I read on Wikipedia today that 71% of adults in the United States are "overweight or obese".
What on earth could cause that? Surely that has to be a catastrophe for figures to be that high? o.O
On another note, and people can feel free to stop reading at this point since this is a huge generalisation with no real supporting evidence, but when I walk around my neighbourhood and other areas here in merry old England I notice that it seems as though there are quite noticeably far more obese women than men... I wonder if it's because of childbirth? Anyone else agree/have explanations?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ah wait, the wiki article states that the WHO says there are higher rates of obesity amongst women than men... so there is concrete evidence I guess.
coming from somebody who has been slightly to moderately overweight back and forth most of my life, I can say a HUGE part of it is complacency and laziness. The "I'm comfortable with who I am" mentality is bs. I still need to lose weight, but I spent a lot of time researching, talking to different specialists, and my own trial an error, to find something that works for me. Every single body is different, but what it comes down to is portion control, when and where you eat, and what you eat. You can have fat and carbs, you can have starches and what not, but you need to know when to have them, and the best types of foods to obtain them from. Another big mistake is the lack of exercise...and not just Americans either, but a large percentage of the population are so incredibly lazy is ridiculous, even myself. The poor diet and lack of exercise also extends to the non obese, I know skinny people who are far less healthy than somebody twice their weight due to malnutrition and slight atrophy.
I think another contributing factor is what America and the UK (gak, AND other cultures) puts into their processed foods.... GBHT, other hormones, steroids, weird chemicals; all of these things cannot be good for our bodies, and I believe, account for a big percentage of a lot of mental problems as well.
to lump it all together in one lump cause, or at least try to, I would pin it on a lack of beneficial education and knowledge.
Henners91 wrote:I read on Wikipedia today that 71% of adults in the United States are "overweight or obese".
You also have to understand that the US's view of what is ove weight is often skewered toward Calvin Klien underwear models. We are religious, almost, about the outdated height-to-weight charts.
Food for thought. Obesity is an epedemic amongst most western countries. Hell, I think Oz actually passed the US up recently in obesity rates, havta find the report on that. From what I understand, its not so much what we eat, but the fact that we order a MCWhopper with triple cheese and God-Emperor size fries (but its ok cause we get a diet coke).
On the other hand, our countries kick so much ass our POOR PEOPLE are fat, not starving to death
Yea the UK's not far behind either according to this January article:
Uk Catches USA Up In Obesity
Obesity Statistics Uk said ''About 46% of men in England and 32% of women are overweight (a body mass index of 25-30 kg/m2), and an additional 17% of men and 21% of women are obese (a body mass index of more than 30 kg/m2 ). Overweight and obesity increase with age. About 28% of men and 27% of women aged 16-24 are overweight or obese but 76% of men and 68% of women aged 55-64 are overweight or obese. Overweight and obesity are increasing. The percentage of adults who are obese has roughly doubled since the mid-1980's''
Kind of ironic that us Westernized nations are struggling to stay healthy since we're eating too much crap while those in third world countries are struggling to make ends meet to just stay alive. Morbid humor.
In any case the only way I see this changing is maybe through taxes on bad foods/chemicals, another kind of sin tax. Or going the way of the Swiss and require mandatory military service so citizens are at least exposed to a healthier lifestyle for at least one timespan in their lives.
Cane wrote:In any case the only way I see this changing is maybe through taxes on bad foods/chemicals, another kind of sin tax.
Food isn't really the problem. The American lifestyle is one that is very sedimentary. Even if fast food was the problem, taxing it won't end why people go get fast food. Its fast. No one wants to cook anymore. You'd have to have one heck of a tax to hike those prices up enough to make people stop getting what is convenient. That said, fast food isn't the only factor at play.
Or going the way of the Swiss and require mandatory military service so citizens are at least exposed to a healthier lifestyle for at least one timespan in their lives.
As awesome as it would be to see some discipline put in place round these parts, it'll never happen. It's political suicide
Yeah, the primary issue is lifestyle, not eating habits. The majority of American workers don't exert themselves physically throughout the day, and in that sort of situation exercise becomes a luxury.
Henners91 wrote:I read on Wikipedia today that 71% of adults in the United States are "overweight or obese".
You also have to understand that the US's view of what is ove weight is often skewered toward Calvin Klien underwear models. We are religious, almost, about the outdated height-to-weight charts.
Here in the UK we use BMI, which I think is the same thing... if you use the NHS online calculator it asks for your age, weight, sex and height.
On another note, I guess it is lifestyle... I'm squat bang in the middle of the "healthy" section of the BMI, I'm eleven stone and five foot-eleven, but since I'm 19 I'd attribute that to my being in my "prime" (my waist shall only expand outward from this point on I'm sure)... I don't exercise, at all... I sit about on my computer or at my desk all day and though my family cook healthy meals I tend to snack on crap... I get winded from walking and I frequently get light-headed/get random aches, pains and indigestion... Too much info? Thought I might as well confess about why I believe I'll die aged 50 and get buried in an oval-shaped coffin
Henners91 wrote:I read on Wikipedia today that 71% of adults in the United States are "overweight or obese".
You also have to understand that the US's view of what is ove weight is often skewered toward Calvin Klien underwear models. We are religious, almost, about the outdated height-to-weight charts.
Here in the UK we use BMI, which I think is the same thing... if you use the NHS online calculator it asks for your age, weight, sex and height.
On another note, I guess it is lifestyle... I'm squat bang in the middle of the "healthy" section of the BMI, I'm eleven stone and five foot-eleven, but since I'm 19 I'd attribute that to my being in my "prime" (my waist shall only expand outward from this point on I'm sure)... I don't exercise, at all... I sit about on my computer or at my desk all day and though my family cook healthy meals I tend to snack on crap... I get winded from walking and I frequently get light-headed/get random aches, pains and indigestion... Too much info? Thought I might as well confess about why I believe I'll die aged 50 and get buried in an oval-shaped coffin
BMI is a much better indicator of true health. I am 6' 1" and I wiegh 270lbs. My Fat content is about 20%. According to that chart, I am morbidly obese and will die from heart disease. It's also compensates for body type. I am stocky, always have been. That chart sucks.
I read somewhere, or heard, or came across at some point, in the distant past that aspartame is an appetite inducer. I remember when Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi were introduced back in like 1980 or whatever along with like Tab and stuff. Back then, people didn't seem to be the fat slugs they are now. I think that perhaps the man-made chemical ingredients in food cause cravings. Look around the next time you're at a shopping mall at how many people are walking around with at least a quart of soda. I bet the fatties have diet something. It never was that way back in the early 80s.
I think diet pop/soda is probably one of the worst things you can drink. Pop is horrible for you in general, but I think diet is probably even worse, especially because people seem to think "Oh it's diet, I can drink as much as I want!"
