OT – F as in Fat

[admin]

ocrenter, you were right. America will keep on getting fatter until we are all diseased and bankrupt. Eventually medical expenses will reach 50% GDP.

It’s hopeless.

In the last 15 years, the report said, adult obesity rates have doubled or nearly doubled in 17 states. Two decades ago, not a single state had an obesity rate above 15%. Now all states do.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-obesity-report-20110708,0,3732059.story

Full report in pdf:
http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2010/Obesity2010Report.pdf

[davelj]

One more good reason to live in San Diego… you can pay for your medical care piecemeal in Mexico and reduce the subsidy you’re giving to all of these fat fucks via your U.S.-based insurance. Medicare, however, is another issue… harder to escape that subsidy.

[davelj]

One more good reason to live in San Diego… you can pay for your medical care piecemeal in Mexico and reduce the subsidy you’re giving to all of these fat fucks via your U.S.-based insurance. Medicare, however, is another issue… harder to escape that subsidy.

[davelj]

One more good reason to live in San Diego… you can pay for your medical care piecemeal in Mexico and reduce the subsidy you’re giving to all of these fat fucks via your U.S.-based insurance. Medicare, however, is another issue… harder to escape that subsidy.

[davelj]

One more good reason to live in San Diego… you can pay for your medical care piecemeal in Mexico and reduce the subsidy you’re giving to all of these fat fucks via your U.S.-based insurance. Medicare, however, is another issue… harder to escape that subsidy.

[davelj]

One more good reason to live in San Diego… you can pay for your medical care piecemeal in Mexico and reduce the subsidy you’re giving to all of these fat fucks via your U.S.-based insurance. Medicare, however, is another issue… harder to escape that subsidy.

[blahblahblah]

All done by design. They want to get life expectancy down to about 65 so that people die once they are about to retire and start drawing benefits. Hence the subsidization of unhealthy foods.

I can see the day coming when even your home garden is gonna be against the law.

— Bob Dylan, “Union Sundown”

[blahblahblah]

All done by design. They want to get life expectancy down to about 65 so that people die once they are about to retire and start drawing benefits. Hence the subsidization of unhealthy foods.

I can see the day coming when even your home garden is gonna be against the law.

— Bob Dylan, “Union Sundown”

[blahblahblah]

All done by design. They want to get life expectancy down to about 65 so that people die once they are about to retire and start drawing benefits. Hence the subsidization of unhealthy foods.

I can see the day coming when even your home garden is gonna be against the law.

— Bob Dylan, “Union Sundown”

[blahblahblah]

All done by design. They want to get life expectancy down to about 65 so that people die once they are about to retire and start drawing benefits. Hence the subsidization of unhealthy foods.

I can see the day coming when even your home garden is gonna be against the law.

— Bob Dylan, “Union Sundown”

[blahblahblah]

All done by design. They want to get life expectancy down to about 65 so that people die once they are about to retire and start drawing benefits. Hence the subsidization of unhealthy foods.

I can see the day coming when even your home garden is gonna be against the law.

— Bob Dylan, “Union Sundown”

[GH]

Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

We are at a “Soylent Green” moment in our history when we awoke and discovered our planet cannot support 7 billion humans. Growth hormones, artificial fertilizers and genetic engineering are the only way we can keep everyone fed. I suspect they are also behind obesity although the PTB will deny this.

[jimmyle]

I think growth hormones and genetic engineering play a very small role if any. From my experience, the fat people I know eat too much. One of my overweight coworkers eats his lunch (which his wife packed for him) for breakfast and then go out for lunch every day. His wife at home keeps wondering why he is fat.

I am also 5 to 10 lbs overweight and I know I eat more than I should. I go out for lunch with my coworkers two to three times a week. When I cut it down to once a week I can lose 5 lbs in two to three months but it is hard to do.

[quote=GH]Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

We are at a “Soylent Green” moment in our history when we awoke and discovered our planet cannot support 7 billion humans. Growth hormones, artificial fertilizers and genetic engineering are the only way we can keep everyone fed. I suspect they are also behind obesity although the PTB will deny this.[/quote]

[briansd1]

[quote=GH]Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

[/quote]

I believe that there’s some of that.

Without a doubt, Americans are undergoing puberty at a younger age and getting older earlier than people in Europe, Asian, Latin America.

I believe that it’s due to the hormones in dairy products and meat which we consume in abundant quantities.

When it comes to dairy and meat, I believe that it’s worth paying the higher prices for organic and free-range.

[quote=Ren]

Oh I completely agree. For some it’s more difficult, and your body does change with age and pregnancy. My wife has to do an hour of cardio, 5 days/week, to lose weight. I can do half that for the same results. Strict calorie control makes it easier, and that also means eating enough.[/quote]

I also agree.

[quote=Ren]
No matter the difficulty, an energy deficit WILL cause you to lose weight, so “bad” genes still aren’t an acceptable excuse (as a former 14-year smoker, no level of difficulty is an acceptable excuse in my mind). [/quote]

I also agree.

Genes play an important roles but we can compensate with effort.

That goes for academic studies as well. Some people learn easily; for others it’s hard.

[briansd1]

[quote=GH]Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

[/quote]

I believe that there’s some of that.

Without a doubt, Americans are undergoing puberty at a younger age and getting older earlier than people in Europe, Asian, Latin America.

I believe that it’s due to the hormones in dairy products and meat which we consume in abundant quantities.

When it comes to dairy and meat, I believe that it’s worth paying the higher prices for organic and free-range.

[quote=Ren]

Oh I completely agree. For some it’s more difficult, and your body does change with age and pregnancy. My wife has to do an hour of cardio, 5 days/week, to lose weight. I can do half that for the same results. Strict calorie control makes it easier, and that also means eating enough.[/quote]

I also agree.

[quote=Ren]
No matter the difficulty, an energy deficit WILL cause you to lose weight, so “bad” genes still aren’t an acceptable excuse (as a former 14-year smoker, no level of difficulty is an acceptable excuse in my mind). [/quote]

I also agree.

Genes play an important roles but we can compensate with effort.

That goes for academic studies as well. Some people learn easily; for others it’s hard.

[briansd1]

[quote=GH]Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

[/quote]

I believe that there’s some of that.

Without a doubt, Americans are undergoing puberty at a younger age and getting older earlier than people in Europe, Asian, Latin America.

I believe that it’s due to the hormones in dairy products and meat which we consume in abundant quantities.

When it comes to dairy and meat, I believe that it’s worth paying the higher prices for organic and free-range.

[quote=Ren]

Oh I completely agree. For some it’s more difficult, and your body does change with age and pregnancy. My wife has to do an hour of cardio, 5 days/week, to lose weight. I can do half that for the same results. Strict calorie control makes it easier, and that also means eating enough.[/quote]

I also agree.

[quote=Ren]
No matter the difficulty, an energy deficit WILL cause you to lose weight, so “bad” genes still aren’t an acceptable excuse (as a former 14-year smoker, no level of difficulty is an acceptable excuse in my mind). [/quote]

I also agree.

Genes play an important roles but we can compensate with effort.

That goes for academic studies as well. Some people learn easily; for others it’s hard.

[briansd1]

[quote=GH]Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

[/quote]

I believe that there’s some of that.

Without a doubt, Americans are undergoing puberty at a younger age and getting older earlier than people in Europe, Asian, Latin America.

I believe that it’s due to the hormones in dairy products and meat which we consume in abundant quantities.

When it comes to dairy and meat, I believe that it’s worth paying the higher prices for organic and free-range.

[quote=Ren]

Oh I completely agree. For some it’s more difficult, and your body does change with age and pregnancy. My wife has to do an hour of cardio, 5 days/week, to lose weight. I can do half that for the same results. Strict calorie control makes it easier, and that also means eating enough.[/quote]

I also agree.

[quote=Ren]
No matter the difficulty, an energy deficit WILL cause you to lose weight, so “bad” genes still aren’t an acceptable excuse (as a former 14-year smoker, no level of difficulty is an acceptable excuse in my mind). [/quote]

I also agree.

Genes play an important roles but we can compensate with effort.

That goes for academic studies as well. Some people learn easily; for others it’s hard.

[briansd1]

[quote=GH]Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

[/quote]

I believe that there’s some of that.

Without a doubt, Americans are undergoing puberty at a younger age and getting older earlier than people in Europe, Asian, Latin America.

I believe that it’s due to the hormones in dairy products and meat which we consume in abundant quantities.

When it comes to dairy and meat, I believe that it’s worth paying the higher prices for organic and free-range.

[quote=Ren]

Oh I completely agree. For some it’s more difficult, and your body does change with age and pregnancy. My wife has to do an hour of cardio, 5 days/week, to lose weight. I can do half that for the same results. Strict calorie control makes it easier, and that also means eating enough.[/quote]

I also agree.

[quote=Ren]
No matter the difficulty, an energy deficit WILL cause you to lose weight, so “bad” genes still aren’t an acceptable excuse (as a former 14-year smoker, no level of difficulty is an acceptable excuse in my mind). [/quote]

I also agree.

Genes play an important roles but we can compensate with effort.

That goes for academic studies as well. Some people learn easily; for others it’s hard.

[jimmyle]

I think growth hormones and genetic engineering play a very small role if any. From my experience, the fat people I know eat too much. One of my overweight coworkers eats his lunch (which his wife packed for him) for breakfast and then go out for lunch every day. His wife at home keeps wondering why he is fat.

I am also 5 to 10 lbs overweight and I know I eat more than I should. I go out for lunch with my coworkers two to three times a week. When I cut it down to once a week I can lose 5 lbs in two to three months but it is hard to do.

[quote=GH]Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

We are at a “Soylent Green” moment in our history when we awoke and discovered our planet cannot support 7 billion humans. Growth hormones, artificial fertilizers and genetic engineering are the only way we can keep everyone fed. I suspect they are also behind obesity although the PTB will deny this.[/quote]

[jimmyle]

I think growth hormones and genetic engineering play a very small role if any. From my experience, the fat people I know eat too much. One of my overweight coworkers eats his lunch (which his wife packed for him) for breakfast and then go out for lunch every day. His wife at home keeps wondering why he is fat.

I am also 5 to 10 lbs overweight and I know I eat more than I should. I go out for lunch with my coworkers two to three times a week. When I cut it down to once a week I can lose 5 lbs in two to three months but it is hard to do.

[quote=GH]Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

We are at a “Soylent Green” moment in our history when we awoke and discovered our planet cannot support 7 billion humans. Growth hormones, artificial fertilizers and genetic engineering are the only way we can keep everyone fed. I suspect they are also behind obesity although the PTB will deny this.[/quote]

[jimmyle]

I think growth hormones and genetic engineering play a very small role if any. From my experience, the fat people I know eat too much. One of my overweight coworkers eats his lunch (which his wife packed for him) for breakfast and then go out for lunch every day. His wife at home keeps wondering why he is fat.

I am also 5 to 10 lbs overweight and I know I eat more than I should. I go out for lunch with my coworkers two to three times a week. When I cut it down to once a week I can lose 5 lbs in two to three months but it is hard to do.

[quote=GH]Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

We are at a “Soylent Green” moment in our history when we awoke and discovered our planet cannot support 7 billion humans. Growth hormones, artificial fertilizers and genetic engineering are the only way we can keep everyone fed. I suspect they are also behind obesity although the PTB will deny this.[/quote]

[jimmyle]

I think growth hormones and genetic engineering play a very small role if any. From my experience, the fat people I know eat too much. One of my overweight coworkers eats his lunch (which his wife packed for him) for breakfast and then go out for lunch every day. His wife at home keeps wondering why he is fat.

I am also 5 to 10 lbs overweight and I know I eat more than I should. I go out for lunch with my coworkers two to three times a week. When I cut it down to once a week I can lose 5 lbs in two to three months but it is hard to do.

[quote=GH]Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

We are at a “Soylent Green” moment in our history when we awoke and discovered our planet cannot support 7 billion humans. Growth hormones, artificial fertilizers and genetic engineering are the only way we can keep everyone fed. I suspect they are also behind obesity although the PTB will deny this.[/quote]

[GH]

Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

We are at a “Soylent Green” moment in our history when we awoke and discovered our planet cannot support 7 billion humans. Growth hormones, artificial fertilizers and genetic engineering are the only way we can keep everyone fed. I suspect they are also behind obesity although the PTB will deny this.

[GH]

Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

We are at a “Soylent Green” moment in our history when we awoke and discovered our planet cannot support 7 billion humans. Growth hormones, artificial fertilizers and genetic engineering are the only way we can keep everyone fed. I suspect they are also behind obesity although the PTB will deny this.

[GH]

Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

We are at a “Soylent Green” moment in our history when we awoke and discovered our planet cannot support 7 billion humans. Growth hormones, artificial fertilizers and genetic engineering are the only way we can keep everyone fed. I suspect they are also behind obesity although the PTB will deny this.

[GH]

Growth hormones, genetic engineering…

We are at a “Soylent Green” moment in our history when we awoke and discovered our planet cannot support 7 billion humans. Growth hormones, artificial fertilizers and genetic engineering are the only way we can keep everyone fed. I suspect they are also behind obesity although the PTB will deny this.

[desmond]

http://piggington.com/huge_topicamericans_keep_getting_fatter

This thread on fat had 311 replies.

[desmond]

http://piggington.com/huge_topicamericans_keep_getting_fatter

This thread on fat had 311 replies.

[desmond]

http://piggington.com/huge_topicamericans_keep_getting_fatter

This thread on fat had 311 replies.

[desmond]

http://piggington.com/huge_topicamericans_keep_getting_fatter

This thread on fat had 311 replies.

[desmond]

http://piggington.com/huge_topicamericans_keep_getting_fatter

This thread on fat had 311 replies.

[desmond]

Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?

[scaredyclassic]

i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.

[scaredyclassic]

i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.[/quote]

I fast about once a month… skip dinner and eat very little during the day — just fruit and water.

Fasting helps you live a long time because longevity enzymes get activated.

However, it’s not realistic for most people because food addiction is strong. Put a tray of brownies or a steak in front of most people and will-power is easily overcome.

I find that keeping weight down and is quite easy if you build the determination to only eat food that is “worth you”.

I have a bet with a friend who’s now 250#. His college weight was 180#. He claims that he can do it…. but rather than losing weight, he’s increasing little by little every year. Right now, he has back pain and difficulting bending down. In 5 to 10 years, he’ll be 300#, paralyzed and unable to move, like the rest of America.

IMO, obesity is a national security issue. We need to fight it harder than we fight terrorism.

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]

IMO, obesity is a national security issue. We need to fight it harder than we fight terrorism.[/quote]

except it is easier to fight terrorism, because at least the enemy is foreign and recognizable.

the enemy in regard to obesity is us. it is the massive food and service industry. it is cultural, it is personal attitude.

the first lady has pushed for better and healthier selections of food at walmart, pushed for family gardens, pushed for exercise and weight loss. sounds nice, right? nope, she is a Food Nazi.

[img_assist|nid=15111|title=food nazi|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=450|height=338]

I am extremely pessimistic when it comes to our obesity crisis. I firmly believe the giant food industry has really learned well from the tobacco lobby and big pharma. They are truly in bed with the politicians and they will fly the flag of civil liberties whenever their interests are at risk. Best of all, they have cultivated a perfect scenario where they are able to sell absolute trash that gets people hooked and fat, yet be able to completely place the blame on the end consumer’s own gluttony.

Seriously, if you talk to any obese person, does a single obese person recognize half of the problem is the manipulative and powerful food industry? Nope. There is a lot of shame and self-loathing when you peel away the layers of defensiveness and avoidance. This overwhelming guilt that everything is their fault actually perpetuate the feeling of utter hopelessness in regard to their weight, which means a spiral into more severe obesity.

[briansd1]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=briansd1]

IMO, obesity is a national security issue. We need to fight it harder than we fight terrorism.[/quote]

except it is easier to fight terrorism, because at least the enemy is foreign and recognizable.

the enemy in regard to obesity is us. it is the massive food and service industry. it is cultural, it is personal attitude.

the first lady has pushed for better and healthier selections of food at walmart, pushed for family gardens, pushed for exercise and weight loss. sounds nice, right? nope, she is a Food Nazi.

[img_assist|nid=15111|title=food nazi|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=450|height=338]

I am extremely pessimistic when it comes to our obesity crisis. I firmly believe the giant food industry has really learned well from the tobacco lobby and big pharma. They are truly in bed with the politicians and they will fly the flag of civil liberties whenever their interests are at risk. Best of all, they have cultivated a perfect scenario where they are able to sell absolute trash that gets people hooked and fat, yet be able to completely place the blame on the end consumer’s own gluttony.

Seriously, if you talk to any obese person, does a single obese person recognize half of the problem is the manipulative and powerful food industry? Nope. There is a lot of shame and self-loathing when you peel away the layers of defensiveness and avoidance. This overwhelming guilt that everything is their fault actually perpetuate the feeling of utter hopelessness in regard to their weight, which means a spiral into more severe obesity.[/quote]

Maybe it’s not all dark in America, these days. Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiative is having a positive impact on childhood obesity.

