Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
CA renter
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]I think we need to start by taking *out* the stuff that’s bad for us: in our food, in our water, in our personal care products, in the packaging we use for our food, in our soil/environment, etc. Let’s start there, and see what needs to be done after that.
And, yes, we might need to give some people a type of speed [/quote]
Ok, so while we wait for policy action and pharmacological solutions, there’s no personal initiative that’s possible?
As far as cleaning our environment, how is that going to happen? “sick” people don’t seem to be calling for any change at all (like cancer patients are calling for more research).
If we are worried about hormonal changes due to chemicals in our food, then we should be avoiding packaged items at all costs. That’s individual action we can take. Think of a paper cup of coffee. The cut is manufactured somewhere with bleaching agents, adhesives, etc… Add high heat and there will surely be leaching. Same goes for food boxes, etc… Minute amounts of chemicals won’t kill us, but repeated use might affect some people who are most sensitive.[/quote]
We’re in agreement on this. Also, people who are concerned about weight, including overweight/obese people, have indeed been trying to call attention to these things in order to change them. The corporations who benefit from the marketing of all these chemical-laden foods and packages are fighting every inch of the way. Notice how the GMO labeling initiatives keep getting knocked down…how in the world can you explain that?
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter] I’m calling total BS on the “diet and exercise” nonsense. It might take years, maybe decades, before science catches up with reality, but I’m willing to bet that we will find that genetics, hormones, and environmental factors are every bit as important as diet and exercise.[/quote]
Ok… let’s say you’re right.
What would the solutions look like once those discoveries are made decades from now?
Do people eat the same amount of calories but still remain thin?
you could fix the genetics and hormonal “problems” with new drugs to increase metabolism or decrease energy absorption.
You can invent new drugs to lower cravings. This actually results in changes in diet.
You can change environmental factors to increase activity. But you can do that right now — exercise.
You “fix” the food so that it contains fewer calories or is not absorbed. This can actually be done right now by changing diet, such as substituting insoluble fibers to add bulk to the food.
Also, be mindful that innovation in food means more processed, “unnatural” food, like a cupcake with only 50 calories.
Genetic and hormonal solutions mean more “unnatural” intervention in our bodies. And as you know there are always unintended consequences.
[/quote]
I think we need to start by taking *out* the stuff that’s bad for us: in our food, in our water, in our personal care products, in the packaging we use for our food, in our soil/environment, etc. Let’s start there, and see what needs to be done after that.
And, yes, we might need to give some people a type of speed if we’re that insistent on their losing weight. As I’ve mentioned before, I think that some of these people will feel no different from “normal” people when they are using speed because their natural metabolism (energy level, etc.) is so much slower than average.
As for my kids’ eating habits, the thinner one eats about 30-50% more than the other two. No need to document it because I see it everyday. Even our friends comment on it.
Also meant to respond to your comment about heavier people only being able to outperform less-fit, normal-weight people on physical tasks. I’m not just talking about lifting weights, but hiking, swimming, skiing, biking, playing tennis, basketball, etc.; then there’s work like cutting trees, digging trenches, etc. There are a lot of “overweight” people who are incredibly fit, and a whole lot of under/normal-weight people who are incredibly unfit.
Participantscaredy, we’ve known a few people with the same problem that you have. One guy at my husband’s work eats crazy amounts of food and even “snacks” on those huge burritos in between meals, just to try to gain some weight and muscle. No luck.
Some friends of ours has a young son, about 8 years old, whose every muscle ripples as he moves. Not a large kid, but so incredibly muscular. That kid eats his parents out of house and home. He’s got some kind of food in his hand all day long, literally. Doesn’t work out, obviously, since he’s eight, and doesn’t even know that he looks different from most other kids. Lucky kid. It’s just how he was born. I’m willing to bet he will never be “fat” in his whole, entire life, no matter how much he eats.
BTW, based on the pic you’ve posted, I’d say you’ve done an amazing job with your muscle-building program. That’s a very cool story. Fun to know that we’ve been here all along to share your journey with you. 🙂
Participantsdsurfer, I wish more salespeople were like you. It’s a bummer that things didn’t work out the way you wanted, but at least you can go to sleep at night with a clean conscience. Good for you for putting your principles ahead of profit.
ParticipantBeen entering more short positions over the past couple of months as the market’s been rising. While I can’t nail the timing, I think we’re going to see another 35-50% correction (possibly more) by the end of 2017.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]Obviously I didn’t read the user license agreement.
The accumulation of data and the cross referencing to link people to each other is pretty scary.
Some of the facebook friends suggestions were contractors I used only one time. Now whenever I add a facebook friend, I get more suggestions based on that new friend. facebook seems eager to generate more social connection and more traffic.