Unless you're diabetic or something, I don't see any reason to use artificial sweetener in anything, it's horrible.
Stormrider wrote:
BMI is a much better indicator of true health.
BMI is based on height and weight, and is a poor indicator of health. Really, all standardized health metrics are useless outside of trained hands, not unlike most things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:I think diet pop/soda is probably one of the worst things you can drink. Pop is horrible for you in general, but I think diet is probably even worse, especially because people seem to think "Oh it's diet, I can drink as much as I want!"
Unless you're diabetic or something, I don't see any reason to use artificial sweetener in anything, it's horrible.
I drink about 2 cases of Diet Pepsi a week, and I'm in better shape than just about everyone that isn't a professional athlete. Granted, I also exercise far more than most people, but the diet soda isn't holding me back.
DEUS VULT wrote:On the other hand, our countries kick so much ass our POOR PEOPLE are fat, not starving to death
There's a difference between overweight and well fed. You can in fact be obese and under-nourished, if your diet is based on cheap filling foods like burgers and noodle meals this is likely the case. There is an issue in the Western world that everyone can afford to, but eating a healthy meal can be too expensive for some. It doesn't explain all obesity, but it goes some way to explaining the greater levels of obesity among the poor.
But there's also the sedantry lifestyle of most office workers, and also the serving sizes of many meals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:I think diet pop/soda is probably one of the worst things you can drink. Pop is horrible for you in general, but I think diet is probably even worse, especially because people seem to think "Oh it's diet, I can drink as much as I want!"
Unless you're diabetic or something, I don't see any reason to use artificial sweetener in anything, it's horrible.
Yeah, I've that about aspartane as well, and wonder if it might be a contributing factor.
It's important to understand what "overweight" means for the purpose of that statistic. It means a BMI of 25 or more.
I am 6'2" and about 200lbs. I'm overweight.
I've seen charts suggesting that at my height, an optimally healthy weight would be something like 175.
That's really pretty damn skinny. My assumption is that animals (such as humans), are designed to get by on a pretty slim diet, since that's the standard condition in nature. So, animals run pretty well when they're "just a step away from starving."
So, basically, while Americans are indeed quite fat, the standards for "overweight" are probably not what you'd call "overweight" just on looking at somebody.
For example, Wayne Rooney is "overweight," at 5'10" and 175lbs.
I hope Wayne Rooney is a good choice for the British audience. I think we can also agree that somebody who plays 80 minutes of soccer at worlds highest levels is probably not unhealthy.
DEUS VULT wrote:On the other hand, our countries kick so much ass our POOR PEOPLE are fat, not starving to death
There's a difference between overweight and well fed. You can in fact be obese and under-nourished, if your diet is based on cheap filling foods like burgers and noodle meals this is likely the case. There is an issue in the Western world that everyone can afford to, but eating a healthy meal can be too expensive for some. It doesn't explain all obesity, but it goes some way to explaining the greater levels of obesity among the poor.
But there's also the sedantry lifestyle of most office workers, and also the serving sizes of many meals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:I think diet pop/soda is probably one of the worst things you can drink. Pop is horrible for you in general, but I think diet is probably even worse, especially because people seem to think "Oh it's diet, I can drink as much as I want!"
Unless you're diabetic or something, I don't see any reason to use artificial sweetener in anything, it's horrible.
I know. Was a bad joke. Your right on track though, when a cheeseburger at McDonalds costing only $.99, thats gonna be the choice folks make.
Yeah, I've that about aspartane as well, and wonder if it might be a contributing factor.
Phryxis wrote:It's important to understand what "overweight" means for the purpose of that statistic. It means a BMI of 25 or more.
I am 6'2" and about 200lbs. I'm overweight.
I've seen charts suggesting that at my height, an optimally healthy weight would be something like 175.
That's really pretty damn skinny. My assumption is that animals (such as humans), are designed to get by on a pretty slim diet, since that's the standard condition in nature. So, animals run pretty well when they're "just a step away from starving."
There's two things, one is that obesity numbers are often exaggerated through silliness like the BMI, the other is that we really are a bunch of fatties. Probably not 71% fatties like the OP's report, but certainly a lot more fatties than there should be.
Phryxis wrote:
I hope Wayne Rooney is a good choice for the British audience. I think we can also agree that somebody who plays 80 minutes of soccer at worlds highest levels is probably not unhealthy.
Hard to say. NFL players tend to die quite young, and while that is American football and not soccer it is indicative of the fact that being athletic isn't tantamount to being healthy regarding longevity, or not being ill. Notably, when I was playing football I fluctuated between 230 and 250. I was insanely strong, and pretty fast; more so than most people in the world. But I also had to eat 6-7000 calories a day, and had constant knee and back pain due to stress on those areas. There is a lot of variance regarding what is healthy (again, in terms of something like longevity), and what is physically enabling.
dogma wrote:There is a lot of variance regarding what is healthy (again, in terms of something like longevity), and what is physically enabling.
NFL is pretty unique, though, as most sports place a greater emphasis on endurance and less on strength and sprinting. Reaching elite levels of endurance would likely be better for you than reaching elite levels of strength, yeah?
Theoretically yeah, as the idea is to achieve maximum energy economy. But you also have to remember the degree to which wear has a negative impact on all of the body's processes; notably the heart doesn't deal with lots of stress when the body isn't properly nourished (and even when it is, sometimes). Just like anything else, too much exercise is detrimental to your health.
But also, as you point out, cardio is really the only form of fitness that contributes to longevity. Being strong is a form of "fitness" but it's not going to help you live longer.
It's also worth noting that the NFL is one of the most physically diverse sports. You've got cornerbacks who are 5'8" 170lbs, and you've got tackles who are 6'9", 350 lbs. Some of these guys can run all day, some can only run for a few plays.
dogma wrote:Theoretically yeah, as the idea is to achieve maximum energy economy. But you also have to remember the degree to which wear has a negative impact on all of the body's processes; notably the heart doesn't deal with lots of stress when the body isn't properly nourished (and even when it is, sometimes). Just like anything else, too much exercise is detrimental to your health.
True, but given the level of obesity in the general population I'm not sure elite athletes in general would live shorter lives than average working joes. In the cases where they are living shorter lives, like NFL linemen, the physical requirements of their profession is quite unusual.
Phryxis wrote:It's also worth noting that the NFL is one of the most physically diverse sports. You've got cornerbacks who are 5'8" 170lbs, and you've got tackles who are 6'9", 350 lbs. Some of these guys can run all day, some can only run for a few plays.
Heh, you should see aussie rules. There's a guy called Aaron Sandilands running around who's just a tick under 7 foot, who's looking to tap the ball down to a guy like Hayden Ballentine, who's all of 5 foot 6.
