- This topic has 198 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 2, 2014 at 11:59 AM #775954July 2, 2014 at 12:04 PM #775952
FlyerInHi
GuestCAr, I’m sorry about your sister.
But try to look at it rationally.
I don’t dispute that some babies are fat at birth. That makes them predispositioned to being fat as adults. But the future is not predetermined.
Fat babies in America who grow up on western diet consisting of baby formula and canned baby food will be fat. Then they are exposed to apple pie, pizza, hot dogs, sodas, spaghetti, hamburgers, fries, brownies, ice cream, cup cakes, oreo cookies, potato chips, steaks, ribs, etc…
But that American diet is not the only viable diet.
In rural parts of Asia (not the city) people eat fish, mostly veggies, no processed carbs other than rice (maybe they can’t even afford processed white rice), some poultry, very little meat. People in tropical, rainy SE Asia are especially blessed because they have so many fruits year round. Fruit and veggies just grow everywhere.
There are people of all shapes even “fat” people, but nothing even approaching fat by American standards.
They eat that diet not by choice but by necessity. If they don’t die from unsanitary conditions, or lack of medical care they often live to become centenarians.We have so much knowledge now. We can use that knowledge to customize our diets. We don’t all have to consume the same American diet, then periodically go on yoyo weight loss diets. As I say before, the key is never to gain weight as adults. Then we don’t need to worry about losing weight.
July 2, 2014 at 12:30 PM #775957Guest[quote=njtosd]
Children conceived during famine had much higher rates of all kinds of things, including obesity. Maybe all of these women on diets are doing their offspring a disservice.[/quote]How about children conceived by overweight parents?
They could be predisposing their kids to diseases.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/251885-you-are-what-your-grandpa-eats/
July 2, 2014 at 12:31 PM #775958scaredyclassic
ParticipantI was reading a weightlifting trainers page recently. He said he much prefers training even very out of shape 50 plus year Olds v young people.
Why?
50 and up people actually played hard outside and have some tolerance for physical exertion and discomfort. They are trainable.
Young vealraised people are fucked.
July 2, 2014 at 1:03 PM #775960ParticipantFat is energy.
Energy costs money.
Some people are better and worse at storing it.
But ultimately that fat is energy.
The only way we get energy to store is food.
What we do with the energy varies.
But it only comes from outside us.
Otherwise we would be creating free energy. We could live for free.
And there is no free lunch.
July 2, 2014 at 1:35 PM #775961bearishgurl
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]I was reading a weightlifting trainers page recently. He said he much prefers training even very out of shape 50 plus year Olds v young people.
Why?
50 and up people actually played hard outside and have some tolerance for physical exertion and discomfort. They are trainable.
Young vealraised people are fucked.[/quote]
The over-50 crowd is more “trainable” because we have been through the paces of life.
-Long summer road trips in vehicles with no air-conditioning;
-Had to play outside in the heat due to no computers, pads, videogames, videos, etc. and only 3-5 channels available on TV (when the rabbit ears were turned correctly :=0);
-No color TV for most until the early/mid ’60’s due to high cost;
-No central AC available in 75% of homes (yes, even in the nation’s “hot” midsection);
And, most importantly, PE required EVERY DAY in K-12 public schools. PE included team sports, individual sports and the following mandatory activities:
-daily sprints (in starting blocks)
-rope climbing
-obstacle course
-pushups, pullups and other calisthenics
-relay and other track events such as long jump, high jump, shotput, discus
-tumbling to master cartwheel (both sides), roundoff-back handspring, walkovers, limbers, etc, leading up to aerials.Due to state “budget cuts,” mostly in the last 15 years, the vast majority of CA K-12 schools only offer PE 1-3 times a week because they are sharing PE instructors. It is only required for 1 yr in MS and not at all in HS.
Also, public school districts are increasingly worried about their “liability” so don’t want kids to get injured while learning to do something physical for fear parents will try to sue them. So the monkey bars, rings, jungle gyms and slides of yesteryear are now history.