I’m going to minimize the use of facebook to just follow some close friends and family members.[/quote]
Okay, I’ve been called a “conspiracy theorist” more than a few times over the years. I’m beginning to think that it’s because nobody else is reading all the fine print that they are agreeing to when they click “I agree.”
ParticipantBG, you can build a granny flat for about $200/sf. If you build a 550 sf guest house, that’s $110,000. Assuming a mortgage can be had a 5% (easy to get right now), that would give you a $590.50/month P&I mortgage payment. Add additional maintenance, tax, and insurance costs (~165/month), and you’re looking at somewhere around $755.50/month in additional expenses for the accessory dwelling unit (ADU). Around here, you can *easily* get $900/month for such a unit, so it makes sense for many people to do this. It just depends on whether or not one needs/wants to do it, and whether or not they have the money or equity in their existing home to use for the construction of the ADU.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Consider weight/ muscle gain.
Some of us are hard gainers.
Eat a lot work out hard slow growth.
Others are born well muscled. Eat junk and grow fast.
You remember big guys in Hs…born thick muscled big bones.
Grow like weeds.
That said. Skinny little bast ards like me can add muscle. We just have to work 3x harder than the naturals.
I bet it works reverse too. We are not all created equal for muscle gain or weight loss etc. But no way some slim fellow can go and acquire a football body with just work and foid.
Hard gainers are what they call guys like me…
We have different kinds of bodies but no one has to be all weak or all fat.
That said I’d prefer to be big. Just naturally big. But I’m not.[/quote]
Exactly. And there are people out there who can eat 4,000 calories a day and not gain weight (and not intentionally work out much), while others will gain weight by eating 1,800 calories per day.
Of our three kids, two were born with more fat and no muscle definition at all. One was born muscular — literally had six-pack abs as a baby. The muscular one eats the most, by far, but is still very much in the “normal” weight range and has no fat deposits. The others eat less, but have never had defined muscles anywhere on their bodies, and all get the same amount of exercise.
I’m calling total BS on the “diet and exercise” nonsense. It might take years, maybe decades, before science catches up with reality, but I’m willing to bet that we will find that genetics, hormones, and environmental factors are every bit as important as diet and exercise.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
There are natural foods that don’t have added chemicals…chemicals that were never intended by nature to be eaten. Just look at most labels in the supermarket and tell me that people were eating that crap 100+ years ago.[/quote]
Natural foods are made up entirely of chemicals. The vast majority of added chemicals are already in foods we eat. They are “natural”. It almost hurts to write those words. The quote shouldn’t be necessary. Everything we eat is natural. What’s changed is the proportions.[/quote]
Really? You think that today’s foods have no more added/synthetic chemicals in them than foods from 100+ years ago? No higher concentrations of chemicals that are considered toxic or possibly carcinogenic?
And it’s not just our foods that have toxic chemicals, but the lotions and potions that people slather all over their bodies everyday, the water we drink, the air that we breathe, our furniture, clothing, etc.
And what has changed is the amount of exercise we get. There is a HUGE difference between the life of a farmer who uses manual farming implements, and an office worker who sits in front of a computer screen all day…or a kid who sits in front of a TV, computer, or iPad all day.
———
“Conventional wisdom says that weight gain or loss is based on the energy balance model of “calories in, calories out,” which is often reduced to the simple refrain, “eat less, and exercise more.” But new research reveals a far more complex equation that appears to rest on several other important factors affecting weight gain. Researchers in a relatively new field are looking at the role of industrial chemicals and non-caloric aspects of foods — called obesogens — in weight gain. Scientists conducting this research believe that these substances that are now prevalent in our food supply may be altering the way our bodies store fat and regulate our metabolism. But not everyone agrees. Many scientists, nutritionists, and doctors are still firm believers in the energy balance model. A debate has ensued, leaving a rather unclear picture as to what’s really at work behind our nation’s spike in obesity.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/whats-really-making-us-fat/254087/
ParticipantBG, there are a few very nice modular/prefab homes in Encinitas and Carlsbad. These cities also have fairly generous zoning requirements for companion units.
http://www.ci.encinitas.ca.us/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=228
Can’t seem to find Carlsbad’s right now, but have looked into it in the past and know that they allow accessory dwelling units similar to what Encinitas allows.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, I’m sorry about your sister.
But try to look at it rationally.
I don’t dispute that some babies are fat at birth. That makes them predispositioned to being fat as adults. But the future is not predetermined.
Fat babies in America who grow up on western diet consisting of baby formula and canned baby food will be fat. Then they are exposed to apple pie, pizza, hot dogs, sodas, spaghetti, hamburgers, fries, brownies, ice cream, cup cakes, oreo cookies, potato chips, steaks, ribs, etc…
But that American diet is not the only viable diet.