Nowhere near the strength focus of NFL though, there's a much greater focus is on endurance.
There's a guy called Aaron Sandilands running around who's just a tick under 7 foot, who's looking to tap the ball down to a guy like Hayden Ballentine, who's all of 5 foot 6.
Well, for what it's worth, the NBA has had a 7'7" player, and a 5'3" player. Oddly, the 5'3" player had a better career.
But, generally, basketball players have pretty similar body types. The range of body type in the NFL is much greater.
Phryxis wrote:Well, for what it's worth, the NBA has had a 7'7" player, and a 5'3" player. Oddly, the 5'3" player had a better career.
But, generally, basketball players have pretty similar body types. The range of body type in the NFL is much greater.
Sure, because there's a greater degree of specialisation in NFL. Aussie Rules has that same specialisation, only there's 18 guys on the field and you don't stop playing when the ball hits the ground, so in addition to big strong guys to catch the ball, you need little guys to pick it up when it hits the ground. Then if the umpire stops play you need a really tall guy to knock the ball down to little guys, who pass it out to quick medium builds, who kick to big power forwards, only to see the little guys fight for the ball when it hits the ground.
I'm not trying to one up on the point, just your comment made me think of AFL, which is really unique in the diversity of body types in the game. To some extent AFL is losing that diversity, as the game gets faster and the kids are getting drafted younger and younger, there's a trend towards medium builds with equal measures of pace and endurance.
And you have obese people in the US because you have far too many fast food chains and you can find one of them on just about every street corner. Again, not hard.
On the upside I just researched the average brit consumes 150% more alcohol than the average american on a yearly basis, and yet were still behind them in the overweight figures. Perhaps the government should just restrict how late you can sell kebabs.
^^ I don't know, whatwhat. When I lived in the UK (Durham), there was no shortage of Viz inspired 'Fat Slag'esque women around. OK, there wasn't fastfood on every corner, but I've never seen women more addicted to chocolate than I did in the UK.
Khornholio wrote:I read somewhere, or heard, or came across at some point, in the distant past that aspartame is an appetite inducer. I remember when Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi were introduced back in like 1980 or whatever along with like Tab and stuff. Back then, people didn't seem to be the fat slugs they are now. I think that perhaps the man-made chemical ingredients in food cause cravings. Look around the next time you're at a shopping mall at how many people are walking around with at least a quart of soda. I bet the fatties have diet something. It never was that way back in the early 80s.
I never touch fizzy drinks (I'm a boring water-type guy) and yet I can't keep my hands off of anything savoury or fatty Not that keen on sweet things like desserts or chocolate, mind...
sebster wrote:
DEUS VULT wrote:On the other hand, our countries kick so much ass our POOR PEOPLE are fat, not starving to death
There's a difference between overweight and well fed. You can in fact be obese and under-nourished, if your diet is based on cheap filling foods like burgers and noodle meals this is likely the case. There is an issue in the Western world that everyone can afford to, but eating a healthy meal can be too expensive for some. It doesn't explain all obesity, but it goes some way to explaining the greater levels of obesity among the poor.
I think it falls down to time and education: Making a healthy meal out of basic ingredients is pretty damn cheap but a lot of people (myself included) can neither be arsed or know how...
whatwhat wrote:And you have obese people in the US because you have far too many fast food chains and you can find one of them on just about every street corner. Again, not hard.
On the upside I just researched the average brit consumes 150% more alcohol than the average american on a yearly basis, and yet were still behind them in the overweight figures. Perhaps the government should just restrict how late you can sell kebabs.
Khornholio wrote:^^ I don't know, whatwhat. When I lived in the UK (Durham), there was no shortage of Viz inspired 'Fat Slag'esque women around. OK, there wasn't fastfood on every corner, but I've never seen women more addicted to chocolate than I did in the UK.
^^ It doesn't contradict you at all. I just didn't want the obesity problem to be an American one only. Here in Nippon, there are very very few obese people. Even broads with 5 kids still have OK bodies.
I've been working on my alcohol consumption here. Sense might not be made of the words of Khornholio. He speaks in non-sense and reverse black magic incantations.
But aren't chicks in the UK addicted to chocolate? Most of the dudes in the UK seemed normal weight, but most of the chicks were like heifers on hind legs, if I recall correctly.
Khornholio wrote:^^ It doesn't contradict you at all. I just didn't want the obesity problem to be an American one only. Here in Nippon, there are very very few obese people. Even broads with 5 kids still have OK bodies.
I've been working on my alcohol consumption here. Sense might not be made of the words of Khornholio. He speaks in non-sense and reverse black magic incantations.
But aren't chicks in the UK addicted to chocolate? Most of the dudes in the UK seemed normal weight, but most of the chicks were like heifers on hind legs, if I recall correctly.
Flabby triceps used as weapons.
I wouldn't say most british girls are overweight no. But then maybe I'm fairly selective on where I want to place my gaze.
Hordini wrote:I think diet pop/soda is probably one of the worst things you can drink. Pop is horrible for you in general, but I think diet is probably even worse, especially because people seem to think "Oh it's diet, I can drink as much as I want!"
Unless you're diabetic or something, I don't see any reason to use artificial sweetener in anything, it's horrible.
I drink about 2 cases of Diet Pepsi a week, and I'm in better shape than just about everyone that isn't a professional athlete. Granted, I also exercise far more than most people, but the diet soda isn't holding me back.
Im kinda surprised about this slipping through with how much you guys whine at each other about proper citing of research and whatnot. This is like the same argument that a lot of smokers I know use "Well this guy I know smoked into his 90's and was fine so its not harmful" For all your loquacious proselytizing Im surprised by this extremely anecdotal evidence.
Anyway, as already discussed, the real problem with obesity in America is lack of exercise. When I compare my Dad's generation versus how I grew up versus what I see now, theres a real steady decline in activity. The rise of several factors I think are to blame, tv and videogames and such. Also, correct me if Im wrong, but hasn't there been a massive increase in diseases like asthma and diabetes in children in the last 20 years? I dont know if these are resultant from the obesity rather than causing it, but they can surely prolong the epidemic.
IMO, we are going to see some huge problems down the road if all these fat kids don't change their ways. And personally Im scared to wonder what this obesity problem is going to cost America in terms of healthcare, whether its nationalized or not, in twenty years. Right around the same time every baby boomer is finally on social security too lol.
When I was in the UK I was forced to buy food from pubs and places because I had no cooking facilities. I put on a good bit of weight (for me, I'm a skinny fether) in a short time. I think if you're not cooking for yourself you'll get fat pretty fast. I also wasn't running like I usually do because it was so damned hot!
I am curious to go to the US and see this obesity thing for myself. I'm convinced it can't be as bad as all that. Over here, it's all beer bellies. Beer bellies and chocolate addicted women.
