 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / August 2004Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
Quoting Marie Osmond: "And I don't know anything worse than being puffy and fat. " Ain't that the truth! There's NOTHING acceptable about being fat. there is nothing acceptable don't use the most scientific studied & easy & cheap method in the USA !!! I can't really understand the incredible looking for of all people in this NG ..... lucabg@tiscali.it huges from Italy > Quoting Marie Osmond: "And I don't know anything worse than being puffy and > fat. " > > Ain't that the truth! There's NOTHING acceptable about being fat. In alt.support.diet.low-carb theresa bright <bright@cgocable.net> wrote: > Quoting Marie Osmond: "And I don't know anything worse than being puffy and > fat. " And I don't know anything worse than self-preoccupied airheads who've lead such insulated, privileged, and protected lives that being fat is the worst thing they can imagine. They need to get out of the compound once in a while and meet some people with real problems and visit some places in the world where body fat still has its rightful place in human biology as a energy reserve to draw on during times when food is scarce. Dan 325/211/180 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes > They need to get out of the compound once in a while and meet some people > with real problems and visit some places in the world where body fat still > has its rightful place in human biology as a energy reserve to draw on > during times when food is scarce. Not a problem when you tilted at 325 I trust? Diva 219/140 > In alt.support.diet.low-carb theresa bright <bright@cgocable.net> wrote: > > Quoting Marie Osmond: "And I don't know anything worse than being puffy and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > has its rightful place in human biology as a energy reserve to draw on > during times when food is scarce. You overlook the fact that vast numbers of people in this country are so fat that they cannot catch any kind of food themselves, they can only sit on their wide a.ses and wait for someone to bring it to them. When fatness begins to impair a persons ability to run and compete in the natural struggle of hunting and outrunning predators then it is a major handicap. If you are going to start down the road concerning what is natural, you will come to that fact real soon. Maybe Maries instincts are better than yours. Being fat does make a person into a physically dependent cripple -,sort of like having a leg amputated. Accepting such a mutilation without protest seems way sick to me. > Dan > 325/211/180 > Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) > Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes > You overlook the fact that vast numbers of people in this country > are so fat that they cannot catch any kind of food themselves, they > can only sit on their wide a.ses and wait for someone to bring it to > them. That's not called being "fat", that's called being a super-obese. At least, that's the word I have heard used outside of the USA to name that (mostly) American specialty. You can also use morbid obese (though some technically morbid obese people do move fairly well and fast, just have a loot at Sumo wrestlers). There's a world of difference between these and just being fat but still getting ostracized because you're supposed to reduce your body fat to unhealthy levels to be in fashion. Merely being fat is bellow being obese, somewhere between a BMI of 25 and 30. And, unless you consider being out of fashion harmful, it's not really an health risk. If you exercise regularly, it will also not reduce your ability to move, run and hunt. Actually, old people experience the best survival chances around these BMI value, higher than slim old people. In most Third World countries, having your BMI at 28 will greatly improve your survival chances. It will also greatly improve your chance at seducing the opposite sex... > > You overlook the fact that vast numbers of people in this country > > are so fat that they cannot catch any kind of food themselves, they > > can only sit on their wide a.ses and wait for someone to bring it to > > them. > > That's not called being "fat", that's called being a super-obese. Actually even being mildly fat impairs physical movement. Both the lack of fitness combined with excess weight conspire to mean that the obese person has a lack of mobility. The worst part is that it's self-inflicted and so easily curable. > wrestlers). There's a world of difference between these and just being fat > but still getting ostracized because you're supposed to reduce your body fat > to unhealthy levels to be in fashion. Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest. > Merely being fat is bellow being obese, somewhere between a BMI of 25 and > 30. I think anyone who is to uninformed as to think BMI a reliable indicator of body fat levels generally doesn't have anything truthful to say on the subject. > And, unless you consider being out of fashion harmful, it's not really > an health risk. Fashions don't last thousands of years. Being fat will never be in fashion. Also there are real health risks to being fat. Unless you live in a place hit with famines there is no purpose to obesity. > If you exercise regularly, it will also not reduce your > ability to move, run and hunt. If you exercise sufficiencly you will not be fat unless you deliberately over-eat, end of story. > Actually, old people experience the best > survival chances around these BMI value, higher than slim old people. In > most Third World countries, having your BMI at 28 will greatly improve your > survival chances. Well, that's great for third world countries with famine and drought. How does this help the obese person who lives in the developed world? > It will also greatly improve your chance at seducing the > opposite sex... Maybe all the fat acceptors should go and live in third world countries then, it's the only place fat people are going to be thought of as sexually desirable. >Actually even being mildly fat impairs physical movement. Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case; I am an ice dancer and although I both need and want to lose weight, I am not allowing the fact that I carry excess body fat to prevent me from dancing. >Both the >lack of fitness combined with excess weight conspire to mean that the >obese person has a lack of mobility. The worst part is that it's >self-inflicted and so easily curable. Er, again, that turns out not to be the case. I read somewhere that a group of very seriously overweight people were, under medical supervision, put on a carefully calorie-controlled diet, with ample nutrients and enough calories to maintain a normal body-weight, but lose excess fat - and their bodies reacted just as though they were being starved, with all the symptoms of gross malnutrition. So it is not necessarily easily curable. >Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most >attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest. Again, that is not always the case. Women tended to be about 10-20 lbs heavier 50 years ago, yet if you look at some of the "bathing beauties" of the era, they are still beautiful. Plus there was no thought, then, of their being unhealthy. >> And, unless you consider being out of fashion harmful, it's not really >> an health risk. > >Fashions don't last thousands of years. Being fat will never be in >fashion. Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history? Had you done so, you would not have made such a statement. >Also there are real health risks to being fat. Unless you >live in a place hit with famines there is no purpose to obesity. I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" - i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose. >> If you exercise regularly, it will also not reduce your >> ability to move, run and hunt. > >If you exercise sufficiencly you will not be fat unless you >deliberately over-eat, end of story. Again, not true. In this day and age it is all too easy accidentally to take in more calories than you need - there are so many "hidden" calories in ready-prepared food. >Maybe all the fat acceptors should go and live in third world >countries then, it's the only place fat people are going to be thought >of as sexually desirable. Actually, it is less uncommon than you think, even in the so-called developed world. I have trimmed the excess cross-posts from this posting.  SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! > >Actually even being mildly fat impairs physical movement. > > Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case; I am an ice dancer and > although I both need and want to lose weight, I am not allowing the fact > that I carry excess body fat to prevent me from dancing. I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven. > >obese person has a lack of mobility. The worst part is that it's > >self-inflicted and so easily curable. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > starved, with all the symptoms of gross malnutrition. So it is not > necessarily easily curable. 'Read somewhere' isn't really good enough, you're going to have to do better than that. I know of no fat person who when changing to a proper diet with regular exercise can't lose weight. > >Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most > >attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest. > > Again, that is not always the case. Women tended to be about 10-20 lbs > heavier 50 years ago, yet if you look at some of the "bathing beauties" > of the era, they are still beautiful. How many of them were as fat as the obese people today? > >Fashions don't last thousands of years. Being fat will never be in > >fashion. > > Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history? Yes. > >Also there are real health risks to being fat. Unless you > >live in a place hit with famines there is no purpose to obesity. > > I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" - > i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and > being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose. There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just laziness. > >If you exercise sufficiencly you will not be fat unless you > >deliberately over-eat, end of story. > > Again, not true. In this day and age it is all too easy accidentally to > take in more calories than you need - there are so many "hidden" > calories in ready-prepared food. Then don't eat ready-prepared food. In my book eating processed pre-prepared food counts as laziness, which in turn leads