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]

IMO, obesity is a national security issue. We need to fight it harder than we fight terrorism.[/quote]

except it is easier to fight terrorism, because at least the enemy is foreign and recognizable.

the enemy in regard to obesity is us. it is the massive food and service industry. it is cultural, it is personal attitude.

the first lady has pushed for better and healthier selections of food at walmart, pushed for family gardens, pushed for exercise and weight loss. sounds nice, right? nope, she is a Food Nazi.

[img_assist|nid=15111|title=food nazi|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=450|height=338]

I am extremely pessimistic when it comes to our obesity crisis. I firmly believe the giant food industry has really learned well from the tobacco lobby and big pharma. They are truly in bed with the politicians and they will fly the flag of civil liberties whenever their interests are at risk. Best of all, they have cultivated a perfect scenario where they are able to sell absolute trash that gets people hooked and fat, yet be able to completely place the blame on the end consumer’s own gluttony.

Seriously, if you talk to any obese person, does a single obese person recognize half of the problem is the manipulative and powerful food industry? Nope. There is a lot of shame and self-loathing when you peel away the layers of defensiveness and avoidance. This overwhelming guilt that everything is their fault actually perpetuate the feeling of utter hopelessness in regard to their weight, which means a spiral into more severe obesity.

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]

IMO, obesity is a national security issue. We need to fight it harder than we fight terrorism.[/quote]

except it is easier to fight terrorism, because at least the enemy is foreign and recognizable.

the enemy in regard to obesity is us. it is the massive food and service industry. it is cultural, it is personal attitude.

the first lady has pushed for better and healthier selections of food at walmart, pushed for family gardens, pushed for exercise and weight loss. sounds nice, right? nope, she is a Food Nazi.

[img_assist|nid=15111|title=food nazi|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=450|height=338]

I am extremely pessimistic when it comes to our obesity crisis. I firmly believe the giant food industry has really learned well from the tobacco lobby and big pharma. They are truly in bed with the politicians and they will fly the flag of civil liberties whenever their interests are at risk. Best of all, they have cultivated a perfect scenario where they are able to sell absolute trash that gets people hooked and fat, yet be able to completely place the blame on the end consumer’s own gluttony.

Seriously, if you talk to any obese person, does a single obese person recognize half of the problem is the manipulative and powerful food industry? Nope. There is a lot of shame and self-loathing when you peel away the layers of defensiveness and avoidance. This overwhelming guilt that everything is their fault actually perpetuate the feeling of utter hopelessness in regard to their weight, which means a spiral into more severe obesity.

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]

IMO, obesity is a national security issue. We need to fight it harder than we fight terrorism.[/quote]

except it is easier to fight terrorism, because at least the enemy is foreign and recognizable.

the enemy in regard to obesity is us. it is the massive food and service industry. it is cultural, it is personal attitude.

the first lady has pushed for better and healthier selections of food at walmart, pushed for family gardens, pushed for exercise and weight loss. sounds nice, right? nope, she is a Food Nazi.

[img_assist|nid=15111|title=food nazi|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=450|height=338]

I am extremely pessimistic when it comes to our obesity crisis. I firmly believe the giant food industry has really learned well from the tobacco lobby and big pharma. They are truly in bed with the politicians and they will fly the flag of civil liberties whenever their interests are at risk. Best of all, they have cultivated a perfect scenario where they are able to sell absolute trash that gets people hooked and fat, yet be able to completely place the blame on the end consumer’s own gluttony.

Seriously, if you talk to any obese person, does a single obese person recognize half of the problem is the manipulative and powerful food industry? Nope. There is a lot of shame and self-loathing when you peel away the layers of defensiveness and avoidance. This overwhelming guilt that everything is their fault actually perpetuate the feeling of utter hopelessness in regard to their weight, which means a spiral into more severe obesity.

[ocrenter]

[quote=briansd1]

IMO, obesity is a national security issue. We need to fight it harder than we fight terrorism.[/quote]

except it is easier to fight terrorism, because at least the enemy is foreign and recognizable.

the enemy in regard to obesity is us. it is the massive food and service industry. it is cultural, it is personal attitude.

the first lady has pushed for better and healthier selections of food at walmart, pushed for family gardens, pushed for exercise and weight loss. sounds nice, right? nope, she is a Food Nazi.

[img_assist|nid=15111|title=food nazi|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=450|height=338]

I am extremely pessimistic when it comes to our obesity crisis. I firmly believe the giant food industry has really learned well from the tobacco lobby and big pharma. They are truly in bed with the politicians and they will fly the flag of civil liberties whenever their interests are at risk. Best of all, they have cultivated a perfect scenario where they are able to sell absolute trash that gets people hooked and fat, yet be able to completely place the blame on the end consumer’s own gluttony.

Seriously, if you talk to any obese person, does a single obese person recognize half of the problem is the manipulative and powerful food industry? Nope. There is a lot of shame and self-loathing when you peel away the layers of defensiveness and avoidance. This overwhelming guilt that everything is their fault actually perpetuate the feeling of utter hopelessness in regard to their weight, which means a spiral into more severe obesity.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.[/quote]

I fast about once a month… skip dinner and eat very little during the day — just fruit and water.

Fasting helps you live a long time because longevity enzymes get activated.

However, it’s not realistic for most people because food addiction is strong. Put a tray of brownies or a steak in front of most people and will-power is easily overcome.

I find that keeping weight down and is quite easy if you build the determination to only eat food that is “worth you”.

I have a bet with a friend who’s now 250#. His college weight was 180#. He claims that he can do it…. but rather than losing weight, he’s increasing little by little every year. Right now, he has back pain and difficulting bending down. In 5 to 10 years, he’ll be 300#, paralyzed and unable to move, like the rest of America.

IMO, obesity is a national security issue. We need to fight it harder than we fight terrorism.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.[/quote]

I fast about once a month… skip dinner and eat very little during the day — just fruit and water.

Fasting helps you live a long time because longevity enzymes get activated.

However, it’s not realistic for most people because food addiction is strong. Put a tray of brownies or a steak in front of most people and will-power is easily overcome.

I find that keeping weight down and is quite easy if you build the determination to only eat food that is “worth you”.

I have a bet with a friend who’s now 250#. His college weight was 180#. He claims that he can do it…. but rather than losing weight, he’s increasing little by little every year. Right now, he has back pain and difficulting bending down. In 5 to 10 years, he’ll be 300#, paralyzed and unable to move, like the rest of America.

IMO, obesity is a national security issue. We need to fight it harder than we fight terrorism.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.[/quote]

I fast about once a month… skip dinner and eat very little during the day — just fruit and water.

Fasting helps you live a long time because longevity enzymes get activated.

However, it’s not realistic for most people because food addiction is strong. Put a tray of brownies or a steak in front of most people and will-power is easily overcome.

I find that keeping weight down and is quite easy if you build the determination to only eat food that is “worth you”.

I have a bet with a friend who’s now 250#. His college weight was 180#. He claims that he can do it…. but rather than losing weight, he’s increasing little by little every year. Right now, he has back pain and difficulting bending down. In 5 to 10 years, he’ll be 300#, paralyzed and unable to move, like the rest of America.

IMO, obesity is a national security issue. We need to fight it harder than we fight terrorism.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.[/quote]

I fast about once a month… skip dinner and eat very little during the day — just fruit and water.

Fasting helps you live a long time because longevity enzymes get activated.

However, it’s not realistic for most people because food addiction is strong. Put a tray of brownies or a steak in front of most people and will-power is easily overcome.

I find that keeping weight down and is quite easy if you build the determination to only eat food that is “worth you”.

I have a bet with a friend who’s now 250#. His college weight was 180#. He claims that he can do it…. but rather than losing weight, he’s increasing little by little every year. Right now, he has back pain and difficulting bending down. In 5 to 10 years, he’ll be 300#, paralyzed and unable to move, like the rest of America.

IMO, obesity is a national security issue. We need to fight it harder than we fight terrorism.

[scaredyclassic]

i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.

[scaredyclassic]

i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.

[scaredyclassic]

i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.

[scaredyclassic]

i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.

[scaredyclassic]

i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.

[scaredyclassic]

i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.

[scaredyclassic]

i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.

[scaredyclassic]

i probably mentioned this on the other fat thread but fasting–going without food–just water–for a long time is a deeply changing experience. i believe obesity could be cured if we had more fasting clinics where people went and didn’ t eat anything for 30 days. food looks different after a week or so of not eating.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=desmond]Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?[/quote]

I’m still occasionally lurking. Not posting much. Yep, I’ve kept the weight off. I was at 205 lbs when I decided that I had to lose weight. I weighed 167 this morning. That’s actually up from my normal 165 due to a homemade blueberry cobbler, but I think I should be able to work back to 165 in a week.

It’s hard keeping in shape though. It’s a never ending struggle. I love to eat, and my body would be glad to balloon up.

XBoxBoy

[desmond]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=desmond]Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?[/quote]

I’m still occasionally lurking. Not posting much. Yep, I’ve kept the weight off. I was at 205 lbs when I decided that I had to lose weight. I weighed 167 this morning. That’s actually up from my normal 165 due to a homemade blueberry cobbler, but I think I should be able to work back to 165 in a week.

It’s hard keeping in shape though. It’s a never ending struggle. I love to eat, and my body would be glad to balloon up.

XBoxBoy[/quote]
That is great, keeping the weight off is the tuff part. What helps is stepping on the scale each morning, even after the weekend……….

[desmond]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=desmond]Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?[/quote]

I’m still occasionally lurking. Not posting much. Yep, I’ve kept the weight off. I was at 205 lbs when I decided that I had to lose weight. I weighed 167 this morning. That’s actually up from my normal 165 due to a homemade blueberry cobbler, but I think I should be able to work back to 165 in a week.

It’s hard keeping in shape though. It’s a never ending struggle. I love to eat, and my body would be glad to balloon up.

XBoxBoy[/quote]
That is great, keeping the weight off is the tuff part. What helps is stepping on the scale each morning, even after the weekend……….

[desmond]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=desmond]Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?[/quote]

I’m still occasionally lurking. Not posting much. Yep, I’ve kept the weight off. I was at 205 lbs when I decided that I had to lose weight. I weighed 167 this morning. That’s actually up from my normal 165 due to a homemade blueberry cobbler, but I think I should be able to work back to 165 in a week.

It’s hard keeping in shape though. It’s a never ending struggle. I love to eat, and my body would be glad to balloon up.

XBoxBoy[/quote]
That is great, keeping the weight off is the tuff part. What helps is stepping on the scale each morning, even after the weekend……….

[desmond]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=desmond]Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?[/quote]

I’m still occasionally lurking. Not posting much. Yep, I’ve kept the weight off. I was at 205 lbs when I decided that I had to lose weight. I weighed 167 this morning. That’s actually up from my normal 165 due to a homemade blueberry cobbler, but I think I should be able to work back to 165 in a week.

It’s hard keeping in shape though. It’s a never ending struggle. I love to eat, and my body would be glad to balloon up.

XBoxBoy[/quote]
That is great, keeping the weight off is the tuff part. What helps is stepping on the scale each morning, even after the weekend……….

[desmond]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=desmond]Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?[/quote]

I’m still occasionally lurking. Not posting much. Yep, I’ve kept the weight off. I was at 205 lbs when I decided that I had to lose weight. I weighed 167 this morning. That’s actually up from my normal 165 due to a homemade blueberry cobbler, but I think I should be able to work back to 165 in a week.

It’s hard keeping in shape though. It’s a never ending struggle. I love to eat, and my body would be glad to balloon up.

XBoxBoy[/quote]
That is great, keeping the weight off is the tuff part. What helps is stepping on the scale each morning, even after the weekend……….

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=desmond]Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?[/quote]

I’m still occasionally lurking. Not posting much. Yep, I’ve kept the weight off. I was at 205 lbs when I decided that I had to lose weight. I weighed 167 this morning. That’s actually up from my normal 165 due to a homemade blueberry cobbler, but I think I should be able to work back to 165 in a week.

It’s hard keeping in shape though. It’s a never ending struggle. I love to eat, and my body would be glad to balloon up.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=desmond]Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?[/quote]

I’m still occasionally lurking. Not posting much. Yep, I’ve kept the weight off. I was at 205 lbs when I decided that I had to lose weight. I weighed 167 this morning. That’s actually up from my normal 165 due to a homemade blueberry cobbler, but I think I should be able to work back to 165 in a week.

It’s hard keeping in shape though. It’s a never ending struggle. I love to eat, and my body would be glad to balloon up.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=desmond]Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?[/quote]

I’m still occasionally lurking. Not posting much. Yep, I’ve kept the weight off. I was at 205 lbs when I decided that I had to lose weight. I weighed 167 this morning. That’s actually up from my normal 165 due to a homemade blueberry cobbler, but I think I should be able to work back to 165 in a week.

It’s hard keeping in shape though. It’s a never ending struggle. I love to eat, and my body would be glad to balloon up.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=desmond]Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?[/quote]

I’m still occasionally lurking. Not posting much. Yep, I’ve kept the weight off. I was at 205 lbs when I decided that I had to lose weight. I weighed 167 this morning. That’s actually up from my normal 165 due to a homemade blueberry cobbler, but I think I should be able to work back to 165 in a week.

It’s hard keeping in shape though. It’s a never ending struggle. I love to eat, and my body would be glad to balloon up.

XBoxBoy

[desmond]

Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?

[desmond]

Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?

[desmond]

Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?

[desmond]

Is Xboxboy still around? If so did you keep the 38 lbs off?

[blahblahblah]

We are almost 7 billion now up from just under 2 billion in 1900. The situation is clearly not under control. Unhealthy food, dangerous medical “treatments,” chemicals in the water, radiation, etc… will all do their part to reduce life expectancy and general health. The obesity is a nice benefit because it also serves to limit breeding (fat people don’t have the energy to do as much and have bad self images). Poor diets also reduces people’s strength and mobility, helping keep them docile and easy to control.

If the numbers don’t start coming down quickly enough to curb population growth, some “unexpected” highly contagious diseases will appear soon.

[Arraya]

[quote=CONCHO]

If the numbers don’t start coming down quickly enough to curb population growth, some “unexpected” highly contagious diseases will appear soon.[/quote]

Population growth is curbing itself. It started in the late 60s when the growth rate started to reverse. It topped off at 2.2% per year and now has dipped to under 1% globally. This trend is accelerating with some regions going negative. The world will top off at about 9 billion or just below then go into slow decline.

The population explosion of the 19th and 20th century was mainly due to public health measures and better nutritional understanding. People also used to have a lot of children because there was a very high infant mortality rate. This actually plummeted when doctors started washing their hands before delivering children. The first guy to suggest this, Ignaz Semmelweis, was met with scorn and ridicule for being unscientific. He ended up dying in a mental institute.

The US’s mental and physical health started to decline about 50 years ago. Besides the obesity epidemic there is also depression and addiction epidemics. Which the UK is experiencing as well. I assume these are all interrelated and have the similar causal mechanisms. They all have to do with dopamine stimulation.

[Arraya]

[quote=CONCHO]

If the numbers don’t start coming down quickly enough to curb population growth, some “unexpected” highly contagious diseases will appear soon.[/quote]

Population growth is curbing itself. It started in the late 60s when the growth rate started to reverse. It topped off at 2.2% per year and now has dipped to under 1% globally. This trend is accelerating with some regions going negative. The world will top off at about 9 billion or just below then go into slow decline.

The population explosion of the 19th and 20th century was mainly due to public health measures and better nutritional understanding. People also used to have a lot of children because there was a very high infant mortality rate. This actually plummeted when doctors started washing their hands before delivering children. The first guy to suggest this, Ignaz Semmelweis, was met with scorn and ridicule for being unscientific. He ended up dying in a mental institute.

The US’s mental and physical health started to decline about 50 years ago. Besides the obesity epidemic there is also depression and addiction epidemics. Which the UK is experiencing as well. I assume these are all interrelated and have the similar causal mechanisms. They all have to do with dopamine stimulation.

[Arraya]

[quote=CONCHO]

If the numbers don’t start coming down quickly enough to curb population growth, some “unexpected” highly contagious diseases will appear soon.[/quote]

Population growth is curbing itself. It started in the late 60s when the growth rate started to reverse. It topped off at 2.2% per year and now has dipped to under 1% globally. This trend is accelerating with some regions going negative. The world will top off at about 9 billion or just below then go into slow decline.

The population explosion of the 19th and 20th century was mainly due to public health measures and better nutritional understanding. People also used to have a lot of children because there was a very high infant mortality rate. This actually plummeted when doctors started washing their hands before delivering children. The first guy to suggest this, Ignaz Semmelweis, was met with scorn and ridicule for being unscientific. He ended up dying in a mental institute.

The US’s mental and physical health started to decline about 50 years ago. Besides the obesity epidemic there is also depression and addiction epidemics. Which the UK is experiencing as well. I assume these are all interrelated and have the similar causal mechanisms. They all have to do with dopamine stimulation.

