regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/10/85)
I'm one of those skinny people who can't hold an extra 5 pounds if they tried. Scrawny is more descriptive. It's always amusing to me that when I say something about going to the health club (as in "I'm not going to do your work for you today, I'm going to the health club") the invariable response is "why -- you don't have to lose weight". It amazes me that people equate exercise with weight loss, and not with health. That's how lopsided our society has become. Seems to me it's more important that your body be in good shape, with muscle and good skin tone, and energized, than it be fat, thin, plump, whatever. If I get gawked at by fashion-mag-model-type-droolers-over, am I a happier person? No. If I get dismissed by the gimme-a-woman-I-can-hold-onto-type- droolers-over, am I crushed? No. It's a matter of supreme indifference to me, unless the ogglers are annoying, in which case I make a little trouble. When I do my own gawking, I look for efficient bodies. Muscle-bound men, as well as fat men, aren't efficient. Neither fat women nor fashionplate thin models who mince about in 6" heels are efficient. I admit to a preference for tall and thin, but I've spent plenty of time with short and stocky, too, as long as they were in shape. A recent study showed that a woman who jogs was almost 100% sure to leave her mate if he did not keep in shape. The reverse wasn't quite as dramatic, but there was a high percentage of men who would also leave their mates if the men were in shape and the women weren't. I doubt it was a very scientific study, but even so -- it makes a good deal of sense that if YOU value health and a strong body, you value it in your romantic contacts as well. To hell with fashion -- let's worry about conditioning instead.
sommers@topaz.ARPA (Mamaliz @ The Soup Kitchen) (04/14/85)
> > It amazes me that people equate exercise with weight loss, and not with > health. That's how lopsided our society has become. Seems to me it's more > important that your body be in good shape, with muscle and good skin tone, > and energized, than it be fat, thin, plump, whatever. > > When I do my own gawking, I look for efficient bodies. Muscle-bound men, > as well as fat men, aren't efficient. Neither fat women nor fashionplate > thin models who mince about in 6" heels are efficient. I admit to a > preference for tall and thin, but I've spent plenty of time with short and > stocky, too, as long as they were in shape. > > A recent study showed that a woman who jogs was almost 100% sure to leave > her mate if he did not keep in shape. The reverse wasn't quite as dramatic, > but there was a high percentage of men who would also leave their mates if > the men were in shape and the women weren't. I doubt it was a very > scientific study, but even so -- it makes a good deal of sense that if > YOU value health and a strong body, you value it in your romantic contacts > as well. > > To hell with fashion -- let's worry about conditioning instead. Oh come on now! I am beginning to think that people are also taking conditioning too far. Some of us just are not capable of getting in real good condition. Bad joints, disease, all sorts of things can make exercise almost counter-productive. Find me an exercise that will not agravatte arthritis and bursitis, and then maybe I will exercise. Yes, I value a strong body, but I don't want to be made to feel guilty that I dont have one. -- liz sommers uucp: ...{harvard, seismo, ut-sally, sri-iu, ihnp4!packard}!topaz!sommers arpa: sommers@rutgers
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (04/18/85)
> Some of us just are not capable of getting in real good condition. Bad > joints, disease, all sorts of things can make exercise almost > counter-productive. Find me an exercise that will not agravatte arthritis > and bursitis, and then maybe I will exercise. > -- > liz sommers Right on! Of course, I must admit that some people probably don't find my bad joints attractive anyway, much less the out-of-condition body that goes with them. Well, I'm glad I'm loved for more than my body...:-) From the decrepit fingers of... Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
hakanson@orstcs.UUCP (hakanson) (04/18/85)
> /***** orstcs:net.women / topaz!sommers / 10:12 pm Apr 13, 1985*/ > > Oh come on now! I am beginning to think that people are also taking > conditioning too far. > > Some of us just are not capable of getting in real good condition. Bad > joints, disease, all sorts of things can make exercise almost > counter-productive. Find me an exercise that will not agravatte arthritis > and bursitis, and then maybe I will exercise. Yes, I value a strong body, > but I don't want to be made to feel guilty that I dont have one. > -- > liz sommers > uucp: ...{harvard, seismo, ut-sally, sri-iu, ihnp4!packard}!topaz!sommers > arpa: sommers@rutgers > /* ---------- */ It seems that Americans go about these things in reverse. So many do sports of various kinds to "get into shape." Whereas the "right" way is to get into shape so you can enjoy sports. Otherwise you just hurt yourself. As for an exercise that anyone can do: My favorite is Tai Chi. There are a lot of others too (swimming, walking, ...). I could talk about Tai Chi all day (but I won't). Marion Hakanson CSnet: hakanson@oregon-state UUCP : {hp-pcd,tekchips}!orstcs!hakanson
jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (04/19/85)
In article <1207@topaz.ARPA> Liz Sommers writes: >Oh come on now! I am beginning to think that people are also taking >conditioning too far. > >Some of us just are not capable of getting in real good condition. Bad >joints, disease, all sorts of things can make exercise almost >counter-productive. Find me an exercise that will not agravatte arthritis >and bursitis, and then maybe I will exercise. Yes, I value a strong body, >but I don't want to be made to feel guilty that I dont have one. I wish to differ. There are always problems with exercising; it mostly comes down to a question of whether you want to or not. My father (who is 66) works in his garden most of the day, despite having arthritis, because he enjoys it so much. He complains about the pain, but it doesn't cramp his style at all. "real good condition" may not be neccessary for the benefits of exercise to be achieved. It all depends on what your goals are. -- Joseph Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (04/23/85)
> In article <1207@topaz.ARPA> Liz Sommers writes: > >Oh come on now! I am beginning to think that people are also taking > >conditioning too far. > > [...] > > I wish to differ. There are always problems with exercising; it mostly > comes down to a question of whether you want to or not. Exactly. Therefore it's a decision each individual has to make. Like dressing 'fashionably', or wearing a seatbelt (oops, getting into contro- versial territory), or taking kids to restaurants, or working in computer science, or being religious, or having a particular set of morals. If you make a decision on any one of these things and it affects someone else, then I think it's OK to argue (or, preferably, discuss... :-)). If your decision hurts nobody else, then why make them feel guilty about it? For example, I think it makes a lot of sense to be a science major, or at the very least to plan ahead for one's career & future life. But I have plenty of friends who majored in English, or French, or history, and have no plans for the future or any idea of what they want to do with their lives. But I don't think I have any right to make them feel guilty for this decision -- because it doesn't affect me, and because they are trying to make the best decision for THEMSELVES, not me. I personally don't have the time to exercise seriously. It certainly wouldn't hurt me to get more exercise (although I think I'm in reasonably good shape without it), but it would mean giving up something else. I choose not to. marie desjardins
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (04/24/85)
[] > Exactly. Therefore it's a decision each individual has to make. Like > dressing 'fashionably', or wearing a seatbelt (oops, getting into contro- > versial territory), or taking kids to restaurants, or working in computer > science, or being religious, or having a particular set of morals. If > you make a decision on any one of these things and it affects someone else, > then I think it's OK to argue (or, preferably, discuss... :-)). If your > decision hurts nobody else, then why make them feel guilty about it? Well, if someone I cared about was in the habit of not wearing seatbelts, I don't know if I'd try to make them feel guilty but I'd sure try to convince them to change. Likewise for someone who I thought was getting really out of shape. Of course, I would only do this with someone I was pretty close to. And this has absolutely nothing to do with diets, which I think without exception are a crock of s**t. Isaac Dimitrovsky