to obesity. > >Maybe all the fat acceptors should go and live in third world > >countries then, it's the only place fat people are going to be thought > >of as sexually desirable. > > Actually, it is less uncommon than you think, even in the so-called > developed world. I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is thought of as attractive. That is the case because if it were attractive, it would only be so as long as there was a shortage of food. In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a distinguishing feature. > I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere > near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven. I think you should explain that to a Sumo wrestler, a weight lifter in the unlimited category or even a Judoka... In these sports, as long as they have a large lean mass, *any* extra mass helps perform better. Especially mass in the gutt, since it helps move the center of gravity in an advantageous position - slightly downward and forward. As long as extra body fat remains reasonnable, they can use it to great advantage. I doubt you would be able to even move 300lbs Judoka. On the other hand, he would have no problem at all to send you flying. And his body fat won't even prevent him from doing a split as easily as you do. > > Again, that is not always the case. Women tended to be about 10-20 lbs > > heavier 50 years ago, yet if you look at some of the "bathing beauties" > > of the era, they are still beautiful. > > How many of them were as fat as the obese people today? They would nevertheless be stigmatized as overweight or even obese nowadays. Even though they had the normal healthy woman body. Modern fashion magazines actually advertise bodies that are *unhealthy* for women. There are health risks associated with getting your BMI under the norm, and the large majority of fashion models have a BMI that is dangerously under that norm. > > Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history? > > Yes. Ever seen a prehistoric venus? Or even some Renaissance paintings? > > I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" - > > i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and > > being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose. > > There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just > laziness. There is no reason to lose weight if you are 10 pounds overweight either. How do you define "10lbs overweight" btw? According to BMI? According to my BMI, I was slightly overweight at 18 when I had a six-pack showing on my abs. According to BMI, most high end sportsmen are obese. What criteria do you use? Body fat? Muscle definition? Having some fat is not an health risk, it's actually pretty healthy in old persons. It's also pretty healthy in a woman, the hour-glass body shape has the highest female hormones production and highest fertility ratio, unlike the no-butt body shape. Probably why normal men are attracted to this kind of body shape. Except to please you, noone has any reason to lose an extra as low as 10lbs. It doesn't make you any healthier, and it doesn't make you more attractive either. > I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is > thought of as attractive. It depends on what you call obese. Though if you check the alt.sex.binaries.* newsgroups, some people obviously find extreme obesity attractive. Overweight can be very attractive, and many people think so. Marilyn Monroe was thought attractive by a bunch of people, including an American President, but she would belong to the overweight category nowadays. I would rather date Marilyn Monroe than Kate Moss, I would be too afraid to break something with the later or hurt myself on a bone. If you visit live sex sites, the overweight models are often among the most popular, so it seems they do attract people. > In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in > order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a > distinguishing feature. Anyone *with good genetics*, which is precisely why it was attractive in the first place, because it showed superior genetics. It also showed the power of the familly. They were so rich they could afford to buy extra food to make their daughters the most attractive. > > I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere > > near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven. > > I think you should explain that to a Sumo wrestler, a weight lifter in the > unlimited category or even a Judoka... In these sports, as long as they have > a large lean mass, *any* extra mass helps perform better. We were discussing dancing, not sumo wrestling or heavyweight weight-lifting, those are the exceptions that prove the rule. > They would nevertheless be stigmatized as overweight or even obese nowadays. > Even though they had the normal healthy woman body. Modern fashion magazines > actually advertise bodies that are *unhealthy* for women. There are health > risks associated with getting your BMI under the norm, and the large > majority of fashion models have a BMI that is dangerously under that norm. Modern fashion magazines are aimed at women, the women in there are not necessarily what is attractive to men, but rather to women. > > > I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" - > > > i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > There is no reason to lose weight if you are 10 pounds overweight either. There is: when you're lighter your movement is easier and you look better. For example compare a six-pack of abs to a wobbly gut. > How do you define "10lbs overweight" btw? I personally don't measure how fat someone is by their weight, but rather than their body-fat percentage. > According to BMI? No, only an idiot even mentions BMI in a discussion of how fat someone is. > > I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is > > thought of as attractive. > > It depends on what you call obese. Though if you check the > alt.sex.binaries.