Ot; Heavy

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]We have a kid from each type, which is why I feel so strongly about it not simply being “diet and exercise.” I think that’s too simplistic.[/quote]

Too simplistic yes. There is an addiction element. As humans, we have weaknesses and we are all addicted to some things.

Like everything in life, it takes discipline from a young age. Adults won’t crave food if they are well-educated about food and have sampled it all as children.

The key is also to instill good manners in kids. Give them their portions and that’s it. No seconds, no picking and choosing, no I-don-t-like-this-or-that. No eating out of the box, or drinking out of the can. Sit down and eat properly at the dining table every time.

That will help them later as adults not to gorge themselves outside of mealtime.

We talk about personal responsibility a lot here. Those who remain at college age weight throughout their lives achieve great personal responsibility, IMHO.

If you do that, you’ll likely live a healthy life into your 90s or pass 100.

Weight gains and losses, up and down, cause imflamations and great stress to the body. As Arraya would say, chronic inflamation is a systemic problem induced upon the body that causes diseases and death.

If we cannot tolerate people who don’t pay their mortgages or can’t manage their money, then why should be tolerate people who over-eat and create their own health problems?[/quote]

You’re not getting it, brian.

We have three kids, one of whom eats X calories and gains weight; the other one eats the same X calories and loses weight. Both “exercise” the same amount, but one is “hyper” and the other is very sedate.

It is NOT always as simple as saying, “that fat person must eat too much or exercise too little.” Oftentimes, “fat” people eat LESS than “skinny” people. That’s my point. I think that a lot of people whose bodies choose to store fat have a lack of energy (because the body does not easily convert calories into kinetic energy) it’s like their bodies are in constant starvation mode, so their bodies store calories and send unusually strong hunger signals. Other people have bodies that naturally burn all the calories that are eaten — they don’t store the calories, and their bodies don’t send unusual hunger signals.

Our family is a perfect case study because we eat all of our meals together and all of our kids eat the same amounts of the same food (you’ll be happy to know that everyone sits at the table and eats properly, brian). I see everything they eat, and I see what they do physically.

This is exactly my point — they take in the same calories, but their bodies use them differently. One can eat and is still fairly low-energy, while another one eats and immediately starts acting “hyper.” These are not conscious decisions on their parts; their bodies are reacting differently to food.

All this is not to say that food consumption and exercise levels don’t affect weight, but we need to look at OTHER influences which might prove to be even more important. We need to get a better understanding of how each person’s body uses calories (do they store them or immediately burn them?), and how this affects hunger signals, and unconscious body movements.

[Navydoc]

There is an enormous ammount of research going on related to this concept you describe about how one child can eat the same as another and gain weight while the other loses. The concept is called fetal programming, and is based on something called the Barker Hypothesis. The theory goes that if a fetus is deprived of nutrition in any way, be it by caloric restriction/weight loss of the mother, or through an abnormal placenta, the fetus develops a “thrifty phenotype” in which it has a slower metabolism and is thought to have a survival advantage in low-calorie environments. Said thrifty person would survive a crisis much better than a “fast metabolizer”. In regions of the world where calorie restriction is the norm the thrifty phenotype individual looks normal, but in our high sugar/high fat environment this type of metabolism can be a disaster.

The Barker Hypothesis dates back to the 70’s, but it germinated from studies of the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45, when a German blockade of supplies into Holland in response to Operation Market Garden resulted in the population surviving on 400 calories a day. Those fetuses were born growth restricted, but once food became available again it was noted that those children were more susceptible to obesity and diabetes. In the US today it is theorized that poor prenatal care (I’m not insinuating anything about your pregnancies-please don’t be offended) relates to poor fetal nutrition and growth, which is reversed once the babies are born. Very often a pregnancy in an otherwise healthy woman has an abnormal placenta, either through a separation, or leading to preeclampsia, in which case the placenta is unable to meet the nutritional needs of the fetus, leading to the same problem.

I did my fellowship at Harbor UCLA, which is a major center for fetal programming research, and is why I know so much about this.

[Navydoc]

There is an enormous ammount of research going on related to this concept you describe about how one child can eat the same as another and gain weight while the other loses. The concept is called fetal programming, and is based on something called the Barker Hypothesis. The theory goes that if a fetus is deprived of nutrition in any way, be it by caloric restriction/weight loss of the mother, or through an abnormal placenta, the fetus develops a “thrifty phenotype” in which it has a slower metabolism and is thought to have a survival advantage in low-calorie environments. Said thrifty person would survive a crisis much better than a “fast metabolizer”. In regions of the world where calorie restriction is the norm the thrifty phenotype individual looks normal, but in our high sugar/high fat environment this type of metabolism can be a disaster.