It's lifestyle, full stop. When you work in an office all day and spend the evening watching TV you are putting almost zero strain on your body all day long. Consume more calories than you use and you'll gain weight no matter how much of it is, "diet," "light," or "low carb."
My work has two stages, much of the year it's a desk job. A couple months a year though are spent out and about my plant supervising overhauls. Without fail I tend to loose about five pounds during the active periods and put it right back on during the desk job periods. No real change in diet, if anything I eat worse during the active period, and I lose weight.
Hordini wrote:I think diet pop/soda is probably one of the worst things you can drink. Pop is horrible for you in general, but I think diet is probably even worse, especially because people seem to think "Oh it's diet, I can drink as much as I want!"
Unless you're diabetic or something, I don't see any reason to use artificial sweetener in anything, it's horrible.
I drink about 2 cases of Diet Pepsi a week, and I'm in better shape than just about everyone that isn't a professional athlete. Granted, I also exercise far more than most people, but the diet soda isn't holding me back.
Im kinda surprised about this slipping through with how much you guys whine at each other about proper citing of research and whatnot. This is like the same argument that a lot of smokers I know use "Well this guy I know smoked into his 90's and was fine so its not harmful" For all your loquacious proselytizing Im surprised by this extremely anecdotal evidence.
Well, it's not like the initial assertion was based on anything remotely backed up by evidence.
I'm on an extremely restricted weight loss diet, and my nutritionist has told me to go nuts with the diet soda. In some people the minute amount of carbs in the nutra-sweet can actually induce hunger, and I think there are some you simply experience a "phantom" hunger, where the fake sweet makes them crave real sweet.
Like most things, there are going to be people that struggle with any given factor, and others that prosper despite it. The same is true even of obesity itself: there are people who have all kinds of nasty conditions like diabetes, hypertension, or high cholesterol due to moderate obesity, while others (like me) who are extremely obese test out fine.
I have some friends involved in the Fat acceptance movement, and ironically one of them has become very upset with me about my diet. I agree with the FA folks in that "healthy weight" is a broader concept than most doctors subscribe to. There is even evidence that slightly obese people actually have less risk of certain late life diseases. I don't agree with FA that weight and health are completely unlinked. But I think as a society we simply know that being, by the charts, obese isn't always going to kill us.
Going by how you dropped that in there as if it was perfectly normal. Is it? I mean these are the kind of things which pass right through my blind spot. Does everyone have nutritionists now?
There is the "healthy at any weight" idea. I'm sure they'd say that they don't deny any link, but they're correct in that certain things like diabetes, hypertension, etc are far more controlled by genetics than by weight.
Classic example. My roommate is about 6'3", 340lbs. I was at my peak 6', 433lbs. His blood pressure was off the charts, he was taking meds and watching his salt. Mine was "a touch high."
Fast Forward to today. He still watches salt, takes his meds, and has lost about 35lbs. I've lost 120lbs, and our blood pressures are just about even, even though I eat all the salt I want.
According to the charts, I'm morbidly obese, at high risk for any number of horrible things, yet every other indicator on my chart is perfectly fine. BP, pulse, blood sugar, cholesterol, etc. At this point, I don't consider my health in any way a motivation to lose weight. It's solely appearance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:
Polonius wrote: my nutritionist
Going by how you dropped that in there as if it was perfectly normal. Is it? I mean these are the kind of things which pass right through my blind spot. Does everyone have nutritionists now?
Oh, I'm on an extremely limited diet due to nearly qualifying for Mass points.
Hordini wrote:I think diet pop/soda is probably one of the worst things you can drink. Pop is horrible for you in general, but I think diet is probably even worse, especially because people seem to think "Oh it's diet, I can drink as much as I want!"
Unless you're diabetic or something, I don't see any reason to use artificial sweetener in anything, it's horrible.
I drink about 2 cases of Diet Pepsi a week, and I'm in better shape than just about everyone that isn't a professional athlete. Granted, I also exercise far more than most people, but the diet soda isn't holding me back.
Im kinda surprised about this slipping through with how much you guys whine at each other about proper citing of research and whatnot. This is like the same argument that a lot of smokers I know use "Well this guy I know smoked into his 90's and was fine so its not harmful" For all your loquacious proselytizing Im surprised by this extremely anecdotal evidence.
Well, it's not like the initial assertion was based on anything remotely backed up by evidence.
I'm on an extremely restricted weight loss diet, and my nutritionist has told me to go nuts with the diet soda. In some people the minute amount of carbs in the nutra-sweet can actually induce hunger, and I think there are some you simply experience a "phantom" hunger, where the fake sweet makes them crave real sweet.
Like most things, there are going to be people that struggle with any given factor, and others that prosper despite it. The same is true even of obesity itself: there are people who have all kinds of nasty conditions like diabetes, hypertension, or high cholesterol due to moderate obesity, while others (like me) who are extremely obese test out fine.
I have some friends involved in the Fat acceptance movement, and ironically one of them has become very upset with me about my diet. I agree with the FA folks in that "healthy weight" is a broader concept than most doctors subscribe to. There is even evidence that slightly obese people actually have less risk of certain late life diseases. I don't agree with FA that weight and health are completely unlinked. But I think as a society we simply know that being, by the charts, obese isn't always going to kill us.
Wait so the initial assertion is not backed up by evidence and then you list evidence that it can induce hunger in some? Confused.
As to all your following points about blood pressure etc, I have one question: How old are you? In your 20's? Yeah you probably shouldn't be experiencing extremely elevated blood pressure and such unless your pre-disposed to. Wait until your in your 50's and then try and say weight has no bearing on your overall health.
BMI is not at all irreproachable, but it is a good start. Obviously if your a stocky fellow and read high in the BMI because of muscle weight, you can discount it. But that's something only an individual can know. It really is rather easy to figure out whether or not your at a healthy weight by how you feel. But its dangerous to promote the idea that obesity has no bearing on health.
I was commenting that I'm not sure Dogma needed to really rebut the initial assertion with hard evidence, as the initial assertion was purely opinion not backed up by anything. Dogma is also a personal trainer, and in a battle of pure opinions, I'd take his.
I think if you read the over all post, the main theme of it is "Your mileage may vary." Some people react to aspartame with hunger. Others (like me), see no change. The same is true of many obesity related syndromes.
As for saying that weight has no bearing, I'm pretty sure I actually said:
I don't agree with FA that weight and health are completely unlinked.
which seems to me to read that, after the double negative, i think that weight and health are linked.
Obesity and things like diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, etc. are strongly correlated. As we all know from basic logic, correlation does not imply causation. Here's where things get really odd: no matter how much you weigh, losing 10-20lbs (or roughly 10% of your weight), nearly always drastically reduces the risk of obesity related disease. So, a morbidly obese person that lost some weight is often at less risk than a mildly obese person that gained some weight. Interesting.