* newsgroups, some people obviously find extreme obesity > attractive. Well, I hadn't taken fetishists into account! > > In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in > > order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a > > distinguishing feature. > > Anyone *with good genetics*, which is precisely why it was attractive in the > first place, because it showed superior genetics. No, it's because food was scarce. Anyone can put on weight, it's simply a matter of eating more food than can be used by the body. > It also showed the power > of the familly. They were so rich they could afford to buy extra food to > make their daughters the most attractive. It showed wealth and power as they had more access to the food and didn't need to do physical work. > We were discussing dancing, not sumo wrestling or heavyweight > weight-lifting, those are the exceptions that prove the rule. There are exceptions that are the closest to what men needed for survival : lifting stuff and wrestling with their food. They are also sports that have been around since the beginning of humanity. It's still pretty interresting that a little bit of extra fat actually makes you perform better at them. > Modern fashion magazines are aimed at women, the women in there are > not necessarily what is attractive to men, but rather to women. That's where fat acceptance (and feminism) *has* a role to play. Because many women are deluded into thinking that these magazine women are actually attractive to men. > > There is no reason to lose weight if you are 10 pounds overweight either. > > There is: when you're lighter your movement is easier and you look > better. For example compare a six-pack of abs to a wobbly gut. A six-pack might look nice on a man, because our bodies are designed to be lower in fat, but not always in a woman. I can like one in a woman, if it's not due to body-building (body builded bodies look repulsive), but I consider that a kind of fetishism. But there is a wide range of body fat between a "wobbly gut" and a six-pack you know. Anyway, there is nothing special about having a six-pack, it's not like it's really useful or anything... As for moving more easily, what's the point? It's not like you're going to move any easier with such a small variation as 10lbs. That's a variation many people experience from summer to winter! It's not like pounds in the overweight range are a large hindrance to your mobility. Even with 50 extra pounds, I still move better than many non-active slim people of my age; I climb the stair much faster and I'm not as out of breath as they are after my six floors - hell, I used to do that with another 50lbs of fat *and* 20 lbs of water bottles and groceries. Likewise, most of my slim friends complain when they walk with me, because I walk too fast for them. Sure, I will be able to perform better when I have lost some extra weight - but then, I will be out of friends able to keep up with me when I walk. > I personally don't measure how fat someone is by their weight, but > rather than their body-fat percentage. You know women do have to go into unhealthy body fat percentages before they show a six-pack and stop having belly fat, right? > > It depends on what you call obese. Though if you check the > > alt.sex.binaries.* newsgroups, some people obviously find extreme obesity > > attractive. > > Well, I hadn't taken fetishists into account! These newsgroups are about extreme obesity. But since you declared you couldn't think of anywhere these women would be attractive, I had to help your lack of imagination... When you check regular Internet resources that attracts mainstream sex users, you still have very sucessful overweight women, some of them on the low end of obesity. They attract normal men, not fetishists. They might not attract the same men (more mature men in the lot) as the slim girls (more kids), though some like me like both, but they still attract many men. > > Anyone *with good genetics*, which is precisely why it was attractive in the > > first place, because it showed superior genetics. > > No, it's because food was scarce. Anyone can put on weight, it's > simply a matter of eating more food than can be used by the body. The Sims experience *proved* that not everyone can put weight as easily. Some people will put a straight 1kg of fat from 8000 calories, while others will only put a mere hundred grams from the same amount. When it comes to the ability to convert energy to fat, not all metabolism are equal, especially when they wander far away from their set points. Just ask the skinny types who are trying to gain weight, it's a real nightmare for them. It's not a matter of food being scarce, it's a