The Barker Hypothesis dates back to the 70’s, but it germinated from studies of the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45, when a German blockade of supplies into Holland in response to Operation Market Garden resulted in the population surviving on 400 calories a day. Those fetuses were born growth restricted, but once food became available again it was noted that those children were more susceptible to obesity and diabetes. In the US today it is theorized that poor prenatal care (I’m not insinuating anything about your pregnancies-please don’t be offended) relates to poor fetal nutrition and growth, which is reversed once the babies are born. Very often a pregnancy in an otherwise healthy woman has an abnormal placenta, either through a separation, or leading to preeclampsia, in which case the placenta is unable to meet the nutritional needs of the fetus, leading to the same problem.

I did my fellowship at Harbor UCLA, which is a major center for fetal programming research, and is why I know so much about this.

[Navydoc]

There is an enormous ammount of research going on related to this concept you describe about how one child can eat the same as another and gain weight while the other loses. The concept is called fetal programming, and is based on something called the Barker Hypothesis. The theory goes that if a fetus is deprived of nutrition in any way, be it by caloric restriction/weight loss of the mother, or through an abnormal placenta, the fetus develops a “thrifty phenotype” in which it has a slower metabolism and is thought to have a survival advantage in low-calorie environments. Said thrifty person would survive a crisis much better than a “fast metabolizer”. In regions of the world where calorie restriction is the norm the thrifty phenotype individual looks normal, but in our high sugar/high fat environment this type of metabolism can be a disaster.

The Barker Hypothesis dates back to the 70’s, but it germinated from studies of the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45, when a German blockade of supplies into Holland in response to Operation Market Garden resulted in the population surviving on 400 calories a day. Those fetuses were born growth restricted, but once food became available again it was noted that those children were more susceptible to obesity and diabetes. In the US today it is theorized that poor prenatal care (I’m not insinuating anything about your pregnancies-please don’t be offended) relates to poor fetal nutrition and growth, which is reversed once the babies are born. Very often a pregnancy in an otherwise healthy woman has an abnormal placenta, either through a separation, or leading to preeclampsia, in which case the placenta is unable to meet the nutritional needs of the fetus, leading to the same problem.

I did my fellowship at Harbor UCLA, which is a major center for fetal programming research, and is why I know so much about this.

[Navydoc]

There is an enormous ammount of research going on related to this concept you describe about how one child can eat the same as another and gain weight while the other loses. The concept is called fetal programming, and is based on something called the Barker Hypothesis. The theory goes that if a fetus is deprived of nutrition in any way, be it by caloric restriction/weight loss of the mother, or through an abnormal placenta, the fetus develops a “thrifty phenotype” in which it has a slower metabolism and is thought to have a survival advantage in low-calorie environments. Said thrifty person would survive a crisis much better than a “fast metabolizer”. In regions of the world where calorie restriction is the norm the thrifty phenotype individual looks normal, but in our high sugar/high fat environment this type of metabolism can be a disaster.

The Barker Hypothesis dates back to the 70’s, but it germinated from studies of the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45, when a German blockade of supplies into Holland in response to Operation Market Garden resulted in the population surviving on 400 calories a day. Those fetuses were born growth restricted, but once food became available again it was noted that those children were more susceptible to obesity and diabetes. In the US today it is theorized that poor prenatal care (I’m not insinuating anything about your pregnancies-please don’t be offended) relates to poor fetal nutrition and growth, which is reversed once the babies are born. Very often a pregnancy in an otherwise healthy woman has an abnormal placenta, either through a separation, or leading to preeclampsia, in which case the placenta is unable to meet the nutritional needs of the fetus, leading to the same problem.

I did my fellowship at Harbor UCLA, which is a major center for fetal programming research, and is why I know so much about this.

[Navydoc]

There is an enormous ammount of research going on related to this concept you describe about how one child can eat the same as another and gain weight while the other loses. The concept is called fetal programming, and is based on something called the Barker Hypothesis. The theory goes that if a fetus is deprived of nutrition in any way, be it by caloric restriction/weight loss of the mother, or through an abnormal placenta, the fetus develops a “thrifty phenotype” in which it has a slower metabolism and is thought to have a survival advantage in low-calorie environments. Said thrifty person would survive a crisis much better than a “fast metabolizer”. In regions of the world where calorie restriction is the norm the thrifty phenotype individual looks normal, but in our high sugar/high fat environment this type of metabolism can be a disaster.

The Barker Hypothesis dates back to the 70’s, but it germinated from studies of the Dutch Hunger Winter of 1944-45, when a German blockade of supplies into Holland in response to Operation Market Garden resulted in the population surviving on 400 calories a day. Those fetuses were born growth restricted, but once food became available again it was noted that those children were more susceptible to obesity and diabetes. In the US today it is theorized that poor prenatal care (I’m not insinuating anything about your pregnancies-please don’t be offended) relates to poor fetal nutrition and growth, which is reversed once the babies are born. Very often a pregnancy in an otherwise healthy woman has an abnormal placenta, either through a separation, or leading to preeclampsia, in which case the placenta is unable to meet the nutritional needs of the fetus, leading to the same problem.

I did my fellowship at Harbor UCLA, which is a major center for fetal programming research, and is why I know so much about this.