There are a lot of genetic factors involved in whether someone deals with putting on weight too, and in some ways, the flab isn't as big an issue as what's going on in your blood vessels. So you make a good point. Obese people are still more at risk of a lot of stuff, though.
Risk is tricky to percieve without the overview, I suppose.
I would say that obese people are more likely to eat poorly, exercise little, and generally not take care of their heath. Couple that with the pressures the weight puts on the body, and it's a nasty combo.
I'd never say that obesity is healthy. I think that directly connecting obesity with nearly every health issue oversimplifies things, given the tools we now have for analyzing health.
A little bit of fat isn't unhealthy. Even being "overweight" isn't really unhealthy. Overweight just means you're not spot on the ideal. I've been underweight for years, and am only now a healthy weight, and I recognise that that's probably as bad, if not worse, for me that being a bit overweight.
Polonius: You definitely have a point. Obesity is a big media issue because people are interested in it, I suppose.
Wow... if the US didn't have so much poverty and lack proper social support, just imagine how overweight they could be! Europe wouldn't stand a chance!
Polonius wrote:I was commenting that I'm not sure Dogma needed to really rebut the initial assertion with hard evidence, as the initial assertion was purely opinion not backed up by anything. Dogma is also a personal trainer, and in a battle of pure opinions, I'd take his.
I think if you read the over all post, the main theme of it is "Your mileage may vary." Some people react to aspartame with hunger. Others (like me), see no change. The same is true of many obesity related syndromes.
As for saying that weight has no bearing, I'm pretty sure I actually said:
I don't agree with FA that weight and health are completely unlinked.
which seems to me to read that, after the double negative, i think that weight and health are linked.
Obesity and things like diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, etc. are strongly correlated. As we all know from basic logic, correlation does not imply causation. Here's where things get really odd: no matter how much you weigh, losing 10-20lbs (or roughly 10% of your weight), nearly always drastically reduces the risk of obesity related disease. So, a morbidly obese person that lost some weight is often at less risk than a mildly obese person that gained some weight. Interesting.
I agree with you that diet soda is probably a non-issue relative to obesity. I just noticed that comment as it seems that every other time a poster rebukes something with anecdotal evidence, it is usually swept aside as meaningless.
On topic, you say that there is correlation and you think that weight and health are linked, yet then use your own experiences as how they're not linked. I guess Im just not understanding your opinion on this. Or maybe I do. Obesity can have significant effects on health, but its not the be all and end all of overall health. Closer?
I've always been the fat kid. I'm that way because I'm lazy. Diets work, I lose a bunch then start getting bored eating the same stuff over and over then go back to my usual pizza & burgers diet, then the weight comes back, I find a new diet, lose some more and then rise and repeat.
I'd exercise more if I didn't have so many models to paint...
Hordini wrote:I think diet pop/soda is probably one of the worst things you can drink. Pop is horrible for you in general, but I think diet is probably even worse, especially because people seem to think "Oh it's diet, I can drink as much as I want!"
Unless you're diabetic or something, I don't see any reason to use artificial sweetener in anything, it's horrible.
I drink about 2 cases of Diet Pepsi a week, and I'm in better shape than just about everyone that isn't a professional athlete. Granted, I also exercise far more than most people, but the diet soda isn't holding me back.
I didn't mention it in my last post, but I will certainly give you that - I think lots of exercise will trump a lot of poor diet choices, as long as you're not lacking some important nutrient. Most people who are overweight could probably remain somewhat liberal with their diet if they simply increased their amount of exercise and kept it consistent. Others have said it, but the sedentary lifestyle is probably the most damaging. I realize this is anecdotal, but I know a lot of overweight people who try to change their diet around pretty often, but basically refuse to exercise, and they're all in the same shape they were when they started.
I guess what I'm saying is, yes, you can certainly drink a lot of diet pop or regular pop and still be healthy, but the time you spend exercising (or not) is going to be a huge factor.
Frazzled wrote:On the other hand, 2 cases of a diet drink a week set you up for cancer.
The theory is that aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde when your body metabolizes it, thus dosing anyone consuming diet soda with a known carcinogen. I've read the chain emails (I get a lot of these sorts of things, due mostly to my job), most of which are completely fabricated (anonymous information, anecdotes, etc.) or deliberates misquotes of real studies. Moreover, formaldehyde can be safely processed by several natural enzymes in the body. Aspartame does break down into formaldehyde, among other things, but my perusal of the research on the problem seems to indicate that the amount isn't sufficient to negatively affect normal operation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: I realize this is anecdotal, but I know a lot of overweight people who try to change their diet around pretty often, but basically refuse to exercise, and they're all in the same shape they were when they started.
I see these people all the time. They come in to my gym, sign up, maybe attend for about a week, then never come back. They never cancel their membership, because just being a member makes them feel psychologically better about their weight and health, as they are theoretically further along the road to weight loss than they were before.
Hell, most gyms build their business model on the idea that a certain percentage of members, usually 20-25%, will never actually use the facilities. They're essentially free money.
Frazzled wrote:On the other hand, 2 cases of a diet drink a week set you up for cancer.
The theory is that aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde when your body metabolizes it, thus dosing anyone consuming diet soda with a known carcinogen. I've read the chain emails (I get a lot of these sorts of things, due mostly to my job), most of which are completely fabricated (anonymous information, anecdotes, etc.) or deliberates misquotes of real studies. Moreover, formaldehyde can be safely processed by several natural enzymes in the body. Aspartame does break down into formaldehyde, among other things, but my perusal of the research on the problem seems to indicate that the amount isn't sufficient to negatively affect normal operation.
Your funeral. Stastically almost anything ingested over moderate amounts increases your likelihood of cancer. Due to family history I've been told diet anything is not worth the risk by my doc.
What? What the hell is wrong with people? Just don't eat! It's not hard to say "Nah, I'll just have a sprite and some potato chips for lunch instead of a burger and fries and a milkshake"
I'm sorry to say, I AM trying to offend people. Obesity didn't even exist until the industrial revolution because people didn't make enough money to eat as much as they do now.
Obesity should NEVER hit above 20% in an ideal society. 70% is seven in every ten people! Imagine that for a second. That means that there are over 200 million obese people in the united states.
I just can't understand it. No one in my family is obese, nor have we ever came close. We eat healthy, we live active lifestyles and we're happy. How hard is it to make those little changes in your lifestyle?
Samus_aran115 wrote:What? What the hell is wrong with people? Just don't eat! It's not hard to say "Nah, I'll just have a sprite and some potato chips for lunch instead of a burger and fries and a milkshake"
I'm sorry to say, I AM trying to offend people. Obesity didn't even exist until the industrial revolution because people didn't make enough money to eat as much as they do now.