matter of food costing money. Economically, the girl with good genetics is better, because you will get her fat with less money. > > It also showed the power > > of the familly. They were so rich they could afford to buy extra food to > > make their daughters the most attractive. > > It showed wealth and power as they had more access to the food and > didn't need to do physical work. That's what I said. It's the combination of all this that made these women attractive : powerful familly genetics, wealth and power. What do you think makes a slim woman attractive nowadays? Willpower to starve herself, money to invest in silicone enhancements (breasts will go away with diet), power to be able to devote your whole life to improve your body instead of working. That's the exact same deal, tuned to our current values as a society. >> Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case; I am an ice dancer and >> although I both need and want to lose weight, I am not allowing the fact >> that I carry excess body fat to prevent me from dancing. > >I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere >near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven. How do you know? Have you seen me on the ice? Unless and until you have, you are in no position to comment. >> >obese person has a lack of mobility. The worst part is that it's >> >self-inflicted and so easily curable. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >better than that. I know of no fat person who when changing to a >proper diet with regular exercise can't lose weight. Considering that for nearly 25 years I read 6 newspapers per day and several scientific journals per week, I can never remember my sources. Anyway, these people weren't fat, they were obese. >> >Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most >> >attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >How many of them were as fat as the obese people today? You keep changing the rules - one minute you are talking about fat people, the next you are talking about obese ones. Which are you talking about? Most of the bathing beauties were probably as fat as fat people today, certainly. >> >Fashions don't last thousands of years. Being fat will never be in >> >fashion. >> >> Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history? > >Yes. Then why do you say this? Have you never seen pictures of Rubens' nudes, for instance? >> >Also there are real health risks to being fat. Unless you >> >live in a place hit with famines there is no purpose to obesity. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just >laziness. No, it's that women are usually expected to be 20 lbs *under* their ideal weight, for fashion sake. Think Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones - she wasn't *fat*, just rather an attractive shape - but everybody made such a fuss about how fat she had to get to take the role. Then, when it was over and she shed those surplus pounds, she looked like a famine victim and we were told how marvellous she looked. Not. >> >If you exercise sufficiencly you will not be fat unless you >> >deliberately over-eat, end of story. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Then don't eat ready-prepared food. In my book eating processed >pre-prepared food counts as laziness, which in turn leads to obesity. I don't. Eat much ready-prepared food (I don't say none). But some people do, for a variety of reasons. >> >Maybe all the fat acceptors should go and live in third world >> >countries then, it's the only place fat people are going to be thought [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is >thought of as attractive. Among the Ghanaian community in London, perhaps? >That is the case because if it were >attractive, it would only be so as long as there was a shortage of >food. In places with no food storage, anyone could become obese in >order to become attractive, and so it would no longer be a >distinguishing feature. Then do you think people like Callista Flockhart and Renee Zellweger are attractive? SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! > >I said 'impairs' not 'completely stops'. You can dance, but nowhere > >near as good as if you lost excess body fat. My point is proven. > > How do you know? Have you seen me on the ice? Unless and until you > have, you are in no position to comment. I know, because fat is heavy and weighs you down. However good you are now, you would be better if you had more discipline. Also, you appear to be trying to excuse your weight. If you were capable of losing the weight you would just do it rather than argue that being fat is beneficial. This goes for everyone on these newsgroups who tries to argue that being fat isn't bad. > >There isn't even a reason to be 10 pounds overweight, it's just > >laziness. > > No, it's that women are usually expected to be 20 lbs *under* their > ideal weight, Expected to by who? Most men don't like under-weight women, but they don't like them over-weight either. > for fashion sake. Think Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones > - she wasn't *fat*, just rather an attractive shape - but everybody made > such a fuss about how fat she had to get to take the role. No, she was fat. She was supposed to be fat, it was part of the role. > >Then don't eat ready-prepared food. In my book