Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Pretty sure that got debunked, not the least because Cuba wasn't above fabricating data to make themselves look good.

Cuba saying they have a literacy rate higher than the US is like North Korea claiming their glorious leader ride unicorns and always gets a hole in 1 while playing golf.

Or it just shows that having free education to the university level for the whole population coupled with a massive drive in education from the very beginning of Revolutionary Cuba does wonders for making people literate

Currently listed at 99.8% literacy rate, according to Wikipedia which cites the "CIA World Factbook" as it's source. USA is at 99% according to same source. Don't see why the CIA would print false data if it showed the USA in a bad light compared to a third world, communist country...

We also need to consider what they, the Cubans, are defining as literate.

Its like saying all the Cubans have free healthcare! Sure, but its piss poor healthcare.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Pretty sure that got debunked, not the least because Cuba wasn't above fabricating data to make themselves look good.

Cuba saying they have a literacy rate higher than the US is like North Korea claiming their glorious leader ride unicorns and always gets a hole in 1 while playing golf.

Or it just shows that having free education to the university level for the whole population coupled with a massive drive in education from the very beginning of Revolutionary Cuba does wonders for making people literate

Currently listed at 99.8% literacy rate, according to Wikipedia which cites the "CIA World Factbook" as it's source. USA is at 99% according to same source. Don't see why the CIA would print false data if it showed the USA in a bad light compared to a third world, communist country...

We also need to consider what they, the Cubans, are defining as literate.

Its like saying all the Cubans have free healthcare! Sure, but its piss poor healthcare.

Aged 15 and over and can read and write. Same criteria as used for most other countries. Some have laxer definitions such as 15 or over and have ever attended school

Which honestly isn't a very meaningful metric anymore.

Today, being able to read and write isn't all that impressive. It was a hundred and fifty years ago.

A better metric would be what quality of education is available.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Which honestly isn't a very meaningful metric anymore.

Today, being able to read and write isn't all that impressive. It was a hundred and fifty years ago.

A better metric would be what quality of education is available.

If you're getting a high quality of education you should be able to read and write. Sure, I imagine that in the USA you can get a better degree than in Cuba, unless you are part of the population that is being failed so badly by the education system that they leave school illiterate and will therefore never get the opportunity to reach that level. Add in that these children will typically be from low income families with parents who are themselves not very educated or literate and it can pretty much destroy any upward mobility of people within the class system.

EDIT: Though this is off topic so should probably be taken to a different thread. Sorry for getting a bit off topic people.

I'm close to 17 years old, 172cm tall and I weight just under 55kg. So, for everyone who doesn't understand the metric system, that's about 5'8, and 120 lbs. Gaining weight is more of a problem for me than losing it at the moment!

 -Shrike- wrote:
I'm close to 17 years old, 172cm tall and I weight just under 55kg. So, for everyone who doesn't understand the metric system, that's about 5'8, and 120 lbs. Gaining weight is more of a problem for me than losing it at the moment!

Oh. You're one of those. I hate you

 -Shrike- wrote:
I'm close to 17 years old, 172cm tall and I weight just under 55kg. So, for everyone who doesn't understand the metric system, that's about 5'8, and 120 lbs. Gaining weight is more of a problem for me than losing it at the moment!

I was like that, except 187 cm and 70 kg.

I recently jumped to 77.

Still the teenage metabolism going. Just give him time, people, then he'll be worrying about it like the rest of us

Though I have a built-in weight deterrent. Yay for chronic kidney failure and its appetite destroying effects

 -Shrike- wrote:
I'm close to 17 years old, 172cm tall and I weight just under 55kg. So, for everyone who doesn't understand the metric system, that's about 5'8, and 120 lbs. Gaining weight is more of a problem for me than losing it at the moment!

I'm one of those too.

5' 6'' ( ) and 135 lb ( ).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Still the teenage metabolism going. Just give him time, people, then he'll be worrying about it like the rest of us

Though I have a built-in weight deterrent. Yay for chronic kidney failure and its appetite destroying effects

The whole "my metabolism is slowing" is just a crutch. A 40 year old man burns 1500 calories doing absolutely nothing. As long as you don't gorge yourself, and you exercise regularly, you really shouldn't gain much weight when you get older.

 Random Dude wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Still the teenage metabolism going. Just give him time, people, then he'll be worrying about it like the rest of us

Though I have a built-in weight deterrent. Yay for chronic kidney failure and its appetite destroying effects

The whole "my metabolism is slowing" is just a crutch. A 40 year old man burns 1500 calories doing absolutely nothing. As long as you don't gorge yourself, and you exercise regularly, you really shouldn't gain much weight when you get older.

