Ot; Heavy

[Arraya]

I would be willing to bet obesity was zero with hunter-gatherers.

Actually, if you take the aggregate of scientific studies, on many of these disorders, the sciences are going away from the “its in the genes” argument. Navydocs post about Dutch Hunger Winter is an interesting study about pre-natal environmental stress that can actually cause dispositions.

But, looking at the other health trends since the late 50s early 60s, obesity is just one of many that are all interconnected and interrelated. Interestingly, it’s not just the US, but the UK as well, and other western states, though, to lesser extent. Actually, I think depression, is the most debilitating financially.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]This obesity issue is controversial because people see themselves and take it personally. As more and more of the population is fat, the issue becomes more of a hot potato, despite the science.

The data is there. As ocrenter pointed out, obesity in America is a huge problem. The progression of obesity over the years shows that it’s a food and behavior problem more than a genetic problem.

Of course some people are predisposed to eating more, and metabolizing less calories.

We are not born the same.

If a person is naturally fat, that person has to try harder. She needs to eat foods that have move volume but less calories.

Likewise a student who is not that intelligent needs to try harder at school. Failure is not acceptable. A person who is born poor needs to work harder in life. Those are facts of life.

CA renter, you want to kick out people who can’t pay their mortgage, but you won’t tell naturally inclined fat people that they can never have brownies?[/quote]

Brian,

How in the world do you relate people who don’t pay their mortgages with people who are overweight? There is zero correlation there.

One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences).

This is not about saying “no” to food. Yes, there are some people who are overweight because of overeating and a lack of exercise, but there are many more (IMHO) who have disfunctional metabolisms for reasons that have not been researched enough.

You have no idea how much effort these people have to put into just looking “normal.” The level of exercise required, and the type of diet they would have to follow would kill someone like you. It’s easy for you to say these things if you’ve never walked in their shoes.

BTW, I’ve mentioned this before, but there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates. Think that might have anything to do with it? I do.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]This obesity issue is controversial because people see themselves and take it personally. As more and more of the population is fat, the issue becomes more of a hot potato, despite the science.

The data is there. As ocrenter pointed out, obesity in America is a huge problem. The progression of obesity over the years shows that it’s a food and behavior problem more than a genetic problem.

Of course some people are predisposed to eating more, and metabolizing less calories.

We are not born the same.

If a person is naturally fat, that person has to try harder. She needs to eat foods that have move volume but less calories.

Likewise a student who is not that intelligent needs to try harder at school. Failure is not acceptable. A person who is born poor needs to work harder in life. Those are facts of life.

CA renter, you want to kick out people who can’t pay their mortgage, but you won’t tell naturally inclined fat people that they can never have brownies?[/quote]

Brian,

How in the world do you relate people who don’t pay their mortgages with people who are overweight? There is zero correlation there.

One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences).

This is not about saying “no” to food. Yes, there are some people who are overweight because of overeating and a lack of exercise, but there are many more (IMHO) who have disfunctional metabolisms for reasons that have not been researched enough.

You have no idea how much effort these people have to put into just looking “normal.” The level of exercise required, and the type of diet they would have to follow would kill someone like you. It’s easy for you to say these things if you’ve never walked in their shoes.

BTW, I’ve mentioned this before, but there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates. Think that might have anything to do with it? I do.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]This obesity issue is controversial because people see themselves and take it personally. As more and more of the population is fat, the issue becomes more of a hot potato, despite the science.

The data is there. As ocrenter pointed out, obesity in America is a huge problem. The progression of obesity over the years shows that it’s a food and behavior problem more than a genetic problem.

Of course some people are predisposed to eating more, and metabolizing less calories.

We are not born the same.

If a person is naturally fat, that person has to try harder. She needs to eat foods that have move volume but less calories.

Likewise a student who is not that intelligent needs to try harder at school. Failure is not acceptable. A person who is born poor needs to work harder in life. Those are facts of life.

CA renter, you want to kick out people who can’t pay their mortgage, but you won’t tell naturally inclined fat people that they can never have brownies?[/quote]

Brian,

How in the world do you relate people who don’t pay their mortgages with people who are overweight? There is zero correlation there.

One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences).