eating processed > >pre-prepared food counts as laziness, which in turn leads to obesity. > > > I don't. Eat much ready-prepared food (I don't say none). But some > people do, for a variety of reasons. Yeah, these are the reasons: 1) Laziness. > >I can't think of anywhere in the developed world where obesity is > >thought of as attractive. > > Among the Ghanaian community in London, perhaps? I haven't been down that way so I can't comment. > >That is the case because if it were > >attractive, it would only be so as long as there was a shortage of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Then do you think people like Callista Flockhart and Renee Zellweger are > attractive? Not the former but the latter. You wrote at 11:12:55 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004: >I know, because fat is heavy and weighs you down. Actually, fat is lighter than muscle. > However good you are >now, you would be better if you had more discipline. Also, you appear >to be trying to excuse your weight. If you were capable of losing the >weight you would just do it rather than argue that being fat is >beneficial. This goes for everyone on these newsgroups who tries to >argue that being fat isn't bad. Er, do feel free to point out where I argued that being fat was beneficial? And why would I be posting to a diet support newsgroup if I wasn't trying to lose weight? >> for fashion sake. Think Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones >> - she wasn't *fat*, just rather an attractive shape - but everybody made >> such a fuss about how fat she had to get to take the role. > >No, she was fat. She was supposed to be fat, it was part of the role. If you think Bridget Jones was fat, then I fail to see any further point in continuing this conversation. SignatureAnnabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/70/89 kg >Er, do feel free to point out where I argued that being fat was >beneficial? And why would I be posting to a diet support newsgroup if I >wasn't trying to lose weight? Er...Annabel, if you'd checked the headers for crossposting before sending your reply you would see you're not just posting to a diet support group. janice You wrote at 20:44:30 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004: >>Er, do feel free to point out where I argued that being fat was >>beneficial? And why would I be posting to a diet support newsgroup if I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >sending your reply you would see you're not just posting to a diet >support group. Fair enough... but then the OP should also have checked. SignatureAnnabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/89/70kg > You wrote at 11:12:55 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004: > > >I know, because fat is heavy and weighs you down. > > Actually, fat is lighter than muscle. You might want to rethink and rephrase this statement. A pound of fat weighs the same as a pound of fat. Did you mean to imply that a pound of fat is larger in volume than a pound of muscle? Beverly > > However good you are > >now, you would be better if you had more discipline. Also, you appear [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If you think Bridget Jones was fat, then I fail to see any further point > in continuing this conversation. You wrote at 16:21:54 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004: >> You wrote at 11:12:55 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >weighs the same as a pound of fat. Did you mean to imply that a pound of >fat is larger in volume than a pound of muscle? Yes, I did. Often people lose inches and then fret because their weight has not dropped (which is why a tape-measure is often a better friend than the scales), because they have burnt fat and built muscle, so they are thinner, but their weight is unchanged, or has even gone up slightly. SignatureAnnabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/89/70kg > You wrote at 11:12:55 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004: > > >I know, because fat is heavy and weighs you down. > > Actually, fat is lighter than muscle. It's still heavy, and it's dead mass, it doesn't do anything like muscle. Muscle moves you around, fat slows you down. Take a person and remove some fat, and you have a more mobile person. There is no arguing with that. > Er, do feel free to point out where I argued that being fat was > beneficial? Above. > And why would I be posting to a diet support newsgroup if I > wasn't trying to lose weight? You were arguing before that excess fat was not hindering you. > If you think Bridget Jones was fat, then I fail to see any further point > in continuing this conversation. Of course she was fat. Maybe not by fat acceptor standards, but by athletic standards definitely. > Actually even being mildly fat impairs physical movement. Both the > lack of fitness combined with excess weight conspire to mean that the > obese person has a lack of mobility. The worst part is that it's > self-inflicted and so easily curable. It does if you're very fat. Most modern people, slim or not, do not have much use for their full range of mobility anyway. How many Americans walk more than 5km a day? How many have a use for being able to perform splits? You have to become *very obese before these abilities are taken away from