Obesity should NEVER hit above 20% in an ideal society. 70% is seven in every ten people! Imagine that for a second. That means that there are over 200 million obese people in the united states.
I just can't understand it. No one in my family is obese, nor have we ever came close. We eat healthy, we live active lifestyles and we're happy. How hard is it to make those little changes in your lifestyle?
Samus_aran115 wrote:What? What the hell is wrong with people? Just don't eat! It's not hard to say "Nah, I'll just have a sprite and some potato chips for lunch instead of a burger and fries and a milkshake"
I love that you picked 'a Sprite and some potato chips' as your healthy alternative. Seriously. Adorable. I want to put you in my pocket, ocassionally getting you out to show to people.
I'm sorry to say, I AM trying to offend people. Obesity didn't even exist until the industrial revolution because people didn't make enough money to eat as much as they do now.
Where did you read that? It's nonsense. There were wealthy people before the Industrial Revolution. Just look at a picture of Henry VIII! He was super fat.
Frazzled wrote:
Your funeral. Stastically almost anything ingested over moderate amounts increases your likelihood of cancer. Due to family history I've been told diet anything is not worth the risk by my doc.
I'm obviously not a doctor, and you should listen to yours, but most fruit juices and all alcoholic beverages contain, or break down into, far more methanol than aspartame. This also means they further break down into more formaldehyde. As you said, the issue isn't whether or not aspartame is toxic, but at what dosage it becomes toxic; which is the issue with all consumable substances.
The real question, though, is the aspartate that is derived from aspartame, and the effect that might have on the brain of a human; as opposed to the rodents used in most clinical studies.
Albatross wrote:Just look at a picture of Henry VIII! He was super fat.
Must have been the McDonalds in the Royal Food Court. His advisors suggested a salad
Granted, Henry was only fat in his later years. He suffered a sever injury during a jousting competition and it appears to have had adverse effects on his mental and physical health. He's not a very a good example
He probably had the finest food available to him,most of which I can imagine was fine meat and sugars from the western world. Probably a lot of stuff we know to be very bad for you
Samus_aran115 wrote:
I just can't understand it. No one in my family is obese, nor have we ever came close. We eat healthy, we live active lifestyles and we're happy. How hard is it to make those little changes in your lifestyle?
Depending on your job, financial status, personal life, and a number of other factors it can be very hard.
Also, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, obesity doesn't mean fat, unhappy, or even inactive. It can be related to all of those things, but I think you would be surprised at the extent to which people you might regard as fit are in fact overweight or obese. Whether or not that is itself a health risk varies from physician to physician.
I think being happy has a lot to do with keeping you healthy Just something I've noticed. If you encourage someone to get healthy and make them feel good about it, it's a huge boost.
But yes, I agree. Overweight technically can mean 5 pounds over average Which I wouldn't call obese at all.
Samus_aran115 wrote:
I just can't understand it. No one in my family is obese, nor have we ever came close. We eat healthy, we live active lifestyles and we're happy. How hard is it to make those little changes in your lifestyle?
It also has to do with metabolism and stuff like that. I have a super fast metabolism, so fast in fact, that i have trouble keeping on enough weight to stay on the rugby team. oh, the plight of the skinny people.
Personallly for me, i am overweight and i dont care. I do need to lose weight, just havent found the right way that works for me.
I used to play DDR 4 hours a day 3 days a week and that killed the calories and such of that like.
As well i have a job that requires me to stand outside on the side of the road and dance my butt off holding a sign on the side of the road, that helps too. I barely drink soda, mostly water.
I know it isnt MUCH of a diet plan or workout plan but hey it works for me because it fits in my schedule ^_^ plus its fun.
Samus_aran115 wrote:
I just can't understand it. No one in my family is obese, nor have we ever came close. We eat healthy, we live active lifestyles and we're happy. How hard is it to make those little changes in your lifestyle?
It also has to do with metabolism and stuff like that. I have a super fast metabolism, so fast in fact, that i have trouble keeping on enough weight to stay on the rugby team. oh, the plight of the skinny people.
Your repeated trolling earlier in the thread has confused me regarding your intentions behind this statement... Either way, the latter part certainly strikes me as bragging
Samus_aran115 wrote:What? What the hell is wrong with people? Just don't eat! It's not hard to say "Nah, I'll just have a sprite and some potato chips for lunch instead of a burger and fries and a milkshake"
I'm sorry to say, I AM trying to offend people. Obesity didn't even exist until the industrial revolution because people didn't make enough money to eat as much as they do now.
Obesity should NEVER hit above 20% in an ideal society. 70% is seven in every ten people! Imagine that for a second. That means that there are over 200 million obese people in the united states.
I just can't understand it. No one in my family is obese, nor have we ever came close. We eat healthy, we live active lifestyles and we're happy. How hard is it to make those little changes in your lifestyle?
Quite hard, ever since I was born I've RECLINED in my chair in my room and only ever had to get off to make ready meals (obviously not as a kid...), use the loo and bathe. I dislike exercise, I loathe it. I'm fortunate to be from a skinny family and not have the fatness kick in yet, but even though I feel like it's starting, I'm still not motivated to change my nature: Exercise hurts, playing Dragon Age doesn't.
LordofHats wrote:
Albatross wrote:Just look at a picture of Henry VIII! He was super fat.
Must have been the McDonalds in the Royal Food Court. His advisors suggested a salad
Granted, Henry was only fat in his later years. He suffered a sever injury during a jousting competition and it appears to have had adverse effects on his mental and physical health. He's not a very a good example
I hear he required a crane to lift him onto his horse o.O
Samus_aran115 wrote:
I just can't understand it. No one in my family is obese, nor have we ever came close. We eat healthy, we live active lifestyles and we're happy. How hard is it to make those little changes in your lifestyle?
It also has to do with metabolism and stuff like that. I have a super fast metabolism, so fast in fact, that i have trouble keeping on enough weight to stay on the rugby team. oh, the plight of the skinny people.
Your repeated trolling earlier in the thread has confused me regarding your intentions behind this statement... Either way, the latter part certainly strikes me as bragging
Arctik_Firangi wrote:Wow... if the US didn't have so much poverty and lack proper social support, just imagine how overweight they could be! Europe wouldn't stand a chance!
Poverty correlates positively to obesity in the developed world. The level of poverty is a major reason the US has so many obese people.
In Australia we don't have as many poor people but we're fatter... that's because meat pies are awesome.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote:I didn't mention it in my last post, but I will certainly give you that - I think lots of exercise will trump a lot of poor diet choices, as long as you're not lacking some important nutrient.
