, United Kingdom
VasilisaK wrote:
That's just plain stupid. My thighs are 18'' (I just measured them for the first time in my life). I don't diet, I exercise regularly - they are just the size that my thighs are meant to be. That doesn't mean you are less at risk! This study isn't saying hey people go get fatter in the slightest, it is saying people with bigger thighs (up to a point) are less likely to get heart disease.
Just to re-iterate, this study is NOT saying....
Fatter people are healthier
Skinny people are unhealthy
People with bigger thighs are more sexually attractive to men
Everyone should put on weight to get bigger thighs and therefore reduce their risk of heart disease
Its a scientific study not some personal insult to models or fatty propaganda.
Model
VasilisaK
Posts: 4500
London, England, United Kingdom
JadeDRed wrote:
That doesn't mean you are less at risk! This study isn't saying hey people go get fatter in the slightest, it is saying people with bigger thighs (up to a point) are less likely to get heart disease.
Just to re-iterate, this study is NOT saying....
Fatter people are healthier
Skinny people are unhealthy
People with bigger thighs are more sexually attractive to men
Everyone should put on weight to get bigger thighs and therefore reduce their risk of heart disease
Its a scientific study not some personal insult to models or fatty propaganda. I wasn't saying it is, I just pointed out that as far as scientific studies go, it's stupid.
While the risk rose for people with thighs smaller than the average of 60 centimeters (23.6 inches) in circumference, those with larger limbs didnât get additional protection, the study found. from bloomberg.com
So...it increases your risk but you don't get more protection when you have bigger thighs?
It was also surveyed on middle aged people, which doesn't reallly apply to most fashion models, or models in general.
They also haven't found why the risk is higher and make a few stabs in the dark. I usually expect scientific studies to have firmer conclusions and some sort of explanation of causality, not to end with 'maybe this, maybe that'.
Model
Dana LL
Posts: 576
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
17.4".. (just because I was curious)
Should I write my will now?
Model
ElisAbEtH
Posts: 2142
Charleston, West Virginia, US
I myself find bigger girls beautiful and I'm married to a Big guy and I think he's gorgeous! My thighs are probably bigger then they recommend but I'm healthy, minus me smoking 
Photographer
Solas
Posts: 10390
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Photographer
Laura Dark Photography
Posts: 6812
Columbus, Ohio, US
Then I'm going to live forever.
And Ever.
And Ever.
lol
Mine are bigger than most of the waists of the models who posted in here!!!!
Photographer
Jerry Nemeth
Posts: 33355
Dearborn, Michigan, US
I don't believe everything I see on the TV news!! 
Photographer
Jay Edwards
Posts: 18616
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, US
Steven Aiello wrote:
Apparently if you measure LESS then 23.8 inches around at your thigh you have an elevated heart failure risk.
If you measure LESS then 18 inches around, your hearth failure risk sky rockets.
Peace and eat a cheese burger,
Steven Really? Without regard to height? That seems odd...
What is the maximum measurement to be ''healthy''?
Opinion: Don't eat that cheeseburger.
Model
Shannon Reicks
Posts: 119
Valdosta, Georgia, US
It's not about skinny or fat...its about your BMI(body mass index) everyone should be within the weight limits for their height. It is good for people to exercise with cardio and with some sort of resistance such as weights. everyone is built different so there is not anything about a certain width of your hips or legs its about your overall health. If you are 5'6 and 90 lbs your not in the right range however if you are say 5'6 and between 115-130 you are good. If one has a good nutrition, exercises atleast 3 days a week with cardio and weights then they are healthy.
Model
Corkii_B
Posts: 4192
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Shannon Reicks wrote:
It's not about skinny or fat...its about your BMI(body mass index) everyone should be within the weight limits for their height. It is good for people to exercise with cardio and with some sort of resistance such as weights. everyone is built different so there is not anything about a certain width of your hips or legs its about your overall health. If you are 5'6 and 90 lbs your not in the right range however if you are say 5'6 and between 115-130 you are good. If one has a good nutrition, exercises atleast 3 days a week with cardio and weights then they are healthy. BMI is a pseudo-science and does not take into account what your body mass is actually composed of - it is suited only as a very broad brush.
