OT – F as in Fat

[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.

[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]

[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]

[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.

[Author]

Posts