There's more to healthy eating that weight level though. You can eat take out every night and if you work hard enough and have a decent metabolism you can stay skinny... but all that fat will build up around your heart. You'll also lack the vitamins and nutrients of a complete diet.
Exercise will help you keep skinny, but it won't make you healthy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Samus_aran115 wrote:What? What the hell is wrong with people? Just don't eat! It's not hard to say "Nah, I'll just have a sprite and some potato chips for lunch instead of a burger and fries and a milkshake"
I'm sorry to say, I AM trying to offend people.
Just as a tip, you'll find in life that not everyone's personal experiences match exactly to your own. Some things that are simple for you, for whatever reason, might not be so simple for others, while areas where you struggle might be incredibly easy for them. As a result it's best not to judge.
Hordini wrote:I didn't mention it in my last post, but I will certainly give you that - I think lots of exercise will trump a lot of poor diet choices, as long as you're not lacking some important nutrient.
There's more to healthy eating that weight level though. You can eat take out every night and if you work hard enough and have a decent metabolism you can stay skinny... but all that fat will build up around your heart. You'll also lack the vitamins and nutrients of a complete diet.
Exercise will help you keep skinny, but it won't make you healthy.
I realize that, which is why I said exercise will trump a lot of poor diet choices, and not all, and noted that it hinged on not lacking any important nutrients. I realize that just exercising alone won't necessarily make you healthy, I guess my point was just that, in my experience, exercise is something that would make the biggest difference in many people's lives. A lot of the overweight people I see don't necessarily eat a massive number of unhealthy foods (for example I don't think I know anyone who eats fast food every day), it's just that they eat very large portions of otherwise nutritious foods, and never ever exercise. It seems to me that cases like this, portion control and exercise would make a bigger difference than a complete diet revamp.
Also dogma - I didn't think to ask earlier, but I've now become curious. Since you do exercise regularly and are in quite good shape, is there a particular reason that you drink diet instead of regular soda?
Samus_aran115 wrote:He was also rich The only fat people were the super rich and those who worked in churches (priests were often quite fat)
I'm using sprite and potato chips as an example to show what you could get at a similar restaurant where they serve burgers
Frazzled had addressed you, now answer him! He wants to know your age for his own nefarious purposes!
Since 'being rich' in capitalist terms was a very different thing in the past, perhaps you mean to say that 'people with access to resources became fat'. Now we all have access to these resources - in the developed world. Soft drink is cheaper than fruit juice (although it often contains less sugar), and diet drinks are often cheaper due to being overstocked. I for one eat too much (I just love food and the experience of eating interesting things) but am fortunately well within my BMI.
Another thing to note about 'sodas', presented in the form of a Wikipedia excerpt because this particular quote is referenced:
Sparkling mineral water is a negligible cause of dental erosion; also known as acid erosion. While the dissolution potential of sparkling water is greater than still water, levels remain low: by comparison, carbonated soft drinks cause tooth decay at a rate of several hundred times that of regular sparkling water.
While it is true that our dental hygiene is generally far better than in the past, our diets aren't helping! Knowlede of the implications will by no means always lead to positive action.
Hordini wrote:I realize that, which is why I said exercise will trump a lot of poor diet choices, and not all, and noted that it hinged on not lacking any important nutrients. I realize that just exercising alone won't necessarily make you healthy, I guess my point was just that, in my experience, exercise is something that would make the biggest difference in many people's lives. A lot of the overweight people I see don't necessarily eat a massive number of unhealthy foods (for example I don't think I know anyone who eats fast food every day), it's just that they eat very large portions of otherwise nutritious foods, and never ever exercise. It seems to me that cases like this, portion control and exercise would make a bigger difference than a complete diet revamp.
Hordini wrote:
Also dogma - I didn't think to ask earlier, but I've now become curious. Since you do exercise regularly and are in quite good shape, is there a particular reason that you drink diet instead of regular soda?
The short of it is that my work schedule was really demanding, and didn't allow for a lot of sleep. This leads to a lot of caffeine use. I don't like coffee, and I couldn't fit regular soda into my normal diet, so I chose to drink diet.
Also, I vastly prefer the taste of diet soda, as I find normal soda horribly sweet by comparison.
One thing most people don't seem to understand is how their metabolism works. Starving yourself all day only makes it easier for you to gain weight, despite wishful thinking. Especially since you're more likely to binge after starving yourself all day.
Much of weight loss and management can be attained by simply increasing the amount of meals you eat every day while decreasing the meal size. You can eat the same amount and same food, but by spreading it out properly, you can increase your metabolism, making weight management much easier before you even start on a deit or excercise plan. Ideally, breakfast should be the biggest meal of the day, with dinner being the smallest. Of course, things rarely work out like that, but it's good to know.
Eating a little bit when you actually feel hungry is actually a good thing.
I love reading from all the youngsters in this thread bragging about how skinny they are, that they can eat what they want and not put on weight, that they don't have to exercise etc etc.
Newsflash; it *will* catch up to you. I used to be the same until I hit late 20's (28, 29 ish) and then I found the weight creeping on and becoming more difficult to shift. I am not overweight by any means but I have to watch what I eat now and it is all too easy to put on a pound or two and I used to be lucky enough never to put on weight or watch what I ate.
Just you lot wait! Tempus fugit and before you know it, you're into middle age spread.
filbert wrote:I love reading from all the youngsters in this thread bragging about how skinny they are, that they can eat what they want and not put on weight, that they don't have to exercise etc etc.
Newsflash; it *will* catch up to you. I used to be the same until I hit late 20's (28, 29 ish) and then I found the weight creeping on and becoming more difficult to shift. I am not overweight by any means but I have to watch what I eat now and it is all too easy to put on a pound or two and I used to be lucky enough never to put on weight or watch what I ate.
Just you lot wait! Tempus fugit and before you know it, you're into middle age spread.
QFT.
I've done a bit o' the bragging but even some of us younglings know that it's only temporary... so I can only try and eat as many kebabs in front of your age group as possible for now
Samus_aran115 wrote:He probably had the finest food available to him,most of which I can imagine was fine meat and sugars from the western world. Probably a lot of stuff we know to be very bad for you
But I agree. My god what a tubolard!
I ntoiced you never answered the question-how old are you boy?
Frazzled wrote: I ntoiced you never answered the question-how old are you boy?
Apparently he's not outgrown the blissful ignorance of youth just yet, for what that's worth. Yep. We all knew everything about everything in our teen years
Frazzled wrote:
I ntoiced you never answered the question-how old are you boy?