What is more concrete is body fat percentage, muscle mass and dietary intake. Get blood tests done to see if you're deficient in anything rather than whipping out the tape measure and/or calculator and jumping to conclusions.
Model
avee
Posts: 363
Scarsdale, New York, US
Isn't there some type of height/thigh ratio to this 'research?'
Model
ciaogoodbyeadios
Posts: 1907
Los Angeles, California, US
I learned that people who carry the majority of their weight in their abdomin have a greater risk for heart diseases.
Which would make the "smaller" thigh theory seem legit.
However, if someone has a 16" thigh and a slim torso to match, I don't see how in the world they could possibly be at a greater risk than someone who's body is similarly proportioned, yet 4 inches bigger.
Model
Corkii_B
Posts: 4192
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Vogue_Junkie wrote:
I learned that people who carry the majority of their weight in their abdomin have a greater risk for heart diseases.
Which would make the "smaller" thigh theory seem legit.
However, if someone has a 16" thigh and a slim torso to match, I don't see how in the world they could possibly be at a greater risk than someone who's body is similarly proportioned, yet 4 inches bigger. Yup, the "apple" body type has been linked with increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nu … betes-risk
Type 2 diabetes, particularly when brought on by obesity, greatly increases your risk of other health issues such as cardiac and circulatory problems.
I'll take my less-than-23.8" thighs kthnxbai.
Model
Ossuary
Posts: 1671
San Francisco, California, US
I'm calling bullshit on this one. I walk everywhere. Fucking everywhere. And I eat wicked fucking healthy. And my thighs are barely 18" around. My waist is 24". And last time they checked my blood pressure, it was just fine. 
Photographer
saiello
Posts: 1241
Ypsilanti, Michigan, US
wow I'm amazed how little people know here about actual health and nutrition
o_0
Clothing Designer
Eclectic Visions
Posts: 1251
El Paso, Texas, US
hmm didn't even bother to read all the pages, but this sounds ridic
Clothing Designer
Eclectic Visions
Posts: 1251
El Paso, Texas, US
Ossuary wrote:
I'm calling bullshit on this one. I walk everywhere. Fucking everywhere. And I eat wicked fucking healthy. And my thighs are barely 18" around. My waist is 24". And last time they checked my blood pressure, it was just fine. well if thats on one side of the spectrum then I must be extremely obese with sleep apnea 
Model
Faith EnFire
Posts: 13514
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Model Instincts wrote:
Do you have a link to this? I was under the impression that naturally skinny people are healthier.
If you are talking about anorexia or bulemia, then yes, their heart will stop beating from prolonged abuse.
I'm not buying this. not necessarily
you can be skinny naturally and unhealthy. you can be a reasonable weight but if you don't have muscle you are still considered unhealthy. I was watching a pbs special about it. People of healthy weight but were still unhealthy because they little to no muscles
Model
Faith EnFire
Posts: 13514
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Karl Johnston wrote:
This sounds like crap to me. Of course the origin of this "test" is from one of America's statistically fattest of states (Michigan)
http://calorielab.com/news/2008/07/02/f … ates-2008/
Top 10 to be exact. that in and of itself has no bearing on the study itself
Model
Ossuary
Posts: 1671
San Francisco, California, US
Elegy Ink wrote:
well if thats on one side of the spectrum then I must be extremely obese with sleep apnea I wouldn't know, I don't speak for anyone but myself. What is healthy for me is not healthy for everyone. I know that I'm leading a lifestyle that's healthy for my body. It's not my job to tell anyone else what is healthy for them, or how they should look as a result of that.
Model
Nichole Hopkins
Posts: 2997
Los Angeles, California, US
i once knew a girl who had theighs the same width as her arms, give or take a few inches.....
gross..
Model
Koryn
Posts: 39496
Boston, Massachusetts, US
My thighs are generous, considering the rest of my body proportions, but they still only measure 21 inches around. The only time I was able to get them up to 23 was when I was doing INTENSE weight training, and eating like 3000 calories a day... Um, yeah... some people just aren't built that way...
My waist fluctuates between 24 and 25, so if I had 23-inch thighs and a 24 inch waist, it would probably look really bizarre. No thanks.
|