This is not about saying “no” to food. Yes, there are some people who are overweight because of overeating and a lack of exercise, but there are many more (IMHO) who have disfunctional metabolisms for reasons that have not been researched enough.

You have no idea how much effort these people have to put into just looking “normal.” The level of exercise required, and the type of diet they would have to follow would kill someone like you. It’s easy for you to say these things if you’ve never walked in their shoes.

BTW, I’ve mentioned this before, but there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates. Think that might have anything to do with it? I do.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]This obesity issue is controversial because people see themselves and take it personally. As more and more of the population is fat, the issue becomes more of a hot potato, despite the science.

The data is there. As ocrenter pointed out, obesity in America is a huge problem. The progression of obesity over the years shows that it’s a food and behavior problem more than a genetic problem.

Of course some people are predisposed to eating more, and metabolizing less calories.

We are not born the same.

If a person is naturally fat, that person has to try harder. She needs to eat foods that have move volume but less calories.

Likewise a student who is not that intelligent needs to try harder at school. Failure is not acceptable. A person who is born poor needs to work harder in life. Those are facts of life.

CA renter, you want to kick out people who can’t pay their mortgage, but you won’t tell naturally inclined fat people that they can never have brownies?[/quote]

Brian,

How in the world do you relate people who don’t pay their mortgages with people who are overweight? There is zero correlation there.

One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences).

This is not about saying “no” to food. Yes, there are some people who are overweight because of overeating and a lack of exercise, but there are many more (IMHO) who have disfunctional metabolisms for reasons that have not been researched enough.

You have no idea how much effort these people have to put into just looking “normal.” The level of exercise required, and the type of diet they would have to follow would kill someone like you. It’s easy for you to say these things if you’ve never walked in their shoes.

BTW, I’ve mentioned this before, but there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates. Think that might have anything to do with it? I do.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1]This obesity issue is controversial because people see themselves and take it personally. As more and more of the population is fat, the issue becomes more of a hot potato, despite the science.

The data is there. As ocrenter pointed out, obesity in America is a huge problem. The progression of obesity over the years shows that it’s a food and behavior problem more than a genetic problem.

Of course some people are predisposed to eating more, and metabolizing less calories.

We are not born the same.

If a person is naturally fat, that person has to try harder. She needs to eat foods that have move volume but less calories.

Likewise a student who is not that intelligent needs to try harder at school. Failure is not acceptable. A person who is born poor needs to work harder in life. Those are facts of life.

CA renter, you want to kick out people who can’t pay their mortgage, but you won’t tell naturally inclined fat people that they can never have brownies?[/quote]

Brian,

How in the world do you relate people who don’t pay their mortgages with people who are overweight? There is zero correlation there.

One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences).

This is not about saying “no” to food. Yes, there are some people who are overweight because of overeating and a lack of exercise, but there are many more (IMHO) who have disfunctional metabolisms for reasons that have not been researched enough.

You have no idea how much effort these people have to put into just looking “normal.” The level of exercise required, and the type of diet they would have to follow would kill someone like you. It’s easy for you to say these things if you’ve never walked in their shoes.

BTW, I’ve mentioned this before, but there is an inverse correlation between smoking rates and obesity rates. Think that might have anything to do with it? I do.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences). [/quote]

You seem to think that different people with different physiology are entitled to eat the same food.

About about eating food that matches one’s physiology (like matching the house you buy to your income)? How about ability to gauge the long term consequences to one’s health?

If one has allergies to peanuts, one would avoid them. Certain people should not be eating cakes, potatoes, bread, cheese, butter, etc… That’s kinda tough but that’s the way it is.

I personally never buy butter and don’t even eat one stick in 5 years. I’ve seen enough fat people put butter on muffins, and eat 2-3 muffins at a time, that I can’t have sympathy at all.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences). [/quote]

You seem to think that different people with different physiology are entitled to eat the same food.

About about eating food that matches one’s physiology (like matching the house you buy to your income)? How about ability to gauge the long term consequences to one’s health?

If one has allergies to peanuts, one would avoid them. Certain people should not be eating cakes, potatoes, bread, cheese, butter, etc… That’s kinda tough but that’s the way it is.