Wait, how is an explained change in the body a crutch? It's just people not wanting to change how they used to live.

I'm currently working on moving to a new place, once I'm moved I plan on finding the nearest big public pool and swimming for exercise.

 Ahtman wrote:

Litcheur wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Lets also not forget that while food is a big factor, there are other reasons one can weight issues, such as medication or illness.

That's almost funny.
Cohen Syndrom : 1 person in 100,000,000.
Cushing's Syndrom : 1 person in 1,000,000.
Prader Willy Syndrom : 1 person in 30,000.
Hypothyroidism : 1 person in 3,000.

It isn't as funny if you suffer from one of those diseases but everyone treats you like your problem is you can't control your eating and are lazy. Your snark also ignores medications that can cause weight gain as well as the fact it is never stated that these somehow make up the majority of cases; got some weird straw-man/cherry picking issue going on there.

Hypothyroidism is one of the most prevalent diseases that may cause weight gain. Please note the may and the weight gain. Hypothyroidism doesn't equal obesity.

Anyway, we're talking about 1 out of 3,000. Obesity in the US ? 1 out of 3.

Randomly pick 3,000 persons. 1,000 of them will be obese. Not just overweight. Obese. And one person, just one, will have that hypothyroidism that *may* be held responsible for *weight gain*.

Are you sure I'm the one who's cherry-picking?

 Ahtman wrote:
Your list also left of clinical depression, which is a cause of weight gain and effects 1 in 10 people.

Clinical depression is the same egg-and-chicken problem as some hormonal problems that may be linked to obesity.

Not to mention, clinical depression also is a common cause of weight loss. Depends of the amount of junk food surrounding you, I suppose.

cincydooley wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I'm close to 17 years old, 172cm tall and I weight just under 55kg. So, for everyone who doesn't understand the metric system, that's about 5'8, and 120 lbs. Gaining weight is more of a problem for me than losing it at the moment!

Oh. You're one of those. I hate you

I get that a lot...

OP here. I'm using the platform of this popular thread to beg. PLEASE look at the Tau list I posted. I'm trying to prepare for Adepticon, and I could really use some help.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606561.page

Link it. Most of us are Internet lazy

Random Dude wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

Random Dude wrote:
The whole eating under 2000 calories thing is ridiculous. A human's resting metabolic rate is 1500 calories. I exercise 1 1/2 hours every day burning close 1000 or more calories. One of the reasons why people can't stick to diets is because they are poorly constructed and leave them hungry. It's not about eating less, It's about eating more good food.

Way to miss the point and pick on an example I threw out of no-where. Besides, you're also wrong. http://www.livestrong.com/article/428646-what-is-the-calorie-intake-to-lose-weight-after-40/

Maybe you're just not as old as me. If I want to lose weight, my target caloric intake is about 2000 calories.

I don't like the generalization of people's caloric needs shown in the link. Each person has a different activity level and needs a different amount of calories. If you place a more active person on an extremely low calorie diet, they will lose too much weight.

Really? Are you just making this stuff up now? First you say 2000 calories is too low. Now you say they'll lose too much weight? That's actually untrue. You're right, everyone needs a plan tailored to their specific body. But, if you give people too few calories, they don't "lose too much weight", what actually happens is that their body goes into a starvation mode, where it conserves absolutely everything it can, and they end up losing less weight than if had eaten a few more calories. That's one of the main reason that people's diets fail - they don't eat enough.

The 2000 calories I quoted is actually what I need to eat, when I want to lose a few pounds. Maybe it's not right for everyone, but it's not an unreasonable number, and it's backed up by the link I provided as appropriate for someone my age. Maybe you don't like it, but really, who cares what you like? What are your qualifications? You haven't backed up a single thing you've said with a link to any sort of supporting documents.

 Redbeard wrote:

Random Dude wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:

Random Dude wrote:
The whole eating under 2000 calories thing is ridiculous. A human's resting metabolic rate is 1500 calories. I exercise 1 1/2 hours every day burning close 1000 or more calories. One of the reasons why people can't stick to diets is because they are poorly constructed and leave them hungry. It's not about eating less, It's about eating more good food.

Way to miss the point and pick on an example I threw out of no-where. Besides, you're also wrong. http://www.livestrong.com/article/428646-what-is-the-calorie-intake-to-lose-weight-after-40/

Maybe you're just not as old as me. If I want to lose weight, my target caloric intake is about 2000 calories.

I don't like the generalization of people's caloric needs shown in the link. Each person has a different activity level and needs a different amount of calories. If you place a more active person on an extremely low calorie diet, they will lose too much weight.

