(no subject)
Apr. 21st, 2005 11:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Connecticut now has same-sex civil unions! Yay!
Unfortunately, the Texas house passed a ban on gay foster parents -- not to mention the poor transsexuals, who get lumped in here for no reason I can figure -- and Microsoft pulled its support for a gay rights bill. But hey, accentuate the positive.
(Thanks to
liberalrage for the first and last links, and many, many folks for the second).
An article on the new exercise recommendations, and the relationship between exercise, weight, and health. Among other things, it mentions that physically fit obese people have much lower death rates than physically unfit normal weight people. Also, people who are overweight but not obese have lower health risk than normal weight. Not that that helps me, but it does explain the folk wisdom that a little extra weight is healthy.
Unfortunately, the Texas house passed a ban on gay foster parents -- not to mention the poor transsexuals, who get lumped in here for no reason I can figure -- and Microsoft pulled its support for a gay rights bill. But hey, accentuate the positive.
(Thanks to
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
An article on the new exercise recommendations, and the relationship between exercise, weight, and health. Among other things, it mentions that physically fit obese people have much lower death rates than physically unfit normal weight people. Also, people who are overweight but not obese have lower health risk than normal weight. Not that that helps me, but it does explain the folk wisdom that a little extra weight is healthy.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-21 05:03 pm (UTC)Presumably a normal weight physically fit person has the lowest risk of all -- or a slightly above normal weight one, given the other article -- but normal weight doesn't make you fit automatically.
It's also a useful incentive to me to work on becoming a physically fit fat person, which seems like both a more achievable and a less mentally fraught goal than becoming an unfat one. Not that I'm going for 60-90 minutes a day, but "more activity than I get now" seems like a doable thing.
I walked blocks and blocks last night checking out city owned gyms, so even if I don't join one the walking was a plus, right? :)
no subject
Date: 2005-04-21 05:53 pm (UTC)Re: real women have muscles
Date: 2005-04-21 06:24 pm (UTC)At this point my number one priority is to improve my cardiovascular stamina so I can dance longer and climb more stairs without panting. Priority two is to strengthen whatever would help my lower back and knees (and ankles would be okay too, they haven't given me trouble recently but they've been weak since childhood.)
Re: real women have muscles
Date: 2005-04-21 07:13 pm (UTC)I used to take yoga, am thinking of the other two, so good to know they all help. :)
Re: real women have muscles
Date: 2005-04-21 07:16 pm (UTC)Re: real women have muscles
Date: 2005-04-22 12:13 am (UTC)If you want, I could give you some pointers on those...
Re: real women have muscles
Date: 2005-04-22 01:54 pm (UTC)Verdict on so-cheap-they're-free gyms so far:
Asser Levy, convenient but not a comfy atmosphhere
Chelsea -- lovely facility and good feel, but enough out of the way that I wonder if I'd go. And no outdoor pool.
Clarkson St. -- friendly, but neither all that comfy nor convenient.
Must to check out Hamilton Fish and the 54th St. one, and then decide whether to go for the city option or look for something else.
Re: real women have muscles
Date: 2005-04-22 12:07 am (UTC)There's also pleanty of weight lifting to do with the lower body too.