[Arraya]

[quote=CONCHO]

If the numbers don’t start coming down quickly enough to curb population growth, some “unexpected” highly contagious diseases will appear soon.[/quote]

Population growth is curbing itself. It started in the late 60s when the growth rate started to reverse. It topped off at 2.2% per year and now has dipped to under 1% globally. This trend is accelerating with some regions going negative. The world will top off at about 9 billion or just below then go into slow decline.

The population explosion of the 19th and 20th century was mainly due to public health measures and better nutritional understanding. People also used to have a lot of children because there was a very high infant mortality rate. This actually plummeted when doctors started washing their hands before delivering children. The first guy to suggest this, Ignaz Semmelweis, was met with scorn and ridicule for being unscientific. He ended up dying in a mental institute.

The US’s mental and physical health started to decline about 50 years ago. Besides the obesity epidemic there is also depression and addiction epidemics. Which the UK is experiencing as well. I assume these are all interrelated and have the similar causal mechanisms. They all have to do with dopamine stimulation.

[Arraya]

[quote=CONCHO]

If the numbers don’t start coming down quickly enough to curb population growth, some “unexpected” highly contagious diseases will appear soon.[/quote]

Population growth is curbing itself. It started in the late 60s when the growth rate started to reverse. It topped off at 2.2% per year and now has dipped to under 1% globally. This trend is accelerating with some regions going negative. The world will top off at about 9 billion or just below then go into slow decline.

The population explosion of the 19th and 20th century was mainly due to public health measures and better nutritional understanding. People also used to have a lot of children because there was a very high infant mortality rate. This actually plummeted when doctors started washing their hands before delivering children. The first guy to suggest this, Ignaz Semmelweis, was met with scorn and ridicule for being unscientific. He ended up dying in a mental institute.

The US’s mental and physical health started to decline about 50 years ago. Besides the obesity epidemic there is also depression and addiction epidemics. Which the UK is experiencing as well. I assume these are all interrelated and have the similar causal mechanisms. They all have to do with dopamine stimulation.

[blahblahblah]

We are almost 7 billion now up from just under 2 billion in 1900. The situation is clearly not under control. Unhealthy food, dangerous medical “treatments,” chemicals in the water, radiation, etc… will all do their part to reduce life expectancy and general health. The obesity is a nice benefit because it also serves to limit breeding (fat people don’t have the energy to do as much and have bad self images). Poor diets also reduces people’s strength and mobility, helping keep them docile and easy to control.

If the numbers don’t start coming down quickly enough to curb population growth, some “unexpected” highly contagious diseases will appear soon.

[blahblahblah]

We are almost 7 billion now up from just under 2 billion in 1900. The situation is clearly not under control. Unhealthy food, dangerous medical “treatments,” chemicals in the water, radiation, etc… will all do their part to reduce life expectancy and general health. The obesity is a nice benefit because it also serves to limit breeding (fat people don’t have the energy to do as much and have bad self images). Poor diets also reduces people’s strength and mobility, helping keep them docile and easy to control.

If the numbers don’t start coming down quickly enough to curb population growth, some “unexpected” highly contagious diseases will appear soon.

[blahblahblah]

We are almost 7 billion now up from just under 2 billion in 1900. The situation is clearly not under control. Unhealthy food, dangerous medical “treatments,” chemicals in the water, radiation, etc… will all do their part to reduce life expectancy and general health. The obesity is a nice benefit because it also serves to limit breeding (fat people don’t have the energy to do as much and have bad self images). Poor diets also reduces people’s strength and mobility, helping keep them docile and easy to control.

If the numbers don’t start coming down quickly enough to curb population growth, some “unexpected” highly contagious diseases will appear soon.

[blahblahblah]

We are almost 7 billion now up from just under 2 billion in 1900. The situation is clearly not under control. Unhealthy food, dangerous medical “treatments,” chemicals in the water, radiation, etc… will all do their part to reduce life expectancy and general health. The obesity is a nice benefit because it also serves to limit breeding (fat people don’t have the energy to do as much and have bad self images). Poor diets also reduces people’s strength and mobility, helping keep them docile and easy to control.

If the numbers don’t start coming down quickly enough to curb population growth, some “unexpected” highly contagious diseases will appear soon.

[Ren]

I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.

[briansd1]

I’m with Ren.

Yes, there’s addiction and availability of food makes it easy for people to get addicted.

Yes, there problems with hormones, antibiotic, pesticides…

But the food is essentially the same as before — in many cases even healthier as before because of better inspections, rules and regulations.

It’s up to individuals to exercise personal responsibility.

Obesity is very much like the mortgage crisis were people become addicted to toxic products. Who’s the blame? The sellers or the buyers?

The difference is that with obesity, the crash will play out slowly. We’ll become a country of sick people.

[quote=Ren] What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

I agree.

But government can do a better job educating the public.

Government can also ban many chemical substances used in food.

And Government can also tax junk food or the ingredients used in making junk food.

[Arraya]

This is actually becoming well understood through many studies over the years in mature economies.

Happiness and life satisfaction rise steeply as one moves from subsistence-level poverty to a modest level of economic security and then levels off.

After that it’s starts to manifest in social pathologies.

During the last 50 years the US has doubled it’s per capita consumption. During the same time, obesity and a host of other mental disorders have skyrocketed.

So you start to get a correlation with economic growth, beyond a certain point, and epidemics of different illnesses in a society.

Now, a culture is an outgrowth of a political/economic system and patterns of behavior are encouraged to support that system.

Yes, the housing bubble was a similar dynamic – which if you pay attention, was in multiple countries.

We seem to confuse powerful cultural stressors for personal and social benefits. Among those stressors is a constant culturally-induced striving for perennially unsatisfiable desires that often conflict with basic bio-social needs – which manifests in all these increasing epidemics.

But, it is good for the economy in the short term.

[Arraya]

This is actually becoming well understood through many studies over the years in mature economies.

Happiness and life satisfaction rise steeply as one moves from subsistence-level poverty to a modest level of economic security and then levels off.

After that it’s starts to manifest in social pathologies.

During the last 50 years the US has doubled it’s per capita consumption. During the same time, obesity and a host of other mental disorders have skyrocketed.

So you start to get a correlation with economic growth, beyond a certain point, and epidemics of different illnesses in a society.

Now, a culture is an outgrowth of a political/economic system and patterns of behavior are encouraged to support that system.

Yes, the housing bubble was a similar dynamic – which if you pay attention, was in multiple countries.

We seem to confuse powerful cultural stressors for personal and social benefits. Among those stressors is a constant culturally-induced striving for perennially unsatisfiable desires that often conflict with basic bio-social needs – which manifests in all these increasing epidemics.

But, it is good for the economy in the short term.

[Arraya]

This is actually becoming well understood through many studies over the years in mature economies.

Happiness and life satisfaction rise steeply as one moves from subsistence-level poverty to a modest level of economic security and then levels off.

After that it’s starts to manifest in social pathologies.

During the last 50 years the US has doubled it’s per capita consumption. During the same time, obesity and a host of other mental disorders have skyrocketed.

So you start to get a correlation with economic growth, beyond a certain point, and epidemics of different illnesses in a society.

Now, a culture is an outgrowth of a political/economic system and patterns of behavior are encouraged to support that system.

Yes, the housing bubble was a similar dynamic – which if you pay attention, was in multiple countries.

We seem to confuse powerful cultural stressors for personal and social benefits. Among those stressors is a constant culturally-induced striving for perennially unsatisfiable desires that often conflict with basic bio-social needs – which manifests in all these increasing epidemics.

But, it is good for the economy in the short term.

[Arraya]

This is actually becoming well understood through many studies over the years in mature economies.

Happiness and life satisfaction rise steeply as one moves from subsistence-level poverty to a modest level of economic security and then levels off.

After that it’s starts to manifest in social pathologies.

During the last 50 years the US has doubled it’s per capita consumption. During the same time, obesity and a host of other mental disorders have skyrocketed.

So you start to get a correlation with economic growth, beyond a certain point, and epidemics of different illnesses in a society.

Now, a culture is an outgrowth of a political/economic system and patterns of behavior are encouraged to support that system.

Yes, the housing bubble was a similar dynamic – which if you pay attention, was in multiple countries.

We seem to confuse powerful cultural stressors for personal and social benefits. Among those stressors is a constant culturally-induced striving for perennially unsatisfiable desires that often conflict with basic bio-social needs – which manifests in all these increasing epidemics.

But, it is good for the economy in the short term.

[Arraya]

This is actually becoming well understood through many studies over the years in mature economies.

Happiness and life satisfaction rise steeply as one moves from subsistence-level poverty to a modest level of economic security and then levels off.

After that it’s starts to manifest in social pathologies.

During the last 50 years the US has doubled it’s per capita consumption. During the same time, obesity and a host of other mental disorders have skyrocketed.

So you start to get a correlation with economic growth, beyond a certain point, and epidemics of different illnesses in a society.

Now, a culture is an outgrowth of a political/economic system and patterns of behavior are encouraged to support that system.

Yes, the housing bubble was a similar dynamic – which if you pay attention, was in multiple countries.

We seem to confuse powerful cultural stressors for personal and social benefits. Among those stressors is a constant culturally-induced striving for perennially unsatisfiable desires that often conflict with basic bio-social needs – which manifests in all these increasing epidemics.

But, it is good for the economy in the short term.

[briansd1]

I’m with Ren.

Yes, there’s addiction and availability of food makes it easy for people to get addicted.

Yes, there problems with hormones, antibiotic, pesticides…

But the food is essentially the same as before — in many cases even healthier as before because of better inspections, rules and regulations.

It’s up to individuals to exercise personal responsibility.

Obesity is very much like the mortgage crisis were people become addicted to toxic products. Who’s the blame? The sellers or the buyers?

The difference is that with obesity, the crash will play out slowly. We’ll become a country of sick people.

[quote=Ren] What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

I agree.

But government can do a better job educating the public.

Government can also ban many chemical substances used in food.

And Government can also tax junk food or the ingredients used in making junk food.

[briansd1]

I’m with Ren.

Yes, there’s addiction and availability of food makes it easy for people to get addicted.

Yes, there problems with hormones, antibiotic, pesticides…

But the food is essentially the same as before — in many cases even healthier as before because of better inspections, rules and regulations.

It’s up to individuals to exercise personal responsibility.

Obesity is very much like the mortgage crisis were people become addicted to toxic products. Who’s the blame? The sellers or the buyers?

The difference is that with obesity, the crash will play out slowly. We’ll become a country of sick people.

[quote=Ren] What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

I agree.

But government can do a better job educating the public.

Government can also ban many chemical substances used in food.

And Government can also tax junk food or the ingredients used in making junk food.

[briansd1]

I’m with Ren.

Yes, there’s addiction and availability of food makes it easy for people to get addicted.

Yes, there problems with hormones, antibiotic, pesticides…

But the food is essentially the same as before — in many cases even healthier as before because of better inspections, rules and regulations.

It’s up to individuals to exercise personal responsibility.

Obesity is very much like the mortgage crisis were people become addicted to toxic products. Who’s the blame? The sellers or the buyers?

The difference is that with obesity, the crash will play out slowly. We’ll become a country of sick people.

[quote=Ren] What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

I agree.

But government can do a better job educating the public.

Government can also ban many chemical substances used in food.

And Government can also tax junk food or the ingredients used in making junk food.

[briansd1]

I’m with Ren.

Yes, there’s addiction and availability of food makes it easy for people to get addicted.

Yes, there problems with hormones, antibiotic, pesticides…

But the food is essentially the same as before — in many cases even healthier as before because of better inspections, rules and regulations.

It’s up to individuals to exercise personal responsibility.

Obesity is very much like the mortgage crisis were people become addicted to toxic products. Who’s the blame? The sellers or the buyers?

The difference is that with obesity, the crash will play out slowly. We’ll become a country of sick people.

[quote=Ren] What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

I agree.

But government can do a better job educating the public.

Government can also ban many chemical substances used in food.

And Government can also tax junk food or the ingredients used in making junk food.

[CA renter]

[quote=Ren]I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.

We now have three kids of our own. Our eldest is endomorphic, just like her dad and my sister. Our middle is “average.” Our youngest is more ectomorphic/mesomorphic. They all eat the same foods, and generally get the same level of exercise, but they have totally different bodies — and have had these totally different physiques, from birth. What I have noticed is that they metabolize food differently. The skinny one is what some might call “hyperactive,” while the heavy one is what some might call “lazy.” But neither of them is trying to be active or inactive; it’s innate.

I firmly believe that some people’s bodies are born to store food/energy, while other people have bodies that immediately convert food to kinetic energy.

It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.

[CA renter]

One more thing…

I wonder if the obesity epidemic is related to the fact that far fewer people are smoking cigarettes these days.
…….

More specifically, in three of the past four Gallup smoking measurements (conducted between July 2007 and today), only 20% or 21% of American adults have said they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Compared with the average of 25% who said they smoked from 2000 through 2006, this suggests a recent decline in U.S. smoking. (For the full trend, see the table elsewhere in this report.)

The latest result comes from Gallup’s annual Consumption Habits survey, conducted July 10-13, 2008.

Self-reported adult smoking peaked in 1954 at 45%, and remained at 40% or more through the early 1970s, but has since gradually declined. The average rate of smoking across the decades fell from 40% in the 1970s to 32% in the 1980s, 26% in the 1990s, and 24% since 2000.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
——————-

Obesity was relatively stable in the U.S. between 1960 and 1980 when about 15% of people fell into the category, and then it increased dramatically in the ’80s and ’90s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

[Look at the chart on this site — one could easily say there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates.]

[Arraya]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/252.full

The cultures of societies are underestimated determinants of their population health and well-being. This is as true of modern Western culture, including its defining qualities of materialism and individualism, as it is of other cultures. This paper draws on evidence from a range of disciplines to argue that materialism and individualism are detrimental to health and well-being through their impacts on psychosocial factors such as personal control and social support

snip

The psychological and sociological literatures suggest powerful effects of culture on psychological well-being. Take materialism, by which I mean attaching importance or priority to money and possessions (and so broadly equate here with consumerism), and which underpins consumption-based economies. Many psychological studies have shown that materialism is associated, not with happiness, but with dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety, anger, isolation, and alienation.13,20 Human needs for security and safety, competence and self-worth, connectedness to others, and autonomy and authenticity are relatively unsatisfied when materialistic values predominate.

People for whom ‘extrinsic goals’ such as fame, fortune, and glamour are a priority in life experience more anxiety and depression and lower overall well-being than people oriented towards ‘intrinsic goals’ of close relationships, self-knowledge and personal growth, and contributing to the community.13,20 People with extrinsic goals tend to have shorter relationships with friends and lovers, and relationships characterized more by jealousy and less by trust and caring.

As materialism reaches increasingly beyond the acquisition of things to the enhancement of the person, the goal of marketing becomes not only to make us dissatisfied with what we have, but also with who we are. As it seeks evermore ways to colonize our consciousness, the market both fosters and exploits the restless, insatiable expectation that there must be more to life. In short, the more materialistic we are, the poorer our quality of life.

snip

Cultural factors, especially materialism or consumerism, are also implicated in adverse social trends such as growing obesity and inactivity, which, in turn, are linked to a wide range of physical health problems including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.41

[Arraya]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11453334?dopt=Abstract
Increasing proportions of Australians are overweight or obese, a problem shared by all developed and, increasingly, developing nations. Now as many people in the world are overweight as underweight. Increasing obesity is a serious public health as well as economic problem. Its associated greater risks of high blood pressure, heart disease, osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes, some cancers and other health problems consume considerable proportions of healthcare budgets. Health inequalities often reflect social inequalities, but with overweight there is also a male-female difference in the relationship between overweight and socioeconomic status. Health promotion campaigns are underestimating the social determinants of health, and “risk fatigue” is affecting attitudes to complying with healthy lifestyle standards. Proposals to reverse the obesity trend, such as taxing or restricting the advertising of unhealthy foods, raise contentious issues of choice and regulation.

[Arraya]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11453334?dopt=Abstract
Increasing proportions of Australians are overweight or obese, a problem shared by all developed and, increasingly, developing nations. Now as many people in the world are overweight as underweight. Increasing obesity is a serious public health as well as economic problem. Its associated greater risks of high blood pressure, heart disease, osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes, some cancers and other health problems consume considerable proportions of healthcare budgets. Health inequalities often reflect social inequalities, but with overweight there is also a male-female difference in the relationship between overweight and socioeconomic status. Health promotion campaigns are underestimating the social determinants of health, and “risk fatigue” is affecting attitudes to complying with healthy lifestyle standards. Proposals to reverse the obesity trend, such as taxing or restricting the advertising of unhealthy foods, raise contentious issues of choice and regulation.

[Arraya]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11453334?dopt=Abstract
Increasing proportions of Australians are overweight or obese, a problem shared by all developed and, increasingly, developing nations. Now as many people in the world are overweight as underweight. Increasing obesity is a serious public health as well as economic problem. Its associated greater risks of high blood pressure, heart disease, osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes, some cancers and other health problems consume considerable proportions of healthcare budgets. Health inequalities often reflect social inequalities, but with overweight there is also a male-female difference in the relationship between overweight and socioeconomic status. Health promotion campaigns are underestimating the social determinants of health, and “risk fatigue” is affecting attitudes to complying with healthy lifestyle standards. Proposals to reverse the obesity trend, such as taxing or restricting the advertising of unhealthy foods, raise contentious issues of choice and regulation.