As a result, most HS graduates are uncoordinated if they have not participated in sports (and paid for it) outside of school.
July 2, 2014 at 1:37 PM #775963njtosd
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=njtosd]
Children conceived during famine had much higher rates of all kinds of things, including obesity. Maybe all of these women on diets are doing their offspring a disservice.[/quote]How about children conceived by overweight parents?
They could be predisposing their kids to diseases.
http://www.radiolab.org/story/251885-you-are-what-your-grandpa-eats/
No question about it. I happen to think that the current weight issues have much more to do with changes in activity level vs. people becoming “weak” or whatever you think it is.
I found this article interesting:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080908185228.htm
In short, the Amish, who are very active, carry a gene that predisposes people to obesity at the same rate as the general population. However, the ones carrying the gene are generally not obese. The hypothesis is that somehow the activity counteracts whatever the gene is doing.
Something like working dogs – if they don’t get exercise, they can get mean. Maybe in humans a lack of exercise results in overeating.
I attribute very little to free will. People are driven by millions of years of genetic selection. The environment has changed (and I don’t mean that in the trees and rivers sense) and it has resulted in, among other things, an obesity epidemic. Pima tribe is a perfect example.
Here’s the cite: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8422781
And here is the conclusion: The high prevalence of obesity and NIDDM in the Pima Indian community might be the consequence of a “thrifty genotype.” The increasing evidence that obesity cannot always be attributed to gluttony and sloth forces us to consider obesity as a “real metabolic disease” that needs to be treated as such, using new behavioral and pharmacological therapies.
July 2, 2014 at 2:19 PM #775966Guest[quote=njtosd] I happen to think that the current weight issues have much more to do with changes in activity level vs. people becoming “weak” or whatever you think it is.
[/quote]I agree.
I don’t think that people today are any “weaker” than people of the past.
But if the equation is
activity + food = weight
you can’t lower activity and increase food (we are a richer, more prosperous society) and expect weight to remain the same.If I use “weak” I mean that people need to take extra effort to deliberately adjust the inputs in the equation. That’s really the only thing we can do at an individual level.
[quote=njtosd]
consider obesity as a “real metabolic disease” that needs to be treated as such, using new behavioral and pharmacological therapies.
[/quote]this is more about policies and years off medical solutions.
What would behavioral therapies be? Encourage children and adults to exercise more — spend more time outdoors exercising away from too much sun.
Teach people how to cook and eat well. Tax to restrict access to unhealthy foods and fund education campaigns against obesity. etc..
That would require political will and funding. A call to action like the war on terror.
I suppose pharmacological therapies would be drugs to increase metabolism to allow people to eat the same or more without gaining weight. Those drugs will make a lot of money for Pharma but they will only work for a small period because people will simply eat more (because we are genetically driven to eat more and more until there is none left).
There are also drugs like Alli that prevents food absorption.
Or maybe drugs to suppress appetite and lower cravings. Given that eating is a pleasure for most people, I don’t think those drugs will find a market, except for a minority.
Drugs will totally screw people. Our food cravings evolved over millions of years. That’s screwing with the brain without fully understanding it (the brain initiative will provide some answers, but when?).
July 2, 2014 at 6:22 PM #775973joec
ParticipantThe answer maybe somewhere in the middle, but I still think diet, exercise are far bigger factors than some of the people here believe…
I’m sorry about your sister as well CAR, and kids are especially mean, but having that happen probably won’t make you the most objective voice in this since you’ve seen your sister go through hell trying everything to lose weight, and it still didn’t work, but that’s still 1 person with a different body than everyone else.
I watched some documentary called Forks over Knives and the guy who had massive health issues taking all the meds, diet, etc…and immediately switched his food intake had massive changes to his health problems. He had more energy, no more diabetes and
Maybe it’s all some left wing or right wing (I don’t really know) propaganda against fast food, but having lived in asia, visited europe various times, the American lifestyle of driving everywhere, insane calorie coffees, and most kids rather sitting in front of the TV or phone to text or whatever their friends is still a bigger cause in my opinion than genetics and just born fat.