I personally never buy butter and don’t even eat one stick in 5 years. I’ve seen enough fat people put butter on muffins, and eat 2-3 muffins at a time, that I can’t have sympathy at all.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences). [/quote]

You seem to think that different people with different physiology are entitled to eat the same food.

About about eating food that matches one’s physiology (like matching the house you buy to your income)? How about ability to gauge the long term consequences to one’s health?

If one has allergies to peanuts, one would avoid them. Certain people should not be eating cakes, potatoes, bread, cheese, butter, etc… That’s kinda tough but that’s the way it is.

I personally never buy butter and don’t even eat one stick in 5 years. I’ve seen enough fat people put butter on muffins, and eat 2-3 muffins at a time, that I can’t have sympathy at all.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences). [/quote]

You seem to think that different people with different physiology are entitled to eat the same food.

About about eating food that matches one’s physiology (like matching the house you buy to your income)? How about ability to gauge the long term consequences to one’s health?

If one has allergies to peanuts, one would avoid them. Certain people should not be eating cakes, potatoes, bread, cheese, butter, etc… That’s kinda tough but that’s the way it is.

I personally never buy butter and don’t even eat one stick in 5 years. I’ve seen enough fat people put butter on muffins, and eat 2-3 muffins at a time, that I can’t have sympathy at all.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]
One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences). [/quote]

You seem to think that different people with different physiology are entitled to eat the same food.

About about eating food that matches one’s physiology (like matching the house you buy to your income)? How about ability to gauge the long term consequences to one’s health?

If one has allergies to peanuts, one would avoid them. Certain people should not be eating cakes, potatoes, bread, cheese, butter, etc… That’s kinda tough but that’s the way it is.

I personally never buy butter and don’t even eat one stick in 5 years. I’ve seen enough fat people put butter on muffins, and eat 2-3 muffins at a time, that I can’t have sympathy at all.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences). [/quote]

You seem to think that different people with different physiology are entitled to eat the same food.

About about eating food that matches one’s physiology (like matching the house you buy to your income)? How about ability to gauge the long term consequence to one’s health?

If one has allergies to peanuts, one would avoid them. Certain people should not be eating cakes, potatoes, bread, cheese, butter, etc… That’s kinda tough but that’s the way it is.

I personally never buy butter and don’t even eat one stick in 5 years. I’ve seen enough fat people put butter on muffins, and eat 2-3 muffins at a time, that I can’t have sympathy at all.[/quote]

I agree with CAR that some individuals are genetically predisposed to a slow metabolism. But if they know they’re this way, they need to cut way back on sugars/starches and fats and push themselves to keep up an exercise regimen. If they don’t do this, they very well could be stuck with a myriad of health issues from a very young age.

I agree with brian that most people can make better food choices but also know that food choices are largely cultural and so are ingrained in an adult (who grew up passing large bread baskets and other “double-recipe” starchy and fried dishes around the table and engaging in second/third helpings, for example). I’ve been to relatives’ houses who have this tradition at dinnertime and some are overweight and some aren’t. Usually the ones that aren’t overweight (mostly males) have a lot of heavy manual tasks to do every day (often in triple-digit heat).

Unless I’m making food to freeze, I have always prepared meals to equal one serving each for the exact amount of people I am cooking for. Even food I freeze is divided up into individual meal containers. I do not usually have leftovers and endeavor not to waste any food.

brian, you are correct in that using condiments such as butter, sour cream, mayo, excessive salad dressing, gravy, etc ALL have a great effect on how many calories you are taking in.

I think many American cultures needlessly overspend on groceries, buy the “wrong” stuff, habitually prepare too much food and also throw too much food away.

I don’t know how this problem can be fixed except for moving away from a household that engages in these practices and living and eating on your own. Or eating different (mostly raw) food separately from the rest of the family you live with.

You can’t fix everyone. You can only fix yourself. And you have to really want to reduce your weight . . . just like a person has to want to quit smoking.

My family and friends are always amazed that throughout my life I have been able to exist (even with a family to feed) on 1/3 to 1/4 the “grocery budget” of a typical American family. And it wasn’t always because I was “cash-strapped.” I just believe that this money could better be spent elsewhere (or saved), buying too much food causes it to go stale and/or expire (and produce to spoil) and grocery stores are everywhere to get fresh things only as I need them.