[scaredyclassic]

and that’s visible on HEAVY that different people use and burn at differing rates. but at the end of the day, some people earn more money than others, some burn up a few more calories a day. but at the end of the day, everyone can get out of the obese category if they eat real food and move around. sure some will be heavier than others, even with the same foods.

maybe like financial education, where the rich just get to acquire and spend more, some slower burners will have to be told, look, bad luck, but you don’t get to eat as much as your faster burner colleagues.

it’s not unrealisticto get 4 hours of exercise to save your lfie. hell, it’s pretty easy to get 4 hours of tv/internet usage. 4 hourscould include brisk housework, a little gardening, a bike ride to the store,a jog…4 hours of movement…

[scaredyclassic]

and that’s visible on HEAVY that different people use and burn at differing rates. but at the end of the day, some people earn more money than others, some burn up a few more calories a day. but at the end of the day, everyone can get out of the obese category if they eat real food and move around. sure some will be heavier than others, even with the same foods.

maybe like financial education, where the rich just get to acquire and spend more, some slower burners will have to be told, look, bad luck, but you don’t get to eat as much as your faster burner colleagues.

it’s not unrealisticto get 4 hours of exercise to save your lfie. hell, it’s pretty easy to get 4 hours of tv/internet usage. 4 hourscould include brisk housework, a little gardening, a bike ride to the store,a jog…4 hours of movement…

[scaredyclassic]

and that’s visible on HEAVY that different people use and burn at differing rates. but at the end of the day, some people earn more money than others, some burn up a few more calories a day. but at the end of the day, everyone can get out of the obese category if they eat real food and move around. sure some will be heavier than others, even with the same foods.

maybe like financial education, where the rich just get to acquire and spend more, some slower burners will have to be told, look, bad luck, but you don’t get to eat as much as your faster burner colleagues.

it’s not unrealisticto get 4 hours of exercise to save your lfie. hell, it’s pretty easy to get 4 hours of tv/internet usage. 4 hourscould include brisk housework, a little gardening, a bike ride to the store,a jog…4 hours of movement…

[scaredyclassic]

and that’s visible on HEAVY that different people use and burn at differing rates. but at the end of the day, some people earn more money than others, some burn up a few more calories a day. but at the end of the day, everyone can get out of the obese category if they eat real food and move around. sure some will be heavier than others, even with the same foods.

maybe like financial education, where the rich just get to acquire and spend more, some slower burners will have to be told, look, bad luck, but you don’t get to eat as much as your faster burner colleagues.

it’s not unrealisticto get 4 hours of exercise to save your lfie. hell, it’s pretty easy to get 4 hours of tv/internet usage. 4 hourscould include brisk housework, a little gardening, a bike ride to the store,a jog…4 hours of movement…

[scaredyclassic]

and that’s visible on HEAVY that different people use and burn at differing rates. but at the end of the day, some people earn more money than others, some burn up a few more calories a day. but at the end of the day, everyone can get out of the obese category if they eat real food and move around. sure some will be heavier than others, even with the same foods.

maybe like financial education, where the rich just get to acquire and spend more, some slower burners will have to be told, look, bad luck, but you don’t get to eat as much as your faster burner colleagues.

it’s not unrealisticto get 4 hours of exercise to save your lfie. hell, it’s pretty easy to get 4 hours of tv/internet usage. 4 hourscould include brisk housework, a little gardening, a bike ride to the store,a jog…4 hours of movement…

[aldante]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]What do you guys think of Bill Clinton going vegan?

I think that it’s smart of him. It will stop heart disease and allow him to live a long time.[/quote]

Brian: I do hope Slick Willie lives a long time. Hillary is going to need his wise counsel when she mounts a primary challenge in 2012.

Kidding aside, he looks healthier. Do you think Monica Lewinsky gave up meat, too?[/quote]

Allan,
I am howling right now…..thanks!

[aldante]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]What do you guys think of Bill Clinton going vegan?

I think that it’s smart of him. It will stop heart disease and allow him to live a long time.[/quote]

Brian: I do hope Slick Willie lives a long time. Hillary is going to need his wise counsel when she mounts a primary challenge in 2012.

Kidding aside, he looks healthier. Do you think Monica Lewinsky gave up meat, too?[/quote]

Allan,
I am howling right now…..thanks!

[aldante]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]What do you guys think of Bill Clinton going vegan?

I think that it’s smart of him. It will stop heart disease and allow him to live a long time.[/quote]

Brian: I do hope Slick Willie lives a long time. Hillary is going to need his wise counsel when she mounts a primary challenge in 2012.

Kidding aside, he looks healthier. Do you think Monica Lewinsky gave up meat, too?[/quote]

Allan,
I am howling right now…..thanks!

[aldante]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=briansd1]What do you guys think of Bill Clinton going vegan?

I think that it’s smart of him. It will stop heart disease and allow him to live a long time.[/quote]

Brian: I do hope Slick Willie lives a long time. Hillary is going to need his wise counsel when she mounts a primary challenge in 2012.

Kidding aside, he looks healthier. Do you think Monica Lewinsky gave up meat, too?[/quote]

Allan,
I am howling right now…..thanks!

[Author]

Posts