[Arraya]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11453334?dopt=Abstract
Increasing proportions of Australians are overweight or obese, a problem shared by all developed and, increasingly, developing nations. Now as many people in the world are overweight as underweight. Increasing obesity is a serious public health as well as economic problem. Its associated greater risks of high blood pressure, heart disease, osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes, some cancers and other health problems consume considerable proportions of healthcare budgets. Health inequalities often reflect social inequalities, but with overweight there is also a male-female difference in the relationship between overweight and socioeconomic status. Health promotion campaigns are underestimating the social determinants of health, and “risk fatigue” is affecting attitudes to complying with healthy lifestyle standards. Proposals to reverse the obesity trend, such as taxing or restricting the advertising of unhealthy foods, raise contentious issues of choice and regulation.

[Arraya]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11453334?dopt=Abstract
Increasing proportions of Australians are overweight or obese, a problem shared by all developed and, increasingly, developing nations. Now as many people in the world are overweight as underweight. Increasing obesity is a serious public health as well as economic problem. Its associated greater risks of high blood pressure, heart disease, osteoarthritis, type 2 diabetes, some cancers and other health problems consume considerable proportions of healthcare budgets. Health inequalities often reflect social inequalities, but with overweight there is also a male-female difference in the relationship between overweight and socioeconomic status. Health promotion campaigns are underestimating the social determinants of health, and “risk fatigue” is affecting attitudes to complying with healthy lifestyle standards. Proposals to reverse the obesity trend, such as taxing or restricting the advertising of unhealthy foods, raise contentious issues of choice and regulation.

[Arraya]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/252.full

The cultures of societies are underestimated determinants of their population health and well-being. This is as true of modern Western culture, including its defining qualities of materialism and individualism, as it is of other cultures. This paper draws on evidence from a range of disciplines to argue that materialism and individualism are detrimental to health and well-being through their impacts on psychosocial factors such as personal control and social support

snip

The psychological and sociological literatures suggest powerful effects of culture on psychological well-being. Take materialism, by which I mean attaching importance or priority to money and possessions (and so broadly equate here with consumerism), and which underpins consumption-based economies. Many psychological studies have shown that materialism is associated, not with happiness, but with dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety, anger, isolation, and alienation.13,20 Human needs for security and safety, competence and self-worth, connectedness to others, and autonomy and authenticity are relatively unsatisfied when materialistic values predominate.

People for whom ‘extrinsic goals’ such as fame, fortune, and glamour are a priority in life experience more anxiety and depression and lower overall well-being than people oriented towards ‘intrinsic goals’ of close relationships, self-knowledge and personal growth, and contributing to the community.13,20 People with extrinsic goals tend to have shorter relationships with friends and lovers, and relationships characterized more by jealousy and less by trust and caring.

As materialism reaches increasingly beyond the acquisition of things to the enhancement of the person, the goal of marketing becomes not only to make us dissatisfied with what we have, but also with who we are. As it seeks evermore ways to colonize our consciousness, the market both fosters and exploits the restless, insatiable expectation that there must be more to life. In short, the more materialistic we are, the poorer our quality of life.

snip

Cultural factors, especially materialism or consumerism, are also implicated in adverse social trends such as growing obesity and inactivity, which, in turn, are linked to a wide range of physical health problems including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.41

[Arraya]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/252.full

The cultures of societies are underestimated determinants of their population health and well-being. This is as true of modern Western culture, including its defining qualities of materialism and individualism, as it is of other cultures. This paper draws on evidence from a range of disciplines to argue that materialism and individualism are detrimental to health and well-being through their impacts on psychosocial factors such as personal control and social support

snip

The psychological and sociological literatures suggest powerful effects of culture on psychological well-being. Take materialism, by which I mean attaching importance or priority to money and possessions (and so broadly equate here with consumerism), and which underpins consumption-based economies. Many psychological studies have shown that materialism is associated, not with happiness, but with dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety, anger, isolation, and alienation.13,20 Human needs for security and safety, competence and self-worth, connectedness to others, and autonomy and authenticity are relatively unsatisfied when materialistic values predominate.

People for whom ‘extrinsic goals’ such as fame, fortune, and glamour are a priority in life experience more anxiety and depression and lower overall well-being than people oriented towards ‘intrinsic goals’ of close relationships, self-knowledge and personal growth, and contributing to the community.13,20 People with extrinsic goals tend to have shorter relationships with friends and lovers, and relationships characterized more by jealousy and less by trust and caring.

As materialism reaches increasingly beyond the acquisition of things to the enhancement of the person, the goal of marketing becomes not only to make us dissatisfied with what we have, but also with who we are. As it seeks evermore ways to colonize our consciousness, the market both fosters and exploits the restless, insatiable expectation that there must be more to life. In short, the more materialistic we are, the poorer our quality of life.

snip

Cultural factors, especially materialism or consumerism, are also implicated in adverse social trends such as growing obesity and inactivity, which, in turn, are linked to a wide range of physical health problems including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.41

[Arraya]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/252.full

The cultures of societies are underestimated determinants of their population health and well-being. This is as true of modern Western culture, including its defining qualities of materialism and individualism, as it is of other cultures. This paper draws on evidence from a range of disciplines to argue that materialism and individualism are detrimental to health and well-being through their impacts on psychosocial factors such as personal control and social support

snip

The psychological and sociological literatures suggest powerful effects of culture on psychological well-being. Take materialism, by which I mean attaching importance or priority to money and possessions (and so broadly equate here with consumerism), and which underpins consumption-based economies. Many psychological studies have shown that materialism is associated, not with happiness, but with dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety, anger, isolation, and alienation.13,20 Human needs for security and safety, competence and self-worth, connectedness to others, and autonomy and authenticity are relatively unsatisfied when materialistic values predominate.

People for whom ‘extrinsic goals’ such as fame, fortune, and glamour are a priority in life experience more anxiety and depression and lower overall well-being than people oriented towards ‘intrinsic goals’ of close relationships, self-knowledge and personal growth, and contributing to the community.13,20 People with extrinsic goals tend to have shorter relationships with friends and lovers, and relationships characterized more by jealousy and less by trust and caring.

As materialism reaches increasingly beyond the acquisition of things to the enhancement of the person, the goal of marketing becomes not only to make us dissatisfied with what we have, but also with who we are. As it seeks evermore ways to colonize our consciousness, the market both fosters and exploits the restless, insatiable expectation that there must be more to life. In short, the more materialistic we are, the poorer our quality of life.

snip

Cultural factors, especially materialism or consumerism, are also implicated in adverse social trends such as growing obesity and inactivity, which, in turn, are linked to a wide range of physical health problems including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.41

[Arraya]

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/252.full

The cultures of societies are underestimated determinants of their population health and well-being. This is as true of modern Western culture, including its defining qualities of materialism and individualism, as it is of other cultures. This paper draws on evidence from a range of disciplines to argue that materialism and individualism are detrimental to health and well-being through their impacts on psychosocial factors such as personal control and social support

snip

The psychological and sociological literatures suggest powerful effects of culture on psychological well-being. Take materialism, by which I mean attaching importance or priority to money and possessions (and so broadly equate here with consumerism), and which underpins consumption-based economies. Many psychological studies have shown that materialism is associated, not with happiness, but with dissatisfaction, depression, anxiety, anger, isolation, and alienation.13,20 Human needs for security and safety, competence and self-worth, connectedness to others, and autonomy and authenticity are relatively unsatisfied when materialistic values predominate.

People for whom ‘extrinsic goals’ such as fame, fortune, and glamour are a priority in life experience more anxiety and depression and lower overall well-being than people oriented towards ‘intrinsic goals’ of close relationships, self-knowledge and personal growth, and contributing to the community.13,20 People with extrinsic goals tend to have shorter relationships with friends and lovers, and relationships characterized more by jealousy and less by trust and caring.

As materialism reaches increasingly beyond the acquisition of things to the enhancement of the person, the goal of marketing becomes not only to make us dissatisfied with what we have, but also with who we are. As it seeks evermore ways to colonize our consciousness, the market both fosters and exploits the restless, insatiable expectation that there must be more to life. In short, the more materialistic we are, the poorer our quality of life.

snip

Cultural factors, especially materialism or consumerism, are also implicated in adverse social trends such as growing obesity and inactivity, which, in turn, are linked to a wide range of physical health problems including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.41

[CA renter]

One more thing…

I wonder if the obesity epidemic is related to the fact that far fewer people are smoking cigarettes these days.
…….

More specifically, in three of the past four Gallup smoking measurements (conducted between July 2007 and today), only 20% or 21% of American adults have said they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Compared with the average of 25% who said they smoked from 2000 through 2006, this suggests a recent decline in U.S. smoking. (For the full trend, see the table elsewhere in this report.)

The latest result comes from Gallup’s annual Consumption Habits survey, conducted July 10-13, 2008.

Self-reported adult smoking peaked in 1954 at 45%, and remained at 40% or more through the early 1970s, but has since gradually declined. The average rate of smoking across the decades fell from 40% in the 1970s to 32% in the 1980s, 26% in the 1990s, and 24% since 2000.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
——————-

Obesity was relatively stable in the U.S. between 1960 and 1980 when about 15% of people fell into the category, and then it increased dramatically in the ’80s and ’90s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

[Look at the chart on this site — one could easily say there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates.]

[CA renter]

One more thing…

I wonder if the obesity epidemic is related to the fact that far fewer people are smoking cigarettes these days.
…….

More specifically, in three of the past four Gallup smoking measurements (conducted between July 2007 and today), only 20% or 21% of American adults have said they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Compared with the average of 25% who said they smoked from 2000 through 2006, this suggests a recent decline in U.S. smoking. (For the full trend, see the table elsewhere in this report.)

The latest result comes from Gallup’s annual Consumption Habits survey, conducted July 10-13, 2008.

Self-reported adult smoking peaked in 1954 at 45%, and remained at 40% or more through the early 1970s, but has since gradually declined. The average rate of smoking across the decades fell from 40% in the 1970s to 32% in the 1980s, 26% in the 1990s, and 24% since 2000.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
——————-

Obesity was relatively stable in the U.S. between 1960 and 1980 when about 15% of people fell into the category, and then it increased dramatically in the ’80s and ’90s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

[Look at the chart on this site — one could easily say there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates.]

[CA renter]

One more thing…

I wonder if the obesity epidemic is related to the fact that far fewer people are smoking cigarettes these days.
…….

More specifically, in three of the past four Gallup smoking measurements (conducted between July 2007 and today), only 20% or 21% of American adults have said they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Compared with the average of 25% who said they smoked from 2000 through 2006, this suggests a recent decline in U.S. smoking. (For the full trend, see the table elsewhere in this report.)

The latest result comes from Gallup’s annual Consumption Habits survey, conducted July 10-13, 2008.

Self-reported adult smoking peaked in 1954 at 45%, and remained at 40% or more through the early 1970s, but has since gradually declined. The average rate of smoking across the decades fell from 40% in the 1970s to 32% in the 1980s, 26% in the 1990s, and 24% since 2000.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
——————-

Obesity was relatively stable in the U.S. between 1960 and 1980 when about 15% of people fell into the category, and then it increased dramatically in the ’80s and ’90s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

[Look at the chart on this site — one could easily say there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates.]

[CA renter]

One more thing…

I wonder if the obesity epidemic is related to the fact that far fewer people are smoking cigarettes these days.
…….

More specifically, in three of the past four Gallup smoking measurements (conducted between July 2007 and today), only 20% or 21% of American adults have said they smoked cigarettes in the past week. Compared with the average of 25% who said they smoked from 2000 through 2006, this suggests a recent decline in U.S. smoking. (For the full trend, see the table elsewhere in this report.)

The latest result comes from Gallup’s annual Consumption Habits survey, conducted July 10-13, 2008.

Self-reported adult smoking peaked in 1954 at 45%, and remained at 40% or more through the early 1970s, but has since gradually declined. The average rate of smoking across the decades fell from 40% in the 1970s to 32% in the 1980s, 26% in the 1990s, and 24% since 2000.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109048/us-smoking-rate-still-coming-down.aspx
——————-

Obesity was relatively stable in the U.S. between 1960 and 1980 when about 15% of people fell into the category, and then it increased dramatically in the ’80s and ’90s.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

[Look at the chart on this site — one could easily say there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates.]

[Ren]

[quote=CA renter]Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.
[/quote]

Oh I completely agree. For some it’s more difficult, and your body does change with age and pregnancy. My wife has to do an hour of cardio, 5 days/week, to lose weight. I can do half that for the same results. Strict calorie control makes it easier, and that also means eating enough. I’ve had endomorphic “clients” (casual training for friends and coworkers – I was never certified) who didn’t have consistent results until they increased their food intake.

No matter the difficulty, an energy deficit WILL cause you to lose weight, so “bad” genes still aren’t an acceptable excuse (as a former 14-year smoker, no level of difficulty is an acceptable excuse in my mind). I’m also a firm believer in the moderate use of thermogenic drugs – not so much for their fat burning effect or appetite suppression, but for the motivation they give you to get moving.

The first couple weeks are the hardest. After that it gets much easier for all body types – both the cardio and the eating. Your stomach stretches with large meals, making you feel more hungry later. If your meals are consistently small and you eat enough (say 1500 cal/day for a woman), the pangs are minimal.

[scaredyclassic]

Obese relatives came over. We offered watermelon for dessert. They insisted on heading walmart for chips and crap. I couldn’t stand to listen to talk about health crap and had to leave for a long walk.

[scaredyclassic]

Obese relatives came over. We offered watermelon for dessert. They insisted on heading walmart for chips and crap. I couldn’t stand to listen to talk about health crap and had to leave for a long walk.

[scaredyclassic]

Obese relatives came over. We offered watermelon for dessert. They insisted on heading walmart for chips and crap. I couldn’t stand to listen to talk about health crap and had to leave for a long walk.

[scaredyclassic]

Obese relatives came over. We offered watermelon for dessert. They insisted on heading walmart for chips and crap. I couldn’t stand to listen to talk about health crap and had to leave for a long walk.

[scaredyclassic]

Obese relatives came over. We offered watermelon for dessert. They insisted on heading walmart for chips and crap. I couldn’t stand to listen to talk about health crap and had to leave for a long walk.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable. [/quote]

Another case: my big brother doesn’t lift a finger in the house. He never cooks or prepare his own meals (but he’s a good provider and his wife stays home).

She’s from Kentucky and she cooks Southern food out of habit. Both husband and wife are puffing up in middle age. They know that they are, but its incremental so it becomes accepted.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable. [/quote]

Another case: my big brother doesn’t lift a finger in the house. He never cooks or prepare his own meals (but he’s a good provider and his wife stays home).

She’s from Kentucky and she cooks Southern food out of habit. Both husband and wife are puffing up in middle age. They know that they are, but its incremental so it becomes accepted.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable. [/quote]

Another case: my big brother doesn’t lift a finger in the house. He never cooks or prepare his own meals (but he’s a good provider and his wife stays home).

She’s from Kentucky and she cooks Southern food out of habit. Both husband and wife are puffing up in middle age. They know that they are, but its incremental so it becomes accepted.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable. [/quote]

Another case: my big brother doesn’t lift a finger in the house. He never cooks or prepare his own meals (but he’s a good provider and his wife stays home).

She’s from Kentucky and she cooks Southern food out of habit. Both husband and wife are puffing up in middle age. They know that they are, but its incremental so it becomes accepted.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable. [/quote]

Another case: my big brother doesn’t lift a finger in the house. He never cooks or prepare his own meals (but he’s a good provider and his wife stays home).

She’s from Kentucky and she cooks Southern food out of habit. Both husband and wife are puffing up in middle age. They know that they are, but its incremental so it becomes accepted.

[Ren]

[quote=CA renter]Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.
[/quote]

Oh I completely agree. For some it’s more difficult, and your body does change with age and pregnancy. My wife has to do an hour of cardio, 5 days/week, to lose weight. I can do half that for the same results. Strict calorie control makes it easier, and that also means eating enough. I’ve had endomorphic “clients” (casual training for friends and coworkers – I was never certified) who didn’t have consistent results until they increased their food intake.

No matter the difficulty, an energy deficit WILL cause you to lose weight, so “bad” genes still aren’t an acceptable excuse (as a former 14-year smoker, no level of difficulty is an acceptable excuse in my mind). I’m also a firm believer in the moderate use of thermogenic drugs – not so much for their fat burning effect or appetite suppression, but for the motivation they give you to get moving.

The first couple weeks are the hardest. After that it gets much easier for all body types – both the cardio and the eating. Your stomach stretches with large meals, making you feel more hungry later. If your meals are consistently small and you eat enough (say 1500 cal/day for a woman), the pangs are minimal.