If I were living “by myself” and did not have pets I would be willing to “take the challenge” of living on <=$100 mo of groceries (incl hshld and personal items). Yes, I think this is still possible . . . even at today's prices :-]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences). [/quote]

You seem to think that different people with different physiology are entitled to eat the same food.

About about eating food that matches one’s physiology (like matching the house you buy to your income)? How about ability to gauge the long term consequence to one’s health?

If one has allergies to peanuts, one would avoid them. Certain people should not be eating cakes, potatoes, bread, cheese, butter, etc… That’s kinda tough but that’s the way it is.

I personally never buy butter and don’t even eat one stick in 5 years. I’ve seen enough fat people put butter on muffins, and eat 2-3 muffins at a time, that I can’t have sympathy at all.[/quote]

I agree with CAR that some individuals are genetically predisposed to a slow metabolism. But if they know they’re this way, they need to cut way back on sugars/starches and fats and push themselves to keep up an exercise regimen. If they don’t do this, they very well could be stuck with a myriad of health issues from a very young age.

I agree with brian that most people can make better food choices but also know that food choices are largely cultural and so are ingrained in an adult (who grew up passing large bread baskets and other “double-recipe” starchy and fried dishes around the table and engaging in second/third helpings, for example). I’ve been to relatives’ houses who have this tradition at dinnertime and some are overweight and some aren’t. Usually the ones that aren’t overweight (mostly males) have a lot of heavy manual tasks to do every day (often in triple-digit heat).

Unless I’m making food to freeze, I have always prepared meals to equal one serving each for the exact amount of people I am cooking for. Even food I freeze is divided up into individual meal containers. I do not usually have leftovers and endeavor not to waste any food.

brian, you are correct in that using condiments such as butter, sour cream, mayo, excessive salad dressing, gravy, etc ALL have a great effect on how many calories you are taking in.

I think many American cultures needlessly overspend on groceries, buy the “wrong” stuff, habitually prepare too much food and also throw too much food away.

I don’t know how this problem can be fixed except for moving away from a household that engages in these practices and living and eating on your own. Or eating different (mostly raw) food separately from the rest of the family you live with.

You can’t fix everyone. You can only fix yourself. And you have to really want to reduce your weight . . . just like a person has to want to quit smoking.

My family and friends are always amazed that throughout my life I have been able to exist (even with a family to feed) on 1/3 to 1/4 the “grocery budget” of a typical American family. And it wasn’t always because I was “cash-strapped.” I just believe that this money could better be spent elsewhere (or saved), buying too much food causes it to go stale and/or expire (and produce to spoil) and grocery stores are everywhere to get fresh things only as I need them.

If I were living “by myself” and did not have pets I would be willing to “take the challenge” of living on <=$100 mo of groceries (incl hshld and personal items). Yes, I think this is still possible . . . even at today's prices :-]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences). [/quote]

You seem to think that different people with different physiology are entitled to eat the same food.

About about eating food that matches one’s physiology (like matching the house you buy to your income)? How about ability to gauge the long term consequence to one’s health?

If one has allergies to peanuts, one would avoid them. Certain people should not be eating cakes, potatoes, bread, cheese, butter, etc… That’s kinda tough but that’s the way it is.

I personally never buy butter and don’t even eat one stick in 5 years. I’ve seen enough fat people put butter on muffins, and eat 2-3 muffins at a time, that I can’t have sympathy at all.[/quote]

I agree with CAR that some individuals are genetically predisposed to a slow metabolism. But if they know they’re this way, they need to cut way back on sugars/starches and fats and push themselves to keep up an exercise regimen. If they don’t do this, they very well could be stuck with a myriad of health issues from a very young age.

I agree with brian that most people can make better food choices but also know that food choices are largely cultural and so are ingrained in an adult (who grew up passing large bread baskets and other “double-recipe” starchy and fried dishes around the table and engaging in second/third helpings, for example). I’ve been to relatives’ houses who have this tradition at dinnertime and some are overweight and some aren’t. Usually the ones that aren’t overweight (mostly males) have a lot of heavy manual tasks to do every day (often in triple-digit heat).