Really? Are you just making this stuff up now? First you say 2000 calories is too low. Now you say they'll lose too much weight? That's actually untrue. You're right, everyone needs a plan tailored to their specific body. But, if you give people too few calories, they don't "lose too much weight", what actually happens is that their body goes into a starvation mode, where it conserves absolutely everything it can, and they end up losing less weight than if had eaten a few more calories. That's one of the main reason that people's diets fail - they don't eat enough.

The 2000 calories I quoted is actually what I need to eat, when I want to lose a few pounds. Maybe it's not right for everyone, but it's not an unreasonable number, and it's backed up by the link I provided as appropriate for someone my age. Maybe you don't like it, but really, who cares what you like? What are your qualifications? You haven't backed up a single thing you've said with a link to any sort of supporting documents.

I never said 2000 calories is too low. I was referring to even lower plans in the 1200 to 1600 range. I apologize if I didn't make that clear. Regardless, the point I'm trying to make is that each person has different needs.

I went about to around 1,200 calories this last year and started drinking water and taking a vitamin. With no real increase in physical activity I've lost over 100 pounds so far.

Edit: Basically a starvation diet, but it's the only one that actually managed to work for me

Litcheur wrote:
Are you sure I'm the one who's cherry-picking?

Yes, as you seem incapable or recognizing there are multiple factors that can lead to weight issues. Whether depression leads to being overweight or being overweight isn't as important at this juncture as recognizing that they are connected. The problem can't be addressed if we pretend it is just people being undisciplined, and completely dismiss other reasons that are not tied to that. You seem to also have trouble understanding how statistics work; if you actually pick 3000 people you could get more than one with Hyperthyroidism, or none. Again, you also seem to have trouble understanding that this also isn't an excuse nor is it stated that illness and or medication make up the majority of people that are overweight. The problem is thinking one can understand or solve the problem while pretending some causes don't exist, or are ok to ignore, even when they do make up a decent amount of real people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Basically a starvation diet

Bulimia and heroin can also lead to weight loss, that doesn't mean it is a healthy weight loss.

 Ahtman wrote:

I also never really understood the people that complained about overweight people and insult them, but also make of them and laugh at them when they are at a gym or exercising. If one actually is concerned it would seem like encouragement would be the route to go, not scorn and derision. One the biggest obstacles for the overweight isn't discipline or not knowing how to eat, but shame and emotional issues. Exercise regiments and machines are also not designed for the them so much as the already fit, so finding an appropriate workout can be frustrating in and of itself.

On the other there seems to be a bit of a trend to accept yourself no matter your health condition, which while nice in theory, ignores the serious health implications of weight. Yes, women don't need to look like supermodels to be pretty or attractive, but nor should they think that 100lb.s overweight is perfectly acceptable either. The same goes for men. You don't need to look like David Beckham to be healthy, but neither should one be content looking like Chris Farley. We need to promote the middle ground between fat shaming (I hate that phrase btw) and fat acceptance.

There does also seem to be a bit of "tribalism" within the overall fitness community... For instance, I go to a place called Flex Wheeler Fitness (it's basically a body building gym... I can count cardio machines on both my hands, and still have fingers left over), I'll make some fun of people who go to a place like LA Fitness, which has tanning beds in them (IMO, this means they are a tanning salon, not a gym).... But, further from that, you have runners who look down on cyclists, and cyclists who look down on Spartan Runners, and Triathletes who "look down" on all of them... Then you have all of us who lift, play sports, run/cycle, etc who look down on the Cult of CrossFit. None of this helps THAT particular situation. On the flip side of that, you have places like Planet Fitness in the US, that recently had a bit of an issue, because (per patron request) they removed squat racks from ALL Planet Fitness location... But, PF has some odd rules that I don't really agree with, but can understand why they're there. At the same time, if people do who the things that violate PFs rules bothers your workout THAT MUCH, then you aren't really serious about getting fit; And it's not about your fitness, it's more about your laziness.

If I'm around people I don't know and the topic of gyms come up, I'll usually congratulate them on choosing a gym, AND going to it (or doing CrossFit). If I'm sitting at the bar with my rugby mates, I'll make fun of Tony who goes to LA Fitness (one, because it's got tanning beds, and two, because he uses them... seriously, the dude is one of those "Bros" that you see on the internet).. At the gym that I go to, there are a couple of 300 lb dudes who work out together. I don't look down on them, they don't down on me (that I know of), and the few times we've talked, it's been pretty good and supportive of each other.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Basically a starvation diet

Bulimia and heroin can also lead to weight loss, that doesn't mean it is a healthy weight loss.