Yes, this is spoken as someone who was never overweight (I did test my metabolism once at 24 hour fitness and I burned the normal 2000 calories per day), but I also watched what I ate pretty early on or at least balanced it through lots of exercise.
Oh well, this is the Internet and I suppose we’ll just have to disagree as usual.
July 2, 2014 at 6:23 PM #775974CA renter
Participant[quote=njtosd]
No question about it. I happen to think that the current weight issues have much more to do with changes in activity level vs. people becoming “weak” or whatever you think it is.
I found this article interesting:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080908185228.htm
In short, the Amish, who are very active, carry a gene that predisposes people to obesity at the same rate as the general population. However, the ones carrying the gene are generally not obese. The hypothesis is that somehow the activity counteracts whatever the gene is doing.
Something like working dogs – if they don’t get exercise, they can get mean. Maybe in humans a lack of exercise results in overeating.
I attribute very little to free will. People are driven by millions of years of genetic selection. The environment has changed (and I don’t mean that in the trees and rivers sense) and it has resulted in, among other things, an obesity epidemic. Pima tribe is a perfect example.
Here’s the cite: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8422781
And here is the conclusion: The high prevalence of obesity and NIDDM in the Pima Indian community might be the consequence of a “thrifty genotype.” The increasing evidence that obesity cannot always be attributed to gluttony and sloth forces us to consider obesity as a “real metabolic disease” that needs to be treated as such, using new behavioral and pharmacological therapies.[/quote]
Totally agree with you, njtosd. It’s simplistic and ignorant to assume that all people need to do to stay slim is eat well and exercise. That might work for some (even most people), but it doesn’t work for others.
Brian, as far as the pharmaceutical solution, speed increases metabolism while also suppressing appetite. IMO, those whose bodies are genetically predisposed to store calories are probably getting to what you feel is “normal,” with respect to energy and appetite, when they take speed. I believe that those who store food and lack energy (because the calories are not converted easily to kinetic energy) could greatly benefit from pharmaceuticals, and I’m one who tends to stay away from medicines as much as possible.
July 2, 2014 at 6:28 PM #775975Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, I’m sorry about your sister.
But try to look at it rationally.
I don’t dispute that some babies are fat at birth. That makes them predispositioned to being fat as adults. But the future is not predetermined.
Fat babies in America who grow up on western diet consisting of baby formula and canned baby food will be fat. Then they are exposed to apple pie, pizza, hot dogs, sodas, spaghetti, hamburgers, fries, brownies, ice cream, cup cakes, oreo cookies, potato chips, steaks, ribs, etc…
But that American diet is not the only viable diet.
In rural parts of Asia (not the city) people eat fish, mostly veggies, no processed carbs other than rice (maybe they can’t even afford processed white rice), some poultry, very little meat. People in tropical, rainy SE Asia are especially blessed because they have so many fruits year round. Fruit and veggies just grow everywhere.
There are people of all shapes even “fat” people, but nothing even approaching fat by American standards.
They eat that diet not by choice but by necessity. If they don’t die from unsanitary conditions, or lack of medical care they often live to become centenarians.We have so much knowledge now. We can use that knowledge to customize our diets. We don’t all have to consume the same American diet, then periodically go on yoyo weight loss diets. As I say before, the key is never to gain weight as adults. Then we don’t need to worry about losing weight.[/quote]
Again, the same, ignorant assumptions about other people’s habits. My mother was European and exclusively breastfed her babies. She didn’t use store-bought baby food for the most part. She always cooked fresh food and shunned processed foods. The diets she put my sister on were all health-based diets.
Sorry, Brian, but you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re also ignoring the fact that different races have different genetic profiles. Some races have evolved over the years to store food, while others who’ve traditionally had more access to food tend to have faster metabolisms.