[Ren]

[quote=CA renter]Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.
[/quote]

Oh I completely agree. For some it’s more difficult, and your body does change with age and pregnancy. My wife has to do an hour of cardio, 5 days/week, to lose weight. I can do half that for the same results. Strict calorie control makes it easier, and that also means eating enough. I’ve had endomorphic “clients” (casual training for friends and coworkers – I was never certified) who didn’t have consistent results until they increased their food intake.

No matter the difficulty, an energy deficit WILL cause you to lose weight, so “bad” genes still aren’t an acceptable excuse (as a former 14-year smoker, no level of difficulty is an acceptable excuse in my mind). I’m also a firm believer in the moderate use of thermogenic drugs – not so much for their fat burning effect or appetite suppression, but for the motivation they give you to get moving.

The first couple weeks are the hardest. After that it gets much easier for all body types – both the cardio and the eating. Your stomach stretches with large meals, making you feel more hungry later. If your meals are consistently small and you eat enough (say 1500 cal/day for a woman), the pangs are minimal.

[Ren]

[quote=CA renter]Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.
[/quote]

Oh I completely agree. For some it’s more difficult, and your body does change with age and pregnancy. My wife has to do an hour of cardio, 5 days/week, to lose weight. I can do half that for the same results. Strict calorie control makes it easier, and that also means eating enough. I’ve had endomorphic “clients” (casual training for friends and coworkers – I was never certified) who didn’t have consistent results until they increased their food intake.

No matter the difficulty, an energy deficit WILL cause you to lose weight, so “bad” genes still aren’t an acceptable excuse (as a former 14-year smoker, no level of difficulty is an acceptable excuse in my mind). I’m also a firm believer in the moderate use of thermogenic drugs – not so much for their fat burning effect or appetite suppression, but for the motivation they give you to get moving.

The first couple weeks are the hardest. After that it gets much easier for all body types – both the cardio and the eating. Your stomach stretches with large meals, making you feel more hungry later. If your meals are consistently small and you eat enough (say 1500 cal/day for a woman), the pangs are minimal.

[Ren]

[quote=CA renter]Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.
[/quote]

Oh I completely agree. For some it’s more difficult, and your body does change with age and pregnancy. My wife has to do an hour of cardio, 5 days/week, to lose weight. I can do half that for the same results. Strict calorie control makes it easier, and that also means eating enough. I’ve had endomorphic “clients” (casual training for friends and coworkers – I was never certified) who didn’t have consistent results until they increased their food intake.

No matter the difficulty, an energy deficit WILL cause you to lose weight, so “bad” genes still aren’t an acceptable excuse (as a former 14-year smoker, no level of difficulty is an acceptable excuse in my mind). I’m also a firm believer in the moderate use of thermogenic drugs – not so much for their fat burning effect or appetite suppression, but for the motivation they give you to get moving.

The first couple weeks are the hardest. After that it gets much easier for all body types – both the cardio and the eating. Your stomach stretches with large meals, making you feel more hungry later. If your meals are consistently small and you eat enough (say 1500 cal/day for a woman), the pangs are minimal.

[TemekuT]

Another poster wrote: “It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.”

Analyze for yourself what fat people are:

a. feeding their children in public places – especially when you see the mom give the toddler in the stroller a 2 adult serving bag of Cheetos and a 16 oz. soda!
b. placing in their shopping carts
c. ordering in restaurants

The reason for their obesity is apparent.

[TemekuT]

Another poster wrote: “It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.”

Analyze for yourself what fat people are:

a. feeding their children in public places – especially when you see the mom give the toddler in the stroller a 2 adult serving bag of Cheetos and a 16 oz. soda!
b. placing in their shopping carts
c. ordering in restaurants

The reason for their obesity is apparent.

[TemekuT]

Another poster wrote: “It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.”

Analyze for yourself what fat people are:

a. feeding their children in public places – especially when you see the mom give the toddler in the stroller a 2 adult serving bag of Cheetos and a 16 oz. soda!
b. placing in their shopping carts
c. ordering in restaurants

The reason for their obesity is apparent.

[TemekuT]

Another poster wrote: “It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.”

Analyze for yourself what fat people are:

a. feeding their children in public places – especially when you see the mom give the toddler in the stroller a 2 adult serving bag of Cheetos and a 16 oz. soda!
b. placing in their shopping carts
c. ordering in restaurants

The reason for their obesity is apparent.

[TemekuT]

Another poster wrote: “It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.”

Analyze for yourself what fat people are:

a. feeding their children in public places – especially when you see the mom give the toddler in the stroller a 2 adult serving bag of Cheetos and a 16 oz. soda!
b. placing in their shopping carts
c. ordering in restaurants

The reason for their obesity is apparent.

[TemekuT]

Another poster wrote: “Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.”

True, time and hormones cause female bodies to lose muscle and gain fat. To combat my middle-age bulge I started following an clean eating diet a few months ago and with only 75% adherence to clean eating principles and by adding only 2 strenuous weekly weight routines to my already sufficient aerobic schedule, I have lost several pounds and considerable fat % without dieting or feeling hungry. I try to eat 3 small meals and 3 snacks daily. Alcohol and sugar consumption have been cut in half.

Is eating clean always easy and fun? No! It takes discipline to cook those steel cut oats instead of eating a muffin, and to pack healthy snacks in a cooler instead of getting a pretzel at the mall. Is it worth it? Definitely, specially when I realize the fat is dropping off and the muscle is increasing.

I follow (albeit imperfectly) the eating plan in Tosca Reno’s book “The Eat Clean Diet Recharged” and the results are evident.

[TemekuT]

Another poster wrote: “Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.”

True, time and hormones cause female bodies to lose muscle and gain fat. To combat my middle-age bulge I started following an clean eating diet a few months ago and with only 75% adherence to clean eating principles and by adding only 2 strenuous weekly weight routines to my already sufficient aerobic schedule, I have lost several pounds and considerable fat % without dieting or feeling hungry. I try to eat 3 small meals and 3 snacks daily. Alcohol and sugar consumption have been cut in half.

Is eating clean always easy and fun? No! It takes discipline to cook those steel cut oats instead of eating a muffin, and to pack healthy snacks in a cooler instead of getting a pretzel at the mall. Is it worth it? Definitely, specially when I realize the fat is dropping off and the muscle is increasing.

I follow (albeit imperfectly) the eating plan in Tosca Reno’s book “The Eat Clean Diet Recharged” and the results are evident.

[TemekuT]

Another poster wrote: “Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.”

True, time and hormones cause female bodies to lose muscle and gain fat. To combat my middle-age bulge I started following an clean eating diet a few months ago and with only 75% adherence to clean eating principles and by adding only 2 strenuous weekly weight routines to my already sufficient aerobic schedule, I have lost several pounds and considerable fat % without dieting or feeling hungry. I try to eat 3 small meals and 3 snacks daily. Alcohol and sugar consumption have been cut in half.

Is eating clean always easy and fun? No! It takes discipline to cook those steel cut oats instead of eating a muffin, and to pack healthy snacks in a cooler instead of getting a pretzel at the mall. Is it worth it? Definitely, specially when I realize the fat is dropping off and the muscle is increasing.

I follow (albeit imperfectly) the eating plan in Tosca Reno’s book “The Eat Clean Diet Recharged” and the results are evident.

[TemekuT]

Another poster wrote: “Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.”

True, time and hormones cause female bodies to lose muscle and gain fat. To combat my middle-age bulge I started following an clean eating diet a few months ago and with only 75% adherence to clean eating principles and by adding only 2 strenuous weekly weight routines to my already sufficient aerobic schedule, I have lost several pounds and considerable fat % without dieting or feeling hungry. I try to eat 3 small meals and 3 snacks daily. Alcohol and sugar consumption have been cut in half.

Is eating clean always easy and fun? No! It takes discipline to cook those steel cut oats instead of eating a muffin, and to pack healthy snacks in a cooler instead of getting a pretzel at the mall. Is it worth it? Definitely, specially when I realize the fat is dropping off and the muscle is increasing.

I follow (albeit imperfectly) the eating plan in Tosca Reno’s book “The Eat Clean Diet Recharged” and the results are evident.

[TemekuT]

Another poster wrote: “Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.”

True, time and hormones cause female bodies to lose muscle and gain fat. To combat my middle-age bulge I started following an clean eating diet a few months ago and with only 75% adherence to clean eating principles and by adding only 2 strenuous weekly weight routines to my already sufficient aerobic schedule, I have lost several pounds and considerable fat % without dieting or feeling hungry. I try to eat 3 small meals and 3 snacks daily. Alcohol and sugar consumption have been cut in half.

Is eating clean always easy and fun? No! It takes discipline to cook those steel cut oats instead of eating a muffin, and to pack healthy snacks in a cooler instead of getting a pretzel at the mall. Is it worth it? Definitely, specially when I realize the fat is dropping off and the muscle is increasing.

I follow (albeit imperfectly) the eating plan in Tosca Reno’s book “The Eat Clean Diet Recharged” and the results are evident.

[CA renter]

[quote=Ren]I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.

We now have three kids of our own. Our eldest is endomorphic, just like her dad and my sister. Our middle is “average.” Our youngest is more ectomorphic/mesomorphic. They all eat the same foods, and generally get the same level of exercise, but they have totally different bodies — and have had these totally different physiques, from birth. What I have noticed is that they metabolize food differently. The skinny one is what some might call “hyperactive,” while the heavy one is what some might call “lazy.” But neither of them is trying to be active or inactive; it’s innate.

I firmly believe that some people’s bodies are born to store food/energy, while other people have bodies that immediately convert food to kinetic energy.

It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.

[CA renter]

[quote=Ren]I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.

We now have three kids of our own. Our eldest is endomorphic, just like her dad and my sister. Our middle is “average.” Our youngest is more ectomorphic/mesomorphic. They all eat the same foods, and generally get the same level of exercise, but they have totally different bodies — and have had these totally different physiques, from birth. What I have noticed is that they metabolize food differently. The skinny one is what some might call “hyperactive,” while the heavy one is what some might call “lazy.” But neither of them is trying to be active or inactive; it’s innate.

I firmly believe that some people’s bodies are born to store food/energy, while other people have bodies that immediately convert food to kinetic energy.

It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.

[CA renter]

[quote=Ren]I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.

We now have three kids of our own. Our eldest is endomorphic, just like her dad and my sister. Our middle is “average.” Our youngest is more ectomorphic/mesomorphic. They all eat the same foods, and generally get the same level of exercise, but they have totally different bodies — and have had these totally different physiques, from birth. What I have noticed is that they metabolize food differently. The skinny one is what some might call “hyperactive,” while the heavy one is what some might call “lazy.” But neither of them is trying to be active or inactive; it’s innate.

I firmly believe that some people’s bodies are born to store food/energy, while other people have bodies that immediately convert food to kinetic energy.

It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.

[CA renter]

[quote=Ren]I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.[/quote]

Regarding the “genes,” you can have five different siblings, but only one or two might have the “bad” genes. Just like eye color, hair color, height, intelligence, disease risk, etc.; you can have a family with certain genes, but they only manifest themselves in certain people.

Case in point: my sister was born 11 pounds, 2 oz. I was born 6 pounds, 8 oz. All our lives, I could eat twice as much as she did, but she would rapidly gain weight, while I would lose weight or remain stable.

Up until I started having kids, people would ask how I did it. I ate total crap — tons of sugar, fat, and fast food, but never gained weight, and looked very athletic. That all changed once I started getting pregnant. The hormones caused some sort of shift in my body, and it’s never been the same since.

When the overweight people used to ask me what my secret was, I shamefully admit that I used to think they were sneaking ice cream every day and lounging around on the couch all day; after all, when I watched them eat, they were eating better than I was, and they were always going for walks and trying to remain active. Of course, they had to be cheating, or else they’d be slim and athletic looking, right? I was one of the “lucky” ones who was arrogant and thought every overweight person was just lazy and lacked self-control. Now, I know better.

We now have three kids of our own. Our eldest is endomorphic, just like her dad and my sister. Our middle is “average.” Our youngest is more ectomorphic/mesomorphic. They all eat the same foods, and generally get the same level of exercise, but they have totally different bodies — and have had these totally different physiques, from birth. What I have noticed is that they metabolize food differently. The skinny one is what some might call “hyperactive,” while the heavy one is what some might call “lazy.” But neither of them is trying to be active or inactive; it’s innate.

I firmly believe that some people’s bodies are born to store food/energy, while other people have bodies that immediately convert food to kinetic energy.

It’s easy to look at a heavy person and claim that they are “lazy” and lack self-control, but that kind of thinking is too simplistic. It doesn’t account for the fact that they have to FORCE their bodies to move, whereas the “hyperactive” ones (fast metabolizers) have bodies that move themselves! Think of how different hormones and medicines can make people quickly gain or lose weight, regardless of what they eat or how much exercise they get. There is far more involved in our “obesity epidemic” than some might like to believe.

[Ren]

I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.

[Ren]

I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.

[Ren]

I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.

[Ren]

I’m a fitness fanatic, so the subject comes up a lot around me, and 100% of the obese people I’ve talked to blame their genes and/or age. This gives them the excuse they need to not make the lifestyle changes that would enable them to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Of course they always say I’m lucky to have gotten the “good” genes. When I point out that I control my caloric intake and exercise, they dismiss it with a wave of their hand and quickly move away, so they won’t have to face the idea that they might have to do some actual work.

If someone doesn’t correlate taking in 4,000 calories of fast food and beer every day (while getting no exercise whatsoever) with their ever-increasing waistline, that’s sheer laziness and stupidity – not the evil food industry. God forbid they get their heart rate up and pay attention to what they’re shoveling in their mouth. When they finally do, what do you know – the fat falls off. There’s no way around the math.

Case in point – my wife’s dad weighs 550 (not a typo), while she looks great in a swimsuit after two kids. Same “fat” genes, same love of food. The difference? She exercises and has a little self-control. It doesn’t take much.

Obviously we need some regulation – the kind where they make manufacturers and restaurants publish the content of food. What we don’t need is someone telling Ben and Jerry’s they’re not allowed to cram 1,200 calories into a pint.

[TemekuT]

We took overweight (he 70 lb, she 40 lb.) friends to our Rosarito Beach house for a couple of days. I told her in advance that we generally go out for early dinner to Puerto Nuevo and to El Nido for another dinner, and cook a late hearty breakfast at the house. Because the meals are so heavy and we don’t exercise while there, we skip lunch and snack on vegetables and fruit and low calorie items. She said she’d bring some snacks – she brought a 12 pack of coke, which he consumed in its entirety, 2 bags of various chips, a box of cookies, and a bag of mini candy bars. To our amazement and revulsion, they munched their way through most of that crap. After we crossed back into the U.S. and stopped at In ‘n Out for lunch, hubby and I each had a cheeseburger, split an order of fries, and drank plain ice tea. They each had a double-double with fries and a large milkshake.

There is a reason why people are fat and it is not genetics. You may be more naturally fleshy, but if you keep stuffing crap in your body and not exercising, you will become obese.

[TemekuT]

We took overweight (he 70 lb, she 40 lb.) friends to our Rosarito Beach house for a couple of days. I told her in advance that we generally go out for early dinner to Puerto Nuevo and to El Nido for another dinner, and cook a late hearty breakfast at the house. Because the meals are so heavy and we don’t exercise while there, we skip lunch and snack on vegetables and fruit and low calorie items. She said she’d bring some snacks – she brought a 12 pack of coke, which he consumed in its entirety, 2 bags of various chips, a box of cookies, and a bag of mini candy bars. To our amazement and revulsion, they munched their way through most of that crap. After we crossed back into the U.S. and stopped at In ‘n Out for lunch, hubby and I each had a cheeseburger, split an order of fries, and drank plain ice tea. They each had a double-double with fries and a large milkshake.

There is a reason why people are fat and it is not genetics. You may be more naturally fleshy, but if you keep stuffing crap in your body and not exercising, you will become obese.

[TemekuT]

We took overweight (he 70 lb, she 40 lb.) friends to our Rosarito Beach house for a couple of days. I told her in advance that we generally go out for early dinner to Puerto Nuevo and to El Nido for another dinner, and cook a late hearty breakfast at the house. Because the meals are so heavy and we don’t exercise while there, we skip lunch and snack on vegetables and fruit and low calorie items. She said she’d bring some snacks – she brought a 12 pack of coke, which he consumed in its entirety, 2 bags of various chips, a box of cookies, and a bag of mini candy bars. To our amazement and revulsion, they munched their way through most of that crap. After we crossed back into the U.S. and stopped at In ‘n Out for lunch, hubby and I each had a cheeseburger, split an order of fries, and drank plain ice tea. They each had a double-double with fries and a large milkshake.

There is a reason why people are fat and it is not genetics. You may be more naturally fleshy, but if you keep stuffing crap in your body and not exercising, you will become obese.

[TemekuT]

We took overweight (he 70 lb, she 40 lb.) friends to our Rosarito Beach house for a couple of days. I told her in advance that we generally go out for early dinner to Puerto Nuevo and to El Nido for another dinner, and cook a late hearty breakfast at the house. Because the meals are so heavy and we don’t exercise while there, we skip lunch and snack on vegetables and fruit and low calorie items. She said she’d bring some snacks – she brought a 12 pack of coke, which he consumed in its entirety, 2 bags of various chips, a box of cookies, and a bag of mini candy bars. To our amazement and revulsion, they munched their way through most of that crap. After we crossed back into the U.S. and stopped at In ‘n Out for lunch, hubby and I each had a cheeseburger, split an order of fries, and drank plain ice tea. They each had a double-double with fries and a large milkshake.