I'd rather be unhealthy and 100 pounds less than healthy and 100+ more I'd never recommend what I'm doing to someone else, but it's what was able to work for me

 Ahtman wrote:

Litcheur wrote:
Are you sure I'm the one who's cherry-picking?

Yes, as you seem incapable or recognizing there are multiple factors that can lead to weight issues. Whether depression leads to being overweight or being overweight isn't as important at this juncture as recognizing that they are connected. The problem can't be addressed if we pretend it is just people being undisciplined, and completely dismiss other reasons that are not tied to that. You seem to also have trouble understanding how statistics work; if you actually pick 3000 people you could get more than one with Hyperthyroidism, or none. Again, you also seem to have trouble understanding that this also isn't an excuse nor is it stated that illness and or medication make up the majority of people that are overweight. The problem is thinking one can understand or solve the problem while pretending some causes don't exist, or are ok to ignore, even when they do make up a decent amount of real people.

Please enlighten me. Not too fast, please. I'm a slow learner.

0.03% of the population suffer from hypothyroidism, which *may* cause weight gain.
10% (your number) of the population suffer from clinical depression, which *may* cause weight gain. Or loss of appetite, but let's forget that one.

Since I'm a slow learner, let's have the following hypothesises :
- The two populations don't overlap
- 100% of the people affected by these troubles will have a weight gain.
- 100% of these weight gains will be significant enough to make these unfortunate people not just overweight, but obese.

If I'm not mistaken... We do have something like 10.03%. Not 28%, which is the current obesity rate in the US.

I'd say even using my (very generous) hypotheses, we're far from it, but as you said, I may have some trouble understanding statistics.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I went about to around 1,200 calories this last year and started drinking water and taking a vitamin. With no real increase in physical activity I've lost over 100 pounds so far.

Edit: Basically a starvation diet, but it's the only one that actually managed to work for me

I do something similar but not quite so severe with exercise thrown in. IMHO reducing calories is the major factor in losing wieght... you just have to get used to feeling hungry is all.

 Bullockist wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I went about to around 1,200 calories this last year and started drinking water and taking a vitamin. With no real increase in physical activity I've lost over 100 pounds so far.

Edit: Basically a starvation diet, but it's the only one that actually managed to work for me

IMHO reducing calories is the major factor in losing wieght... you just have to get used to feeling hungry is all.

Definitely. I was a boredom/depression eater, so once I stopped shoveling in 3000+ calories per day my weight started falling off.

Sure I'll miss having that after-dinner Oreo sleeve, but going from size XXXXL to XL feels too damn good

 Bullockist wrote:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
I went about to around 1,200 calories this last year and started drinking water and taking a vitamin. With no real increase in physical activity I've lost over 100 pounds so far.

Edit: Basically a starvation diet, but it's the only one that actually managed to work for me

I do something similar but not quite so severe with exercise thrown in. IMHO reducing calories is the major factor in losing wieght... you just have to get used to feeling hungry is all.

If you have been eating unhealthily for a long time, you will feel hungry at first. After a long time on your new diet, if you are still feeling hungry, that's unhealthy.

Litcheur wrote:
Please enlighten me. Not too fast, please. I'm a slow learner.

I've already explained a very simple concept twice, and have no reason to believe explaining it a third time would serve any purpose.

 Random Dude wrote:

If you have been eating unhealthily for a long time, you will feel hungry at first. After a long time on your new diet, if you are still feeling hungry, that's unhealthy.

Also, depending on how you're eating when you switch from junk food to healthy food, you may end up gaining weight, but shedding clothing sizes... This is basically the body readjusting itself to eating better, more nutrient dense items, so it's able to sort of balance itself out better and it builds muscle and loses fat, without doing much in the way of physical activity.

For what it's worth, I'm 6'3" and around 145lbs, and have actually been losing a bit of weight recently. Once you get used to a fairly modest diet, you don't really notice what you're supposedly missing.

I typically have a ~250 calorie breakfast every day (egg, piece of turkey bacon, English muffin), granola bar, 4 cups of orange juice (throughout the day), and then whatever I'm cooking for dinner that day. If I ever get hungry inbetween meals, I might have an apple.

I'd say that's a fairly easy to maintain meal schedule that just about anyone can follow for fairly cheaply, and making a good tasting, healthy, moderately proportioned dinner is not very difficult.

 Ahtman wrote:

Litcheur wrote:
Please enlighten me. Not too fast, please. I'm a slow learner.

I've already explained a very simple concept twice, and have no reason to believe explaining it a third time would serve any purpose.

I concur. Just walk away.