I suppose you think that hair/eye/skin color, predisposition to certain diseases, etc. are all genetic, but body shape/size is influenced entirely by one’s environment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
July 2, 2014 at 7:05 PM #775977ParticipantI actually thought Brian said that not everyone was the same so some people may have to do other things as well…
I suppose, and again, maybe you aren’t saying this, but it just sounds like to me that you’re saying some people are just hopelessly fat and will never ever no matter what they do will lose the weight.
Diet, exercise, nothing no matter what will work since these people have tried that and I’ve seen it with my own eyes and they are just genetically fat and can’t do a thing.
I’d say that if you took this person and moved them, say OUT of America, put them on some Rice farm in Asia, I can bet my left leg that after some time living like these villagers, he or she WILL lose weight.
No meats, all veggies and fish, work in the fields…after 1 year, you are guaranteed to see improvement…Maybe think of it as slave labor to lose the weight, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can be overweight in that type of food/work environment.
July 2, 2014 at 7:23 PM #775978SK in CV
Participant[quote=CA renter]
There are natural foods that don’t have added chemicals…chemicals that were never intended by nature to be eaten. Just look at most labels in the supermarket and tell me that people were eating that crap 100+ years ago.[/quote]
Natural foods are made up entirely of chemicals. The vast majority of added chemicals are already in foods we eat. They are “natural”. It almost hurts to write those words. The quote shouldn’t be necessary. Everything we eat is natural. What’s changed is the proportions.
July 2, 2014 at 8:14 PM #775979ParticipantConsider weight/ muscle gain.
Some of us are hard gainers.
Eat a lot work out hard slow growth.
Others are born well muscled. Eat junk and grow fast.
You remember big guys in Hs…born thick muscled big bones.
Grow like weeds.
That said. Skinny little bast ards like me can add muscle. We just have to work 3x harder than the naturals.
I bet it works reverse too. We are not all created equal for muscle gain or weight loss etc. But no way some slim fellow can go and acquire a football body with just work and foid.
Hard gainers are what they call guys like me…
We have different kinds of bodies but no one has to be all weak or all fat.
That said I’d prefer to be big. Just naturally big. But I’m not.
July 3, 2014 at 3:12 AM #775982Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
There are natural foods that don’t have added chemicals…chemicals that were never intended by nature to be eaten. Just look at most labels in the supermarket and tell me that people were eating that crap 100+ years ago.[/quote]
Natural foods are made up entirely of chemicals. The vast majority of added chemicals are already in foods we eat. They are “natural”. It almost hurts to write those words. The quote shouldn’t be necessary. Everything we eat is natural. What’s changed is the proportions.[/quote]
Really? You think that today’s foods have no more added/synthetic chemicals in them than foods from 100+ years ago? No higher concentrations of chemicals that are considered toxic or possibly carcinogenic?
And it’s not just our foods that have toxic chemicals, but the lotions and potions that people slather all over their bodies everyday, the water we drink, the air that we breathe, our furniture, clothing, etc.
And what has changed is the amount of exercise we get. There is a HUGE difference between the life of a farmer who uses manual farming implements, and an office worker who sits in front of a computer screen all day…or a kid who sits in front of a TV, computer, or iPad all day.
———
“Conventional wisdom says that weight gain or loss is based on the energy balance model of “calories in, calories out,” which is often reduced to the simple refrain, “eat less, and exercise more.” But new research reveals a far more complex equation that appears to rest on several other important factors affecting weight gain. Researchers in a relatively new field are looking at the role of industrial chemicals and non-caloric aspects of foods — called obesogens — in weight gain. Scientists conducting this research believe that these substances that are now prevalent in our food supply may be altering the way our bodies store fat and regulate our metabolism. But not everyone agrees. Many scientists, nutritionists, and doctors are still firm believers in the energy balance model. A debate has ensued, leaving a rather unclear picture as to what’s really at work behind our nation’s spike in obesity.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/whats-really-making-us-fat/254087/
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.