There is a reason why people are fat and it is not genetics. You may be more naturally fleshy, but if you keep stuffing crap in your body and not exercising, you will become obese.

[TemekuT]

We took overweight (he 70 lb, she 40 lb.) friends to our Rosarito Beach house for a couple of days. I told her in advance that we generally go out for early dinner to Puerto Nuevo and to El Nido for another dinner, and cook a late hearty breakfast at the house. Because the meals are so heavy and we don’t exercise while there, we skip lunch and snack on vegetables and fruit and low calorie items. She said she’d bring some snacks – she brought a 12 pack of coke, which he consumed in its entirety, 2 bags of various chips, a box of cookies, and a bag of mini candy bars. To our amazement and revulsion, they munched their way through most of that crap. After we crossed back into the U.S. and stopped at In ‘n Out for lunch, hubby and I each had a cheeseburger, split an order of fries, and drank plain ice tea. They each had a double-double with fries and a large milkshake.

There is a reason why people are fat and it is not genetics. You may be more naturally fleshy, but if you keep stuffing crap in your body and not exercising, you will become obese.

[ocrenter]

there will always be weight variations amongst folks as there will always be genetic variations. this is a fact and this is not what is being discussed here.

but statistics do not lie. we went from less than 10% obesity rate in this country to over 33% obesity rate within a single generation. (and we went from less than 33% overweight to greater than 67% overweight).

every time the obesity issue is brought up, time and time again folks will bring up how there are personal variations of metabolism.

but remember, that same low metabolism genetic factor may have led to just overweightness (BMI of 25 to 29) in the 50’s. and that same low metabolism genetic factor is now creating obesity (BMI of >30). meanwhile, the folks with genetics for obesity at BMI of 32 in the 50’s are probably now sitting at severe morbid obesity with BMI of 45.

that is the main issue here.

the discussion really need to be redirected here.

so why did the yardstick move? bottomline is still the food. And remember, I’ve never said the food industry is 100% responsible. But they are at least 50% responsible IMHO. And it is my belief that it is only after one fully understand how dangerous it is out there that they will start to pay attention to what they put in their mouths.

[TemekuT]

The yardstick moved because of the proliferation of high carb, cheap fast food, and portion size. Eating out often leads to obesity.

The obesity solution is threefold:

1. clean, pure food prepared at home

2. more fruit and vegetable carbs and less grain carbs.

3. portion control

[Arraya]

Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.

One way you could look at these evolutionary developed triggers are something that made us successful in the past, are now starting to blow up in our faces. The is about the time the species needs to evolve or go extinct

The Psychological and Evolutionary Roots of Resource Overconsumption Revisited
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5519
This post examines our own history on the planet, outlines how the ancient-derived reward pathways of our brain are easily hijacked by modern stimuli, and concludes that in very real ways, we have become addicted to the ‘consumptive behaviors’

[briansd1]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.
[/quote]

You are correct CD. But that’s too philosophical deep.

Yeah, as a society we need to examine our priorities.

But in many ways, as individuals, we must go with the flow, but resist the flow when necessary for our own benefit.

We can’t change the world.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CognitiveDissonance]Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.
[/quote]

You are correct CD. But that’s too philosophical deep.

Yeah, as a society we need to examine our priorities.

But in many ways, as individuals, we must go with the flow, but resist the flow when necessary for our own benefit.

We can’t change the world.[/quote]

Why can’t we change the world?

If we honestly believe that certain food additives or behaviors (of various sorts) are detrimental to our health and society, why should we not try to change them?

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] Why can’t we change the world?

If we honestly believe that certain food additives or behaviors (of various sorts) are detrimental to our health and society, why should we not try to change them?[/quote]

If you read CD’s post you’d see that our backward primitive instincts are causing us, as humans, to be self-destructive.

Banning certain foods won’t help. In a world of abundance where everything is commoditized, we need to evolve psychologically to resist self-destruction.

That would take real leadership to tell people some painful truths. It won’t happen because people get all in a tizzy and offended if you even hint that they are fat. Michelle Obama being labeled as a food Nazi is a prime example.

But failing a change in thinking, banning/taxing harmful foods is a good start. Even that will be very hard. I think that CD would say that’s just kicking the can down the road.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] Why can’t we change the world?

If we honestly believe that certain food additives or behaviors (of various sorts) are detrimental to our health and society, why should we not try to change them?[/quote]

If you read CD’s post you’d see that our backward primitive instincts are causing us, as humans, to be self-destructive.

Banning certain foods won’t help. In a world of abundance where everything is commoditized, we need to evolve psychologically to resist self-destruction.

That would take real leadership to tell people some painful truths. It won’t happen because people get all in a tizzy and offended if you even hint that they are fat. Michelle Obama being labeled as a food Nazi is a prime example.

But failing a change in thinking, banning/taxing harmful foods is a good start. Even that will be very hard. I think that CD would say that’s just kicking the can down the road.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] Why can’t we change the world?

If we honestly believe that certain food additives or behaviors (of various sorts) are detrimental to our health and society, why should we not try to change them?[/quote]

If you read CD’s post you’d see that our backward primitive instincts are causing us, as humans, to be self-destructive.

Banning certain foods won’t help. In a world of abundance where everything is commoditized, we need to evolve psychologically to resist self-destruction.

That would take real leadership to tell people some painful truths. It won’t happen because people get all in a tizzy and offended if you even hint that they are fat. Michelle Obama being labeled as a food Nazi is a prime example.

But failing a change in thinking, banning/taxing harmful foods is a good start. Even that will be very hard. I think that CD would say that’s just kicking the can down the road.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] Why can’t we change the world?

If we honestly believe that certain food additives or behaviors (of various sorts) are detrimental to our health and society, why should we not try to change them?[/quote]

If you read CD’s post you’d see that our backward primitive instincts are causing us, as humans, to be self-destructive.

Banning certain foods won’t help. In a world of abundance where everything is commoditized, we need to evolve psychologically to resist self-destruction.

That would take real leadership to tell people some painful truths. It won’t happen because people get all in a tizzy and offended if you even hint that they are fat. Michelle Obama being labeled as a food Nazi is a prime example.

But failing a change in thinking, banning/taxing harmful foods is a good start. Even that will be very hard. I think that CD would say that’s just kicking the can down the road.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter] Why can’t we change the world?

If we honestly believe that certain food additives or behaviors (of various sorts) are detrimental to our health and society, why should we not try to change them?[/quote]

If you read CD’s post you’d see that our backward primitive instincts are causing us, as humans, to be self-destructive.

Banning certain foods won’t help. In a world of abundance where everything is commoditized, we need to evolve psychologically to resist self-destruction.

That would take real leadership to tell people some painful truths. It won’t happen because people get all in a tizzy and offended if you even hint that they are fat. Michelle Obama being labeled as a food Nazi is a prime example.

But failing a change in thinking, banning/taxing harmful foods is a good start. Even that will be very hard. I think that CD would say that’s just kicking the can down the road.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CognitiveDissonance]Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.
[/quote]

You are correct CD. But that’s too philosophical deep.

Yeah, as a society we need to examine our priorities.

But in many ways, as individuals, we must go with the flow, but resist the flow when necessary for our own benefit.

We can’t change the world.[/quote]

Why can’t we change the world?

If we honestly believe that certain food additives or behaviors (of various sorts) are detrimental to our health and society, why should we not try to change them?

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CognitiveDissonance]Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.
[/quote]

You are correct CD. But that’s too philosophical deep.

Yeah, as a society we need to examine our priorities.

But in many ways, as individuals, we must go with the flow, but resist the flow when necessary for our own benefit.

We can’t change the world.[/quote]

Why can’t we change the world?

If we honestly believe that certain food additives or behaviors (of various sorts) are detrimental to our health and society, why should we not try to change them?

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CognitiveDissonance]Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.
[/quote]

You are correct CD. But that’s too philosophical deep.

Yeah, as a society we need to examine our priorities.

But in many ways, as individuals, we must go with the flow, but resist the flow when necessary for our own benefit.

We can’t change the world.[/quote]

Why can’t we change the world?

If we honestly believe that certain food additives or behaviors (of various sorts) are detrimental to our health and society, why should we not try to change them?

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CognitiveDissonance]Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.
[/quote]

You are correct CD. But that’s too philosophical deep.

Yeah, as a society we need to examine our priorities.

But in many ways, as individuals, we must go with the flow, but resist the flow when necessary for our own benefit.

We can’t change the world.[/quote]

Why can’t we change the world?

If we honestly believe that certain food additives or behaviors (of various sorts) are detrimental to our health and society, why should we not try to change them?

[briansd1]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.
[/quote]

You are correct CD. But that’s too philosophical deep.

Yeah, as a society we need to examine our priorities.

But in many ways, as individuals, we must go with the flow, but resist the flow when necessary for our own benefit.

We can’t change the world.

[briansd1]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.
[/quote]

You are correct CD. But that’s too philosophical deep.

Yeah, as a society we need to examine our priorities.

But in many ways, as individuals, we must go with the flow, but resist the flow when necessary for our own benefit.

We can’t change the world.

[briansd1]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.
[/quote]

You are correct CD. But that’s too philosophical deep.

Yeah, as a society we need to examine our priorities.

But in many ways, as individuals, we must go with the flow, but resist the flow when necessary for our own benefit.

We can’t change the world.

[briansd1]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.
[/quote]

You are correct CD. But that’s too philosophical deep.

Yeah, as a society we need to examine our priorities.

But in many ways, as individuals, we must go with the flow, but resist the flow when necessary for our own benefit.

We can’t change the world.

[Arraya]

Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.

One way you could look at these evolutionary developed triggers are something that made us successful in the past, are now starting to blow up in our faces. The is about the time the species needs to evolve or go extinct

The Psychological and Evolutionary Roots of Resource Overconsumption Revisited
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5519
This post examines our own history on the planet, outlines how the ancient-derived reward pathways of our brain are easily hijacked by modern stimuli, and concludes that in very real ways, we have become addicted to the ‘consumptive behaviors’

[Arraya]

Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.

One way you could look at these evolutionary developed triggers are something that made us successful in the past, are now starting to blow up in our faces. The is about the time the species needs to evolve or go extinct

The Psychological and Evolutionary Roots of Resource Overconsumption Revisited
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5519
This post examines our own history on the planet, outlines how the ancient-derived reward pathways of our brain are easily hijacked by modern stimuli, and concludes that in very real ways, we have become addicted to the ‘consumptive behaviors’

[Arraya]

Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.

One way you could look at these evolutionary developed triggers are something that made us successful in the past, are now starting to blow up in our faces. The is about the time the species needs to evolve or go extinct

The Psychological and Evolutionary Roots of Resource Overconsumption Revisited
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5519
This post examines our own history on the planet, outlines how the ancient-derived reward pathways of our brain are easily hijacked by modern stimuli, and concludes that in very real ways, we have become addicted to the ‘consumptive behaviors’

[Arraya]

Looking at obese people in a compartmental fashion, does not go far enough. It’s the same evolutionary developed, neurochemical stimuli that drives people to overeat, that drives people to be wealthy – that is driving the world wide domino defaults. It just manifest in differently throughout society.

One way you could look at these evolutionary developed triggers are something that made us successful in the past, are now starting to blow up in our faces. The is about the time the species needs to evolve or go extinct

The Psychological and Evolutionary Roots of Resource Overconsumption Revisited
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5519
This post examines our own history on the planet, outlines how the ancient-derived reward pathways of our brain are easily hijacked by modern stimuli, and concludes that in very real ways, we have become addicted to the ‘consumptive behaviors’

[CA renter]

[quote=TemekuT]The yardstick moved because of the proliferation of high carb, cheap fast food, and portion size. Eating out often leads to obesity.

The obesity solution is threefold:

1. clean, pure food prepared at home

2. more fruit and vegetable carbs and less grain carbs.

3. portion control[/quote]

Totally agree with this.

[moneymaker]

OK just checked my BMI and @ 6’2″ weighing 203 I’m overweight. I don’t look overweight, I admit though that I do “feel” overweight. I would have to lose 9 pounds to weigh in @ 194 and not be overweight. That’s 36288 Calories that I need to burn. Ok I will get started on it tomorrow, oh yeah I forgot tomorrow never comes,so how about right now. Most people under estimate how long it takes to lose weight. Other than fasting, which I agree would do a lot of people good to try, it would probably take atleast 3 weeks to lose those 9 pounds, minimum.

[CardiffBaseball]

[quote=threadkiller]OK just checked my BMI and @ 6’2″ weighing 203 I’m overweight. I don’t look overweight, I admit though that I do “feel” overweight. I would have to lose 9 pounds to weigh in @ 194 and not be overweight. That’s 36288 Calories that I need to burn. Ok I will get started on it tomorrow, oh yeah I forgot tomorrow never comes,so how about right now. Most people under estimate how long it takes to lose weight. Other than fasting, which I agree would do a lot of people good to try, it would probably take atleast 3 weeks to lose those 9 pounds, minimum.[/quote]

There are schools of thought that says this line of thinking is just not correct. That applying the law of ThermoDynamics to weight loss is simplistic because of those who have insulin resistance issues.

The Gary Taubes, “why we get fat” book covers this fairly well. My mother read part of the book and was convinced by many of the arguments. As a kid, she was the fat kid (somewhat anyway). In a house of 5 kids the family rationed everything even down to the carton of ice cream. That is mom sliced an equal part for each kid, bagged it up labled it and that was your snack for the week, a square of ice cream. The other brother’s and sisters were fine with weight, she struggled. Despite reading that and saying “wow that makes sense” she goes right back to counting calories.

We are doing biggest loser at work and I am down 3.9% after 3 weeks and haven’t really started walking. In keeping with the Robb Wolf line of thinking on not stressing the body and raising cortisol levels, I’ll walk about 45 minutes, and lift very heavy but low reps in two simple things deadlift and bench since they cover about 95% of the musculature. If you read Pavel Tsatsouline’s Power to the People (I think a free copy is around on google books) he discusses how lifting very close to the max (85%) for very low reps will allow max strength gains without added weight.

However I wanted to establish a pattern of eating first it’s much much more important than the workout. So basically and eggs breakfast, and try to eat some kind of fatty meats and some veggies. The tough part is social time of course at the office. One thing is I am more satiated and thus eat less. If I down 1/2-3/4 lbs. of sausage at lunch, I pretty much have to force myself to eat a little dinner.

No grains, no sugars, no legumes, I struggle with cutting out cheese as the Paleo guys prefer no dairy as well. Right now just losing is most important, as I am definitely obese, albeit fairly active as a baseball dad. However my 16 year old is now pulling 340 and beats me easily, and I need to catch up out of pride. (though he certainly throws harder and hits harder too).

A last note, it’s VERY VERY hard to eat 3000 calories when not eating grains/pasta/sugar. So despite Taubes argument about not worrying about calories, most will still cut drastically. Takes a lot of Ribeye to = 3000 calories. Take the example above about In and Out. If I go to In and Out burger and order “Protein Style” who cares if I get a double? If I am not taking in the calories from bread, fries and shakes, I’ve cut out quite a bit, and basically still get full eating a few patties on a bed of lettuce.

[NotCranky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRaNwIdrKuc&feature=relmfu

This is an interview with Dr. Feletti of Kaiser Permanente on the topic of chronic obesity. Maybe it will be useful for practical or analytical purposes to some. It’s just a part of an interesting series on carry over effects of childhood stress/trauma inducing events. The rest of the series links will be self evident on youtube.

[briansd1]

Good article on mindful eating. I have been practicing my own version of it.

It starts with preparing or reheating a meal and eating it in silence, even if I’m eating alone.

I guess the “real capitalists” at Google approve.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/dining/mindful-eating-as-food-for-thought.html?_r=1&hp

[cvmom]

So happy my own weight loss plan is working (down 5 lbs in 5 weeks):

4 cups veggies per day
protein source 3x per day
cut out animal fat and trans fat
drink tons of water

I haven’t had to track or count anything, and I’ve been much less hungry. This is really working for me, as I am WAY too busy to diet.

[CA renter]

Yay! Good for you, cvmom. 🙂

[moneymaker]

Driving to work I was thinking of putting on a bumper sticker saying “If it weren’t for fat people there would be no skinny people”. It’s all relative until it becomes a health issue.

[briansd1]

Health issues is when stomach sticks out further than your chest, at least for a man. Abdominal fat emits toxins.

What about looks? Don’t we fix ugly houses and car dents?
Seems like people care more about brown lawns and palm fronds than their bodies.