Unless I’m making food to freeze, I have always prepared meals to equal one serving each for the exact amount of people I am cooking for. Even food I freeze is divided up into individual meal containers. I do not usually have leftovers and endeavor not to waste any food.

brian, you are correct in that using condiments such as butter, sour cream, mayo, excessive salad dressing, gravy, etc ALL have a great effect on how many calories you are taking in.

I think many American cultures needlessly overspend on groceries, buy the “wrong” stuff, habitually prepare too much food and also throw too much food away.

I don’t know how this problem can be fixed except for moving away from a household that engages in these practices and living and eating on your own. Or eating different (mostly raw) food separately from the rest of the family you live with.

You can’t fix everyone. You can only fix yourself. And you have to really want to reduce your weight . . . just like a person has to want to quit smoking.

My family and friends are always amazed that throughout my life I have been able to exist (even with a family to feed) on 1/3 to 1/4 the “grocery budget” of a typical American family. And it wasn’t always because I was “cash-strapped.” I just believe that this money could better be spent elsewhere (or saved), buying too much food causes it to go stale and/or expire (and produce to spoil) and grocery stores are everywhere to get fresh things only as I need them.

If I were living “by myself” and did not have pets I would be willing to “take the challenge” of living on <=$100 mo of groceries (incl hshld and personal items). Yes, I think this is still possible . . . even at today's prices :-]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]One has to do with physiology (slow metabolism and how different foods affect different body types), the other has to do with psychology (inability to gauge risk and/or consider long-term consequences). [/quote]

You seem to think that different people with different physiology are entitled to eat the same food.

About about eating food that matches one’s physiology (like matching the house you buy to your income)? How about ability to gauge the long term consequence to one’s health?

If one has allergies to peanuts, one would avoid them. Certain people should not be eating cakes, potatoes, bread, cheese, butter, etc… That’s kinda tough but that’s the way it is.

I personally never buy butter and don’t even eat one stick in 5 years. I’ve seen enough fat people put butter on muffins, and eat 2-3 muffins at a time, that I can’t have sympathy at all.[/quote]

I agree with CAR that some individuals are genetically predisposed to a slow metabolism. But if they know they’re this way, they need to cut way back on sugars/starches and fats and push themselves to keep up an exercise regimen. If they don’t do this, they very well could be stuck with a myriad of health issues from a very young age.

I agree with brian that most people can make better food choices but also know that food choices are largely cultural and so are ingrained in an adult (who grew up passing large bread baskets and other “double-recipe” starchy and fried dishes around the table and engaging in second/third helpings, for example). I’ve been to relatives’ houses who have this tradition at dinnertime and some are overweight and some aren’t. Usually the ones that aren’t overweight (mostly males) have a lot of heavy manual tasks to do every day (often in triple-digit heat).

Unless I’m making food to freeze, I have always prepared meals to equal one serving each for the exact amount of people I am cooking for. Even food I freeze is divided up into individual meal containers. I do not usually have leftovers and endeavor not to waste any food.

brian, you are correct in that using condiments such as butter, sour cream, mayo, excessive salad dressing, gravy, etc ALL have a great effect on how many calories you are taking in.

I think many American cultures needlessly overspend on groceries, buy the “wrong” stuff, habitually prepare too much food and also throw too much food away.

I don’t know how this problem can be fixed except for moving away from a household that engages in these practices and living and eating on your own. Or eating different (mostly raw) food separately from the rest of the family you live with.

You can’t fix everyone. You can only fix yourself. And you have to really want to reduce your weight . . . just like a person has to want to quit smoking.

My family and friends are always amazed that throughout my life I have been able to exist (even with a family to feed) on 1/3 to 1/4 the “grocery budget” of a typical American family. And it wasn’t always because I was “cash-strapped.” I just believe that this money could better be spent elsewhere (or saved), buying too much food causes it to go stale and/or expire (and produce to spoil) and grocery stores are everywhere to get fresh things only as I need them.

If I were living “by myself” and did not have pets I would be willing to “take the challenge” of living on <=$100 mo of groceries (incl hshld and personal items). Yes, I think this is still possible . . . even at today's prices :-]

[Author]

Posts