you. Sumo wrestlers are able to perform splits and their training involve daily *running* for distance above what the average American *walks*. I still climb to my sixth floor faster than most of my fit neighbourghs do. I experience no troubles at all with walking my daily 5-6mk either. There is indeed a loss of mobility, for instance I cannot run these kms or I cannot perform backflips, but the vast majority of people do not *use* that mobility anyway. > Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most > attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest. Yet women with body fat around 30% usually have low self image, even though they're at their healthiest. The female body is *meant* to be fat, that's why most of the fat goes to areas where it causes no health risks (hips, butt, legs). On the other hand, magazines and top models advertise body fats levels that *are* unhealthy. I doubt some top models are even able to have periods or get pregnant. > I think anyone who is to uninformed as to think BMI a reliable > indicator of body fat levels generally doesn't have anything truthful > to say on the subject. Well, if you have an indicator that is usuable in a statistical study and that can be gotten as easily as BMI, be my guest. Body fat is *not* as easy to get. Instead of asking people for simple values they know, you actually have to measure it. Most scales have a low precision, and using callipers on people is not easy (and most people would refuse anyway). Besides, body fat is not a very good indicator either. You would have to take into account fat distribution, muscle mass and the likes. How many studies use body fat vs how many use BMI? As bad as BMI is, and I agree it's not perfect, it has the advantage of being the norm and being used by every single studies. > Fashions don't last thousands of years. Being fat will never be in > fashion. Also there are real health risks to being fat. Unless you > live in a place hit with famines there is no purpose to obesity. There are health risk with being obese. Being *overweight (not obese) is not really a significant health risk. The food that got you overweight my be a higher health risk, but being overweight on healthy food is not. Living is health risk anyway. Overweight is not significant in reguard to all the other factors (pollution, stress, work, food...). And being slightly overweight is a positive factor for old people, in both USA and Europe. And fat is in fashion is some parts of the world and some eras. It was in fashion during the Renaissance. It's in fashion in part of the the Arabic world (where you fatten women before the wedding for them to be pretty). It was in fashion in the early 20th century... > If you exercise sufficiencly you will not be fat unless you > deliberately over-eat, end of story. If you don't deliberately over-eat, you will never be fat, even if you never exercise! There *are* strong obese, people who have both higher body fat and high lean mass than normal. That was pretty common back when people had to perform strenuous jobs. For instance, in France, the people who had to carry meat (forts des halles) were *fat* (from eating pounds of meat a day), yet they had enough muscular mass to carry half a beef on their back. Same for sumo wrestlers. Or most primitive people for that matter. > > Actually, old people experience the best > > survival chances around these BMI value, higher than slim old people. In [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, that's great for third world countries with famine and drought. > How does this help the obese person who lives in the developed world? Well, it's always useful to know that everything is relative. It also help the people who are *not* obese but merely overweight to accept themselves instead of dieting themselves to obesity, which is what most of them do nowadays... > > Actually even being mildly fat impairs physical movement. Both the > > lack of fitness combined with excess weight conspire to mean that the [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > instead of dieting themselves to obesity, which is what most of them do > nowadays... One basic problem is that the slope down into serious obesity and incapacity is so steep and slippery in this modern world. 30 lb of stable over weight in a very active, muscular person is not a disaster. But nowadays, keeping active enough to be "fit and fat" is a tricky notion. Very few people try to live strenuously enough to even know whether they are very fit. A daily 5k walk is not much of a stress compared to working on a railroad for 12 hours a day. In the old days, when guys did that, very few of them were overweight. Just look at the pictures. The possibillty for self deception here is extremely large. For most people, staying really fit - at the level our bodies are meant to be, is simply incompatible with significant overwight-fatness. Being thin does not mean someone is fit, but at least they have a fair chance of being fit. And overweight does in fact stress joints abnormally, especially if muscle tone is not tip-top. Over time, mobility is impaired in many cases. Being fat and believing oneself to be fit is a set up for nasty surprises. > > Actually even being mildly fat impairs physical movement. Both the > > lack of fitness combined with excess