[scaredyclassic]

fat and skinny dichotomy is so two thousand and late. now i see the world different. it’s weak, nonmuscular people v people who have powerful musculature. Personally, I was 150 in september, now I’m 169, by far the most I have ever weighed in my life. I’ve been eating as much as I can, three eggs a day, multiple whey protein serving, giant portions of beans and meat, trying to pack on the muscle while doing my squats dips deadlift overhead presses and weighted pullups and dips. Skinny is weak. I don’t care about your fat; i wanna see some power! Might be useful for schools and youth to stop talking about fat and skinny and start talking about powerful and weak. how fast can you sprint, how high can you jump how much weight can you throw over your head? that’s more productive than saying someone’s got a little pudge.

Weakness sucks!

Power to the people!

[CA renter]

Good post, scaredy.

[NotCranky]

Kaiser used to have a physical program that they used to state the examinees health age. That was neat. Probably a more fair test.

[scaredyclassic]

In the next 1.5 years I think I’ll weigh somewhere between 175 and 200 pounds but I really don’t know. I’m not sure what I really should be once my powerful primal self emerges.

[NotCranky]

[quote=walterwhite]In the next 1.5 years I think I’ll weigh somewhere between 175 and 200 pounds but I really don’t know. I’m not sure what I really should be once my powerful primal self emerges.[/quote]
I don’t think primal selfs are built on whey powder…just an opinion.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]In the next 1.5 years I think I’ll weigh somewhere between 175 and 200 pounds but I really don’t know. I’m not sure what I really should be once my powerful primal self emerges.[/quote]

Be sure that whatever mass you build, you can keep it up with excersise, otherwise it will all turn to fat in old age.

I mean look at Floyd Landis now. I believe he lives in Temecula.

BTW, what is strength? If one can lift 300 pounds, but is not agile enough to ski down some slopes or go rock climbing then what the heck is that strength for?

Strength and health are not a competition that you win and bring a trophy home. It’s a life long commitment that goes well into old age.

IMHO, those who focus on “bad-ass strength” don’t have the strength of character to say no to the junk food they eat.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
IMHO, those who focus on “bad-ass strength” don’t have the strength of character to say no to the junk food they eat.[/quote]

Brian: Please define “bad-ass strength”. To me, “bad-ass strength” means the strength to take on and defeat an attacker, regardless of size, and either defend myself successfully or (better still) bring things to a “terminal conclusion” (in my favor).

I definitely agree that a combination of aerobic and anaerobic fitness is optimum and can singlehandedly name a coupla dozen former SEALs, Marines and SOF guys from the Vietnam War era (now in their 60s) that are still in excellent physical condition and could put a world of hurt on ya. Shit, I bet your boy Clint Eastwood could still throw ya a fierce beatin’ and he’s, what, 70? Now that’s “bad-ass strength”!

[UCGal]

[quote=Jacarandoso]Kaiser used to have a physical program that they used to state the examinees health age. That was neat. Probably a more fair test.[/quote]
They still have it. It’s part of the full physical you can do every 5 years.

I’m seriously overweight, like obese, but have a much lower health age than my chronological age. It’s because I have low cholesterol, BP, and good lung capacity. Kaiser still yelled at me to lose weight. LOL. They are right to yell at me – I need to lose weight. But at the moment (could change overnight) my weight is not a health risk.

And Brian is right – belly fat tends to be riskier than fat packed on elsewhere. I’ve got an hourglass/pear shape. (weebles wobble but they don’t fall down, lol). I don’t have control over where the fat ends up… but I’m glad it’s not on my belly.

[NotCranky]

[quote=UCGal][quote=Jacarandoso]Kaiser used to have a physical program that they used to state the examinees health age. That was neat. Probably a more fair test.[/quote]
They still have it. It’s part of the full physical you can do every 5 years.

I’m seriously overweight, like obese, but have a much lower health age than my chronological age. It’s because I have low cholesterol, BP, and good lung capacity. Kaiser still yelled at me to lose weight. LOL. They are right to yell at me – I need to lose weight. But at the moment (could change overnight) my weight is not a health risk.

And Brian is right – belly fat tends to be riskier than fat packed on elsewhere. I’ve got an hourglass/pear shape. (weebles wobble but they don’t fall down, lol). I don’t have control over where the fat ends up… but I’m glad it’s not on my belly.[/quote]

It would be interesting to know if Kaiser has used, or will use, the chronological health age results against rates of bad diseases and actual ages of death. Also do people with good profiles actually look younger? Do they have better livers, good tendons and cartilage, low occurrence of arthritis and osteoporosis etc.

[scaredyclassic]

True whey powder probably not available on the Savannah but I’m pressed for time.

Would prefer mammoth.

[NotCranky]

[quote=walterwhite]True whey powder probably not available on the Savannah but I’m pressed for time.

Would prefer mammoth.[/quote]

I think you are going to find that it isn’t that easy being a 50 year old wild man in this era. Everytime I try, I just end up reminding myself of Groundskeeper Willie. Dumpster diving, that was good though.

In any case, stay away from that bleeping “mindful eating” that Brian recommended , jeez are they desperate for some peace of mind, or what?

[scaredyclassic]

I am a bit excessively domesticated.

[NotCranky]

[quote=walterwhite]I am a bit excessively domesticated.[/quote]
Have you tried living in a trailer park?

[scaredyclassic]

Lead doth not turn into gold, nor muscle into fat.

Rock climbing and skiing are not for every day.

Power is.

[scaredyclassic]

Schoolkids can’t ski every day. But they can climb the rope do 20 pullups. Pushups and jump about.

America would be less nervous if we were each more powerful.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=walterwhite]Schoolkids can’t ski every day. But they can climb the rope do 20 pullups. Pushups and jump about.

America would be less nervous if we were each more powerful.[/quote]
Maybe *you* could climb the rope and do 20 pullups. Some of us were bookish nerds!

But yeah, jumping and running around are good. Unfortunately one downside of No Child Left Behind has been a decrease in time spent on physical activities in order to spend more time on math and science instruction.

[briansd1]

[quote=walterwhite]Schoolkids can’t ski every day. But they can climb the rope do 20 pullups. Pushups and jump about.
[/quote]

Some people can’t do pushups because they are so fat and uncordinated. So pushups that should be beautifully straight become weird contortions that are truly painful to look at. Let’s not talk about climbing rope.

But fat people can lift… so they compensate by claiming they lift 300 pounds, or whatever ridiculously useless number.

BTW, past glory, such as what one could do in college or at boot camp, doesn’t count. It’s what you can do now and in the future that’s important.

[quote=walterwhite]
America would be less nervous if we were each more powerful.[/quote]

Doesn’t having nukes count for something?

[scaredyclassic]

Weakness, mental or physical, breeds insecurity.

Drop and give me 20, best form you have!!!

Why not integrate phys ed into regular classes as discipline for wrong answrs. Jumping jacks for bad grades till you drop. Could enliven the dull classroom. The dumbest will at least be fit.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jacarandoso]
In any case, stay away from that bleeping “mindful eating” that Brian recommended , jeez are they desperate for some peace of mind, or what?[/quote]

Russ: I’m with you, brother! What is that shit? I try to eat all of my meals to AC/DC’s “Thunderstruck” and with a loaded revolver on the table. That makes it seem as though my life is an adventure and this meal might truly be my last!

Unless I’m eating waffles. Then it’s the Go-Go’s “Vacation” and cooking sherry. That seems more of a light-hearted meal.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jacarandoso]
In any case, stay away from that bleeping “mindful eating” that Brian recommended , jeez are they desperate for some peace of mind, or what?[/quote]

Russ: I’m with you, brother! What is that shit? I try to eat all of my meals to AC/DC’s “Thunderstruck” and with a loaded revolver on the table. That makes it seem as though my life is an adventure and this meal might truly be my last!

Unless I’m eating waffles. Then it’s the Go-Go’s “Vacation” and cooking sherry. That seems more of a light-hearted meal.[/quote]
I’d say you both owe me a keyboard but I’m on a tablet…. fortunately it wiped right up when I stopped laughing.

[briansd1]

[quote=Jacarandoso]
In any case, stay away from that bleeping “mindful eating” that Brian recommended , jeez are they desperate for some peace of mind, or what?[/quote]

It must be good if the real capitalists at Google practice it 😉

[CardiffBaseball]

[quote=threadkiller]OK just checked my BMI and @ 6’2″ weighing 203 I’m overweight. I don’t look overweight, I admit though that I do “feel” overweight. I would have to lose 9 pounds to weigh in @ 194 and not be overweight. That’s 36288 Calories that I need to burn. Ok I will get started on it tomorrow, oh yeah I forgot tomorrow never comes,so how about right now. Most people under estimate how long it takes to lose weight. Other than fasting, which I agree would do a lot of people good to try, it would probably take atleast 3 weeks to lose those 9 pounds, minimum.[/quote]

There are schools of thought that says this line of thinking is just not correct. That applying the law of ThermoDynamics to weight loss is simplistic because of those who have insulin resistance issues.

The Gary Taubes, “why we get fat” book covers this fairly well. My mother read part of the book and was convinced by many of the arguments. As a kid, she was the fat kid (somewhat anyway). In a house of 5 kids the family rationed everything even down to the carton of ice cream. That is mom sliced an equal part for each kid, bagged it up labled it and that was your snack for the week, a square of ice cream. The other brother’s and sisters were fine with weight, she struggled. Despite reading that and saying “wow that makes sense” she goes right back to counting calories.

We are doing biggest loser at work and I am down 3.9% after 3 weeks and haven’t really started walking. In keeping with the Robb Wolf line of thinking on not stressing the body and raising cortisol levels, I’ll walk about 45 minutes, and lift very heavy but low reps in two simple things deadlift and bench since they cover about 95% of the musculature. If you read Pavel Tsatsouline’s Power to the People (I think a free copy is around on google books) he discusses how lifting very close to the max (85%) for very low reps will allow max strength gains without added weight.

However I wanted to establish a pattern of eating first it’s much much more important than the workout. So basically and eggs breakfast, and try to eat some kind of fatty meats and some veggies. The tough part is social time of course at the office. One thing is I am more satiated and thus eat less. If I down 1/2-3/4 lbs. of sausage at lunch, I pretty much have to force myself to eat a little dinner.

No grains, no sugars, no legumes, I struggle with cutting out cheese as the Paleo guys prefer no dairy as well. Right now just losing is most important, as I am definitely obese, albeit fairly active as a baseball dad. However my 16 year old is now pulling 340 and beats me easily, and I need to catch up out of pride. (though he certainly throws harder and hits harder too).

A last note, it’s VERY VERY hard to eat 3000 calories when not eating grains/pasta/sugar. So despite Taubes argument about not worrying about calories, most will still cut drastically. Takes a lot of Ribeye to = 3000 calories. Take the example above about In and Out. If I go to In and Out burger and order “Protein Style” who cares if I get a double? If I am not taking in the calories from bread, fries and shakes, I’ve cut out quite a bit, and basically still get full eating a few patties on a bed of lettuce.

[CardiffBaseball]

[quote=threadkiller]OK just checked my BMI and @ 6’2″ weighing 203 I’m overweight. I don’t look overweight, I admit though that I do “feel” overweight. I would have to lose 9 pounds to weigh in @ 194 and not be overweight. That’s 36288 Calories that I need to burn. Ok I will get started on it tomorrow, oh yeah I forgot tomorrow never comes,so how about right now. Most people under estimate how long it takes to lose weight. Other than fasting, which I agree would do a lot of people good to try, it would probably take atleast 3 weeks to lose those 9 pounds, minimum.[/quote]

There are schools of thought that says this line of thinking is just not correct. That applying the law of ThermoDynamics to weight loss is simplistic because of those who have insulin resistance issues.

The Gary Taubes, “why we get fat” book covers this fairly well. My mother read part of the book and was convinced by many of the arguments. As a kid, she was the fat kid (somewhat anyway). In a house of 5 kids the family rationed everything even down to the carton of ice cream. That is mom sliced an equal part for each kid, bagged it up labled it and that was your snack for the week, a square of ice cream. The other brother’s and sisters were fine with weight, she struggled. Despite reading that and saying “wow that makes sense” she goes right back to counting calories.

We are doing biggest loser at work and I am down 3.9% after 3 weeks and haven’t really started walking. In keeping with the Robb Wolf line of thinking on not stressing the body and raising cortisol levels, I’ll walk about 45 minutes, and lift very heavy but low reps in two simple things deadlift and bench since they cover about 95% of the musculature. If you read Pavel Tsatsouline’s Power to the People (I think a free copy is around on google books) he discusses how lifting very close to the max (85%) for very low reps will allow max strength gains without added weight.

However I wanted to establish a pattern of eating first it’s much much more important than the workout. So basically and eggs breakfast, and try to eat some kind of fatty meats and some veggies. The tough part is social time of course at the office. One thing is I am more satiated and thus eat less. If I down 1/2-3/4 lbs. of sausage at lunch, I pretty much have to force myself to eat a little dinner.

No grains, no sugars, no legumes, I struggle with cutting out cheese as the Paleo guys prefer no dairy as well. Right now just losing is most important, as I am definitely obese, albeit fairly active as a baseball dad. However my 16 year old is now pulling 340 and beats me easily, and I need to catch up out of pride. (though he certainly throws harder and hits harder too).

A last note, it’s VERY VERY hard to eat 3000 calories when not eating grains/pasta/sugar. So despite Taubes argument about not worrying about calories, most will still cut drastically. Takes a lot of Ribeye to = 3000 calories. Take the example above about In and Out. If I go to In and Out burger and order “Protein Style” who cares if I get a double? If I am not taking in the calories from bread, fries and shakes, I’ve cut out quite a bit, and basically still get full eating a few patties on a bed of lettuce.

[CardiffBaseball]

[quote=threadkiller]OK just checked my BMI and @ 6’2″ weighing 203 I’m overweight. I don’t look overweight, I admit though that I do “feel” overweight. I would have to lose 9 pounds to weigh in @ 194 and not be overweight. That’s 36288 Calories that I need to burn. Ok I will get started on it tomorrow, oh yeah I forgot tomorrow never comes,so how about right now. Most people under estimate how long it takes to lose weight. Other than fasting, which I agree would do a lot of people good to try, it would probably take atleast 3 weeks to lose those 9 pounds, minimum.[/quote]

There are schools of thought that says this line of thinking is just not correct. That applying the law of ThermoDynamics to weight loss is simplistic because of those who have insulin resistance issues.

The Gary Taubes, “why we get fat” book covers this fairly well. My mother read part of the book and was convinced by many of the arguments. As a kid, she was the fat kid (somewhat anyway). In a house of 5 kids the family rationed everything even down to the carton of ice cream. That is mom sliced an equal part for each kid, bagged it up labled it and that was your snack for the week, a square of ice cream. The other brother’s and sisters were fine with weight, she struggled. Despite reading that and saying “wow that makes sense” she goes right back to counting calories.

We are doing biggest loser at work and I am down 3.9% after 3 weeks and haven’t really started walking. In keeping with the Robb Wolf line of thinking on not stressing the body and raising cortisol levels, I’ll walk about 45 minutes, and lift very heavy but low reps in two simple things deadlift and bench since they cover about 95% of the musculature. If you read Pavel Tsatsouline’s Power to the People (I think a free copy is around on google books) he discusses how lifting very close to the max (85%) for very low reps will allow max strength gains without added weight.

However I wanted to establish a pattern of eating first it’s much much more important than the workout. So basically and eggs breakfast, and try to eat some kind of fatty meats and some veggies. The tough part is social time of course at the office. One thing is I am more satiated and thus eat less. If I down 1/2-3/4 lbs. of sausage at lunch, I pretty much have to force myself to eat a little dinner.

No grains, no sugars, no legumes, I struggle with cutting out cheese as the Paleo guys prefer no dairy as well. Right now just losing is most important, as I am definitely obese, albeit fairly active as a baseball dad. However my 16 year old is now pulling 340 and beats me easily, and I need to catch up out of pride. (though he certainly throws harder and hits harder too).

A last note, it’s VERY VERY hard to eat 3000 calories when not eating grains/pasta/sugar. So despite Taubes argument about not worrying about calories, most will still cut drastically. Takes a lot of Ribeye to = 3000 calories. Take the example above about In and Out. If I go to In and Out burger and order “Protein Style” who cares if I get a double? If I am not taking in the calories from bread, fries and shakes, I’ve cut out quite a bit, and basically still get full eating a few patties on a bed of lettuce.

[CardiffBaseball]

[quote=threadkiller]OK just checked my BMI and @ 6’2″ weighing 203 I’m overweight. I don’t look overweight, I admit though that I do “feel” overweight. I would have to lose 9 pounds to weigh in @ 194 and not be overweight. That’s 36288 Calories that I need to burn. Ok I will get started on it tomorrow, oh yeah I forgot tomorrow never comes,so how about right now. Most people under estimate how long it takes to lose weight. Other than fasting, which I agree would do a lot of people good to try, it would probably take atleast 3 weeks to lose those 9 pounds, minimum.[/quote]

There are schools of thought that says this line of thinking is just not correct. That applying the law of ThermoDynamics to weight loss is simplistic because of those who have insulin resistance issues.