In rural parts of Asia (not the city) people eat fish, mostly veggies, no processed carbs other than rice (maybe they can’t even afford processed white rice), some poultry, very little meat. People in tropical, rainy SE Asia are especially blessed because they have so many fruits year round. Fruit and veggies just grow everywhere.
There are people of all shapes even “fat” people, but nothing even approaching fat by American standards.
They eat that diet not by choice but by necessity. If they don’t die from unsanitary conditions, or lack of medical care they often live to become centenarians.We have so much knowledge now. We can use that knowledge to customize our diets. We don’t all have to consume the same American diet, then periodically go on yoyo weight loss diets. As I say before, the key is never to gain weight as adults. Then we don’t need to worry about losing weight.[/quote]
Again, the same, ignorant assumptions about other people’s habits. My mother was European and exclusively breastfed her babies. She didn’t use store-bought baby food for the most part. She always cooked fresh food and shunned processed foods. The diets she put my sister on were all health-based diets.
Sorry, Brian, but you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re also ignoring the fact that different races have different genetic profiles. Some races have evolved over the years to store food, while others who’ve traditionally had more access to food tend to have faster metabolisms.
I suppose you think that hair/eye/skin color, predisposition to certain diseases, etc. are all genetic, but body shape/size is influenced entirely by one’s environment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Participant[quote=njtosd]
No question about it. I happen to think that the current weight issues have much more to do with changes in activity level vs. people becoming “weak” or whatever you think it is.
I found this article interesting:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080908185228.htm
In short, the Amish, who are very active, carry a gene that predisposes people to obesity at the same rate as the general population. However, the ones carrying the gene are generally not obese. The hypothesis is that somehow the activity counteracts whatever the gene is doing.
Something like working dogs – if they don’t get exercise, they can get mean. Maybe in humans a lack of exercise results in overeating.
I attribute very little to free will. People are driven by millions of years of genetic selection. The environment has changed (and I don’t mean that in the trees and rivers sense) and it has resulted in, among other things, an obesity epidemic. Pima tribe is a perfect example.
Here’s the cite: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8422781
And here is the conclusion: The high prevalence of obesity and NIDDM in the Pima Indian community might be the consequence of a “thrifty genotype.” The increasing evidence that obesity cannot always be attributed to gluttony and sloth forces us to consider obesity as a “real metabolic disease” that needs to be treated as such, using new behavioral and pharmacological therapies.[/quote]
Totally agree with you, njtosd. It’s simplistic and ignorant to assume that all people need to do to stay slim is eat well and exercise. That might work for some (even most people), but it doesn’t work for others.
Brian, as far as the pharmaceutical solution, speed increases metabolism while also suppressing appetite. IMO, those whose bodies are genetically predisposed to store calories are probably getting to what you feel is “normal,” with respect to energy and appetite, when they take speed. I believe that those who store food and lack energy (because the calories are not converted easily to kinetic energy) could greatly benefit from pharmaceuticals, and I’m one who tends to stay away from medicines as much as possible.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter] Some people are born overweight — and not having anything to do with the mother’s diet during pregnancy. Many people have never been “normal” weight in their entire lives.
[/quote]Nobody is born into a fat adult.
There’s a 20 years process to grow up into adulthood, then there’s another 20 years to get to middle age.Without the input of calories, it’s not possible to become fat.
[/quote]
You’re wrong. Many people are born fat…they’ve never been “normal” weight, not even for a single day in their lives. My sister was over 11 pounds when she was born. My (very vain) mother had her on diets her whole life. She was never in the “normal” weight range, even as a baby, with all of these diets. As a young adult, she took massive amounts of pills (speed) and starved herself an an attempt to lose weight. While she lost some weight, she still never got to a “normal” weight. She grew up depressed, largely because of her weight, and ended up committing suicide when she was 24 years old.
So, yeah, I have pretty strong feelings about this. I get pissed when petty, vain, ignorant people (who almost always were blessed with a faster metabolism) try to shame those who are overweight.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
As for eating differently now that we are more sedentary? I agree, but the food corporations are making more and more chemical-laden foods that are “quickly and easily prepared” for all those drones who come home after 10 hours at work. It’s not an easy transition.[/quote]You do realize that every single bite of food you have ever eaten is made up of chemicals, right?
There has been no change in the % of chemicals in human diets. Ever.[/quote]
There are natural foods that don’t have added chemicals…chemicals that were never intended by nature to be eaten. Just look at most labels in the supermarket and tell me that people were eating that crap 100+ years ago.
-
AuthorPosts