Apparently he's not outgrown the blissful ignorance of youth just yet, for what that's worth. Yep. We all knew everything about everything in our teen years
Whilst there's truth in that statement (teenage arrogance, we know everything... yes I know everything including the fact that I'm just arrogant and thus don't know everythi- I digress.), I find that just as Teenagers insist they know more than they do, "older" types are quick to jump on the age wagon
Opinions aren't invalidated by age, if an adult can disprove a youngling's point he may go ahead... but if the issue is contentious then relying on how long ago you fell out of your mother doesn't exactly shut the case.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll admit I haven't actually checked what you were discussing.. I just saw an argument used against me all the time
I think it's less about that, henners, and more about the fact that most teenagers CAN eat like rhinocerous without putting on weight. That changes as you get older, as many of the slightly older lads on here will attest to.
How do I know this?
Well, when I was 18 I was 15st and 6'3" - here I am now, 10 years older and 3st heavier. I'm the same height, funnily enough.
Albatross wrote:I think it's less about that, henners, and more about the fact that most teenagers CAN eat like rhinocerous without putting on weight. That changes as you get older, as many of the slightly older lads on here will attest to.
How do I know this?
Well, when I was 18 I was 15st and 6'3" - here I am now, 10 years older and 3st heavier. I'm the same height, funnily enough.
Henners91 wrote:
Opinions aren't invalidated by age, if an adult can disprove a youngling's point he may go ahead...
You have two different ideas here. One is that opinions are always relevant, regardless of the experience of the holder. The other is that age shouldn't serve to invalidate any opinion on its own.
The first idea is wrong, as there are certain things (having a child, getting married, etc.) that are age-dependent while requiring experience to judge on a subjective level.
The second idea is right, as there are other things (science, logic, philosophy, etc.) that, while still requiring experience to judge, are non-age-dependent.
In this particular case its clear that Samus has little experience regarding the science behind weight control, and the experiential side of weight gain with age.
@Dogma, I guess that's technically correct... Can't really argue against that since my instinctive reaction, that a young'un shouldn't comment with authority within those areas still makes my argument fall flat on its face... But I'm sure you can understand what I was trying to get at...
Arrogance is a two-way thing across the gulf of age
Fafnir wrote:One thing most people don't seem to understand is how their metabolism works. Starving yourself all day only makes it easier for you to gain weight, despite wishful thinking. Especially since you're more likely to binge after starving yourself all day.
Much of weight loss and management can be attained by simply increasing the amount of meals you eat every day while decreasing the meal size. You can eat the same amount and same food, but by spreading it out properly, you can increase your metabolism, making weight management much easier before you even start on a deit or excercise plan. Ideally, breakfast should be the biggest meal of the day, with dinner being the smallest. Of course, things rarely work out like that, but it's good to know.
Eating a little bit when you actually feel hungry is actually a good thing.
Now ya see, I must be the exception that proves the rule.
I recently went on a diet at the end of June. Some facts.
I have 1000-1400 calories a day. Max. Usually more like 900-1200.
I rarely eat breakfast. Used to eat it all the time (really unhealthy stuff too, sausage etc.)
I rarely snack (cant remember the last time, think it was a fortnight ago).
I do have the occasional treat (say once every month get takout. Though, I find my stomach cannot process the amount of crap that I used to eat in one sitting, I get bad stomach cramps. TMI?)
Despite everyone saying "you need breakfast!" "you'll never lose weight!" "you'll keep binging!" here is the result.
I have lost close on 2st (need to weigh myself again) in just under 2 mnths. Including a week where I was dragged out to 2 family barbeques. (Didnt eat anything the 2nd time, had a healthy meal before we left.)
I have never felt the need to eat, or to binge. I dont really snack, even when I was a fatty I just had big meals. I dont really want brekky anymore, I would prefer to spend the calories on my tea. I.e. Skip toast and have a few more (healthy oven baked) chips on a night as a treat. I stay in my calorie limit, as I skipped brekky, and feel much more full on the night. Stops any late night snacking cravings that may or may not creep up.
And you know what? I feel great. Stronger, lighter, fitter.
Perhaps I'm a scientific oddity. I always did get what I wanted though, only now instead of fatty stuff, I want nothing.
Perhaps this is bragging, but ya know what? I think I've earned the right to a little bit of pride that I have switched to a healthier life now.
Henners91 wrote:@Dogma, I guess that's technically correct... Can't really argue against that since my instinctive reaction, that a young'un shouldn't comment with authority within those areas still makes my argument fall flat on its face... But I'm sure you can understand what I was trying to get at...
Arrogance is a two-way thing across the gulf of age
Its not arrogance if you're right baby. When you sruvive the asteroid that takes out the dinosaurs like I did, then you can give a qualified opinion.
Bartali wrote:It's not really difficult, weight gain is calouries in>calouries burnt.
Except it is more difficult than that, and anyone that thinks it's so cut-and-dry straightforward needs to read up on the subject a little more before posting their opinions.
Again, metabolism plays a huge part. As do genetics. Oh, and lets not forget glandular disorder. If it were as simple as "Work out more and eat less, hurr", then I wouldn't be able to say that I know some -very- good Squash players that also have some rather large beer guts on themselves. Truth is, it's -not- that simple. When I was in highschool, I knew a kid that was very athletically active, but he was ~5ft and weighed in at close to 275lbs. After grad, he got surgery to correct a gland problem and he dropped down to 125lbs. Next time, try making an informed post.
Bartali wrote:It's not really difficult, weight gain is calouries in>calouries burnt.
In general this is true, but its not representative of the complexity inherent in determining how many calories are being burned when considering the sort of calories being taken in. Notably, deficiencies of calcium and potassium (which are very common) can have a hugely negative impact on the body's ability to actively convert food energy to ATP; meaning that the process occurs when you're sleeping. Since fat really only metabolizes when you are at rest, it shouldn't be difficult to figure out what happens when food energy is being consumer during that period of time.
As has already been said, it is very easy to become both fat, and malnourished. In fact, many people believe that the problem with obesity in the developed world is more tightly bound up with poor nutrition than simply eating too much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The happy reaper wrote:
Despite everyone saying "you need breakfast!" "you'll never lose weight!" "you'll keep binging!" here is the result.
I have lost close on 2st (need to weigh myself again) in just under 2 mnths. Including a week where I was dragged out to 2 family barbeques. (Didnt eat anything the 2nd time, had a healthy meal before we left.)
That type of diet can work for some people. It takes a lot of willpower, or a really active lifestyle that prevents you from really acting on cravings, but it certainly can work. You do have to watch out for vitamin, and fat (you need a certain amount of dietary fat), deficiencies though.
That said, the great danger comes from the fact that the diet isn't sustainable. Your body can't survive on that type of intake once it has fully consumed its fat stores, so eventually you'll have to move to a complete sort of eating regimen. Its that second phase, the shift away from the strict consumption limits, that causes most people to gain back the weight. Its relatively easy to stick to a difficult diet when you're seeing results, but when all you see every day is the same person that was there the day before, it can be very easy to slip back into bad habits.