The Gary Taubes, “why we get fat” book covers this fairly well. My mother read part of the book and was convinced by many of the arguments. As a kid, she was the fat kid (somewhat anyway). In a house of 5 kids the family rationed everything even down to the carton of ice cream. That is mom sliced an equal part for each kid, bagged it up labled it and that was your snack for the week, a square of ice cream. The other brother’s and sisters were fine with weight, she struggled. Despite reading that and saying “wow that makes sense” she goes right back to counting calories.

We are doing biggest loser at work and I am down 3.9% after 3 weeks and haven’t really started walking. In keeping with the Robb Wolf line of thinking on not stressing the body and raising cortisol levels, I’ll walk about 45 minutes, and lift very heavy but low reps in two simple things deadlift and bench since they cover about 95% of the musculature. If you read Pavel Tsatsouline’s Power to the People (I think a free copy is around on google books) he discusses how lifting very close to the max (85%) for very low reps will allow max strength gains without added weight.

However I wanted to establish a pattern of eating first it’s much much more important than the workout. So basically and eggs breakfast, and try to eat some kind of fatty meats and some veggies. The tough part is social time of course at the office. One thing is I am more satiated and thus eat less. If I down 1/2-3/4 lbs. of sausage at lunch, I pretty much have to force myself to eat a little dinner.

No grains, no sugars, no legumes, I struggle with cutting out cheese as the Paleo guys prefer no dairy as well. Right now just losing is most important, as I am definitely obese, albeit fairly active as a baseball dad. However my 16 year old is now pulling 340 and beats me easily, and I need to catch up out of pride. (though he certainly throws harder and hits harder too).

A last note, it’s VERY VERY hard to eat 3000 calories when not eating grains/pasta/sugar. So despite Taubes argument about not worrying about calories, most will still cut drastically. Takes a lot of Ribeye to = 3000 calories. Take the example above about In and Out. If I go to In and Out burger and order “Protein Style” who cares if I get a double? If I am not taking in the calories from bread, fries and shakes, I’ve cut out quite a bit, and basically still get full eating a few patties on a bed of lettuce.

[moneymaker]

OK just checked my BMI and @ 6’2″ weighing 203 I’m overweight. I don’t look overweight, I admit though that I do “feel” overweight. I would have to lose 9 pounds to weigh in @ 194 and not be overweight. That’s 36288 Calories that I need to burn. Ok I will get started on it tomorrow, oh yeah I forgot tomorrow never comes,so how about right now. Most people under estimate how long it takes to lose weight. Other than fasting, which I agree would do a lot of people good to try, it would probably take atleast 3 weeks to lose those 9 pounds, minimum.

[moneymaker]

OK just checked my BMI and @ 6’2″ weighing 203 I’m overweight. I don’t look overweight, I admit though that I do “feel” overweight. I would have to lose 9 pounds to weigh in @ 194 and not be overweight. That’s 36288 Calories that I need to burn. Ok I will get started on it tomorrow, oh yeah I forgot tomorrow never comes,so how about right now. Most people under estimate how long it takes to lose weight. Other than fasting, which I agree would do a lot of people good to try, it would probably take atleast 3 weeks to lose those 9 pounds, minimum.

[moneymaker]

OK just checked my BMI and @ 6’2″ weighing 203 I’m overweight. I don’t look overweight, I admit though that I do “feel” overweight. I would have to lose 9 pounds to weigh in @ 194 and not be overweight. That’s 36288 Calories that I need to burn. Ok I will get started on it tomorrow, oh yeah I forgot tomorrow never comes,so how about right now. Most people under estimate how long it takes to lose weight. Other than fasting, which I agree would do a lot of people good to try, it would probably take atleast 3 weeks to lose those 9 pounds, minimum.

[moneymaker]

OK just checked my BMI and @ 6’2″ weighing 203 I’m overweight. I don’t look overweight, I admit though that I do “feel” overweight. I would have to lose 9 pounds to weigh in @ 194 and not be overweight. That’s 36288 Calories that I need to burn. Ok I will get started on it tomorrow, oh yeah I forgot tomorrow never comes,so how about right now. Most people under estimate how long it takes to lose weight. Other than fasting, which I agree would do a lot of people good to try, it would probably take atleast 3 weeks to lose those 9 pounds, minimum.

[CA renter]

[quote=TemekuT]The yardstick moved because of the proliferation of high carb, cheap fast food, and portion size. Eating out often leads to obesity.

The obesity solution is threefold:

1. clean, pure food prepared at home

2. more fruit and vegetable carbs and less grain carbs.

3. portion control[/quote]

Totally agree with this.

[CA renter]

[quote=TemekuT]The yardstick moved because of the proliferation of high carb, cheap fast food, and portion size. Eating out often leads to obesity.

The obesity solution is threefold:

1. clean, pure food prepared at home

2. more fruit and vegetable carbs and less grain carbs.

3. portion control[/quote]

Totally agree with this.

[CA renter]

[quote=TemekuT]The yardstick moved because of the proliferation of high carb, cheap fast food, and portion size. Eating out often leads to obesity.

The obesity solution is threefold:

1. clean, pure food prepared at home

2. more fruit and vegetable carbs and less grain carbs.

3. portion control[/quote]

Totally agree with this.

[CA renter]

[quote=TemekuT]The yardstick moved because of the proliferation of high carb, cheap fast food, and portion size. Eating out often leads to obesity.

The obesity solution is threefold:

1. clean, pure food prepared at home

2. more fruit and vegetable carbs and less grain carbs.

3. portion control[/quote]

Totally agree with this.

[TemekuT]

The yardstick moved because of the proliferation of high carb, cheap fast food, and portion size. Eating out often leads to obesity.

The obesity solution is threefold:

1. clean, pure food prepared at home

2. more fruit and vegetable carbs and less grain carbs.

3. portion control

[TemekuT]

The yardstick moved because of the proliferation of high carb, cheap fast food, and portion size. Eating out often leads to obesity.

The obesity solution is threefold:

1. clean, pure food prepared at home

2. more fruit and vegetable carbs and less grain carbs.

3. portion control

[TemekuT]

The yardstick moved because of the proliferation of high carb, cheap fast food, and portion size. Eating out often leads to obesity.

The obesity solution is threefold:

1. clean, pure food prepared at home

2. more fruit and vegetable carbs and less grain carbs.

3. portion control

[TemekuT]

The yardstick moved because of the proliferation of high carb, cheap fast food, and portion size. Eating out often leads to obesity.

The obesity solution is threefold:

1. clean, pure food prepared at home

2. more fruit and vegetable carbs and less grain carbs.

3. portion control

[ocrenter]

there will always be weight variations amongst folks as there will always be genetic variations. this is a fact and this is not what is being discussed here.

but statistics do not lie. we went from less than 10% obesity rate in this country to over 33% obesity rate within a single generation. (and we went from less than 33% overweight to greater than 67% overweight).

every time the obesity issue is brought up, time and time again folks will bring up how there are personal variations of metabolism.

but remember, that same low metabolism genetic factor may have led to just overweightness (BMI of 25 to 29) in the 50’s. and that same low metabolism genetic factor is now creating obesity (BMI of >30). meanwhile, the folks with genetics for obesity at BMI of 32 in the 50’s are probably now sitting at severe morbid obesity with BMI of 45.

that is the main issue here.

the discussion really need to be redirected here.

so why did the yardstick move? bottomline is still the food. And remember, I’ve never said the food industry is 100% responsible. But they are at least 50% responsible IMHO. And it is my belief that it is only after one fully understand how dangerous it is out there that they will start to pay attention to what they put in their mouths.

[ocrenter]

there will always be weight variations amongst folks as there will always be genetic variations. this is a fact and this is not what is being discussed here.

but statistics do not lie. we went from less than 10% obesity rate in this country to over 33% obesity rate within a single generation. (and we went from less than 33% overweight to greater than 67% overweight).

every time the obesity issue is brought up, time and time again folks will bring up how there are personal variations of metabolism.

but remember, that same low metabolism genetic factor may have led to just overweightness (BMI of 25 to 29) in the 50’s. and that same low metabolism genetic factor is now creating obesity (BMI of >30). meanwhile, the folks with genetics for obesity at BMI of 32 in the 50’s are probably now sitting at severe morbid obesity with BMI of 45.

that is the main issue here.

the discussion really need to be redirected here.

so why did the yardstick move? bottomline is still the food. And remember, I’ve never said the food industry is 100% responsible. But they are at least 50% responsible IMHO. And it is my belief that it is only after one fully understand how dangerous it is out there that they will start to pay attention to what they put in their mouths.

[ocrenter]

there will always be weight variations amongst folks as there will always be genetic variations. this is a fact and this is not what is being discussed here.

but statistics do not lie. we went from less than 10% obesity rate in this country to over 33% obesity rate within a single generation. (and we went from less than 33% overweight to greater than 67% overweight).

every time the obesity issue is brought up, time and time again folks will bring up how there are personal variations of metabolism.

but remember, that same low metabolism genetic factor may have led to just overweightness (BMI of 25 to 29) in the 50’s. and that same low metabolism genetic factor is now creating obesity (BMI of >30). meanwhile, the folks with genetics for obesity at BMI of 32 in the 50’s are probably now sitting at severe morbid obesity with BMI of 45.

that is the main issue here.

the discussion really need to be redirected here.

so why did the yardstick move? bottomline is still the food. And remember, I’ve never said the food industry is 100% responsible. But they are at least 50% responsible IMHO. And it is my belief that it is only after one fully understand how dangerous it is out there that they will start to pay attention to what they put in their mouths.

[ocrenter]

there will always be weight variations amongst folks as there will always be genetic variations. this is a fact and this is not what is being discussed here.

but statistics do not lie. we went from less than 10% obesity rate in this country to over 33% obesity rate within a single generation. (and we went from less than 33% overweight to greater than 67% overweight).

every time the obesity issue is brought up, time and time again folks will bring up how there are personal variations of metabolism.

but remember, that same low metabolism genetic factor may have led to just overweightness (BMI of 25 to 29) in the 50’s. and that same low metabolism genetic factor is now creating obesity (BMI of >30). meanwhile, the folks with genetics for obesity at BMI of 32 in the 50’s are probably now sitting at severe morbid obesity with BMI of 45.

that is the main issue here.

the discussion really need to be redirected here.

so why did the yardstick move? bottomline is still the food. And remember, I’ve never said the food industry is 100% responsible. But they are at least 50% responsible IMHO. And it is my belief that it is only after one fully understand how dangerous it is out there that they will start to pay attention to what they put in their mouths.

[Anonymous]

As long as it’s “okay” to be fat, people will be fat.
As long as you can sit in front of a computer or Tv screen and get all your info as well as social contact, people will be fat (why leave the house if you don’t have to?).
As long as misinformation about losing weight is everywhere (like The Atkins Diet), people will be fat.

Fat people die younger. Go to any assisted living facility and look around. The old people are not fat. they aren’t in the best shape of their life, but they aren’t obese. Obese people don’t live long enough to get into most assisted living facilities.

[CA renter]

[quote=Brutus]Obese people don’t live long enough to get into most assisted living facilities.[/quote]

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

Now, where did I put those cream puffs? 😉

[briansd1]

[quote=Brutus]

Fat people die younger. Go to any assisted living facility and look around. The old people are not fat. they aren’t in the best shape of their life, but they aren’t obese. Obese people don’t live long enough to get into most assisted living facilities.[/quote]

That’s what I tell my friends who aren’t convinced.

They might say that they don’t want to live long and that they’d rather enjoy their cream puffs now.

But when time comes they’ll be clamoring “save me, save me.”

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Brutus]

Fat people die younger. Go to any assisted living facility and look around. The old people are not fat. they aren’t in the best shape of their life, but they aren’t obese. Obese people don’t live long enough to get into most assisted living facilities.[/quote]

That’s what I tell my friends who aren’t convinced.

They might say that they don’t want to live long and that they’d rather enjoy their cream puffs now.

But when time comes they’ll be clamoring “save me, save me.”[/quote]

Hmmmm….

-cream puffs, wine, good steak, song, and merriment (a cigar or two, if one is inclined)…

OR

-assisted living facility…

Gosh, that’s a tough choice.

[briansd1]

It’s not either or, CA renter.

You can enjoy good. But lay off the American cheese slices, lasagna, buritos, pizza, sodas, chips, etc. — all the junk that Americans consume.

Sometimes, I watch Jacques Pepin on TV. Now, that’s more civilized eating.

[UCGal]

Hmmmm.

I had a family member recently pass at age 91 ( a month shy of 92). She was fat. She was in a nursing home at the end – and assisted living for a few years prior to that.

My mom and dad were thin and died of cancer in their 60’s and 70’s.

My in laws are not thin or fat – and are in their 80’s. Father in law is in a wheel chair so he gets virtually no exercise… he’s 88. Even before he was in a wheelchair he was pretty darn sedentary.

Oh – and they eat the worst of the American cheeses – that kraft stuff. (Yuck.)

I’m of an age (50’s) that I have a lot of old relatives or dead relatives. I have seen no correlation between weight and age of death.

Lasagna, when made right, isn’t that bad. It’s using ricotta (which comes in skim form) and *maybe* mozzarella. But it’s mostly pasta, tomato, meat (sausage, ground beef)… Both ricotta and mozzarella can be low fat.

Don’t pick on lasagna… I’m married to an Italian who makes awesome lasagna. (And he’s not fat.)

[NotCranky]

I know Brian comes across like a judgmental and pompous hater, but I agree with what he is saying. Clearly, obesity does not increase the odds of living a long, reasonably mobile life, free of prescription drugs or surgeries. It is killing lots of people, or causing them to be chronically sick and drug dependent( with side effects). It is causing many to lose mobility and sometimes body parts prematurely.

[briansd1]

[quote=Jacarandoso]I know Brian comes across like a judgmental and pompous hater, [/quote]

It’s on purpose.

We all come across as pompous haters on here, especially when it come to financial matters.

We disparage ghetto neighborhoods, bad school districts, irresponsible borrowers and spenders who can’t manage their money, etc…

But do we look in the mirror?

It does seem to me that one’s health is more important than one’s house or one’s portfolio.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=CA renter]

Hmmmm….

-cream puffs, wine, good steak, song, and merriment (a cigar or two, if one is inclined)…

OR

-assisted living facility…

Gosh, that’s a tough choice.[/quote]

CAR: I’m with you! I had a buddy in Rangers who used to smoke a couple of packs of Marlboro Reds a day. When I’d chide him about it and tell him that it would take 10 years off his life, he’d reply, “Yeah, but those are the really shitty ones at the end!”. Can’t argue with that logic.

Memento mori. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Nothing beats a fine steak, a great bottle of red, followed by an excellent cigar (or two). That is what life is all about. Well, that and the sex!

[CA renter]

Cheers to that, Allan! 🙂

[NotCranky]

Memento mori. Eat, drink,(“smoke”) and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Whoever said that was probably latently suicidal or actually likely to die the next day… or just inflicted with a garden variety of denial.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=briansd1][quote=Brutus]

Fat people die younger. Go to any assisted living facility and look around. The old people are not fat. they aren’t in the best shape of their life, but they aren’t obese. Obese people don’t live long enough to get into most assisted living facilities.[/quote]

That’s what I tell my friends who aren’t convinced.

They might say that they don’t want to live long and that they’d rather enjoy their cream puffs now.

But when time comes they’ll be clamoring “save me, save me.”[/quote]

Hmmmm….

-cream puffs, wine, good steak, song, and merriment (a cigar or two, if one is inclined)…

OR

-assisted living facility…

Gosh, that’s a tough choice.[/quote]

Why choose? You can have it all. Have you ever been to La Costa Glen? Its like the Ritz Carlton of assisted living.

[briansd1]

[quote=sdrealtor]

Why choose? You can have it all. Have you ever been to La Costa Glen? Its like the Ritz Carlton of assisted living.[/quote]

Which one is better in North County? La Costa Glen or Carlsbad By the Sea?

[briansd1]

Things are looking rather bleak.

By 2020, the OECD predicts approximately 75 percent of Americans will be overweight or obese.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/one-reason-american-health-care-costs-more-were-fat-and-getting-fatter/2012/02/21/gIQAV4g9QR_blog.html

[Anonymous]

Here’s what we do: require everyone with a body mass index above XXX (ie:Fat) to spend one hour a day on a treadmill. Hook those millions of treadmills up to electricity generators.

Presto! Energy crisis solved!!!!

You heard it here, first.

[sdsurfer]

Am I the only one that thinks that kid from the superbad movie is’nt funny anymore now that he lost the weight?

On another note I feel like the only diets that ever helped me were the ones that directly effected my way of life.

for instance…my wetsuit no longer fit as well anymore and I did not have money for a new one so I ate healthier and cut out some of the beers for a few weeks and now that the suit fits better again I can get back in the water without struggling into that suit in the am. I also feel like losing a few lbs helps me get to my feet quicker when I catch a wave.

I know myself and I would’nt diet based on who I see in the mirror and how big they are. I might think or talk about it, but it would not get done. I really think being obese has to directly effect you in some way for you to do something about it.

Aside from the job and family… surfing is my main gig and I’ll do whatever it takes to stay in the water.

[Author]

Posts