weight conspire to mean that the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > much use for their full range of mobility anyway. How many Americans walk > more than 5km a day? None, but the health benefits of doing so outweight the inconvenience. Does that extra half an hour of TV really matter? > How many have a use for being able to perform splits? > You have to become *very obese before these abilities are taken away from > you. Sumo wrestlers are able to perform splits and their training involve > daily *running* for distance above what the average American *walks*. Americans daily *walking* consists of going from the TV to the fridge and back, so I don't think they're a very good example. Also sumo wrestlers are an exception where obesity is desirable, and yet they still have all of the problems that come with morbid obesity. What do you think the life expectancy is of a sumo wrestler? Or that of his joints? > > Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most > > attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest. > > Yet women with body fat around 30% usually have low self image, even though > they're at their healthiest. Well, 30% is rather high, even for a woman. And they don't get to that 30% through healthy eating and exercise, they get there through inaction. > On the other hand, magazines and top models advertise body fats levels that > *are* unhealthy. I doubt some top models are even able to have periods or > get pregnant. Models are there to show of clothes, not to look attractive. > > I think anyone who is to uninformed as to think BMI a reliable > > indicator of body fat levels generally doesn't have anything truthful > > to say on the subject. > > Well, if you have an indicator that is usuable in a statistical study and > that can be gotten as easily as BMI, be my guest. Why does something have to be easily gotten? Are we really that lazy? > > It does if you're very fat. Most modern people, slim or not, do not have > > much use for their full range of mobility anyway. How many Americans walk > > more than 5km a day? > > None, but the health benefits of doing so outweight the inconvenience. > Does that extra half an hour of TV really matter? I don't know, I don't watch TV much. The fact still remain that Americans, slim or not, have no use for that gain. Why would you want something you have no use for? Actually, I suspect obese people in your country walk more than the norm. After all, obese people spend a significant amount of time being on a diet, and most diets involve exercising. I mean, I know a girl on a diet who performs 500 crunch a day. It is useless, it is painful, and, most of all, most slim Americans do not even do half of these. > Americans daily *walking* consists of going from the TV to the fridge > and back, so I don't think they're a very good example. Ah, true, I live in a part of the world where people still have a use for their legs. The point is, people here walk, and most obese people have no problem walking along with the rest of the population. You have a grossly exagerated image of the loss of mobility due to obesity. Back when I was 100lbs overweight, I did carry that weight all day long. I walked with it (a lot, always been a walker), I climbed the stairs with it (6th floor, no elevator), shopped with it (squats all the time)... Now, put a 100lbs backpack on a regular slim person, and force him through that routine, what happens? Ok, he will collapse. Butch him up a bit. He will build muscles. Well, I had muscles to match my weight - no loss of mobility here. Actually, in positions where my own body weight was less involved (like, lifting heavy stuff, pushing a car, getting my washing machine up the stairs), I performed way better than the average slim person. When most of my friends look for someone to help them move, they ask me first... Wonder why, they should not I'm impaired by my weight... Extra benefit: now that I am losing weight, I already have the quads, thighs and abs ready, since I'm not losing them. > Also sumo > wrestlers are an exception where obesity is desirable, and yet they > still have all of the problems that come with morbid obesity. What do > you think the life expectancy is of a sumo wrestler? Or that of his > joints? They tend to lose weight when they stop competition, but their life expectency is around 50-60 years IIRC. They're also professionnal sportsmen. Professional sport is bad for the joints and life expectency anyway. Have you ever seen any old *professional*? They're usually completely finished, body is wasted... > > Yet women with body fat around 30% usually have low self image, even though > > they're at their healthiest. > > Well, 30% is rather high, even for a woman. And they don't get to that > 30% through healthy eating and exercise, they get there through > inaction. That's still a healthy percentage. It's not central obesity, it's usually worn on the butt and lower, no health risk there. > > Well, if you have an indicator that is usuable in a statistical study and > > that can be gotten as easily as BMI, be my guest. > > Why does something have to be easily gotten? Are we really that lazy? Obviously, you live in a world where you don't have to care for money. When your parents stop buying everything for you, you will learn that everything costs money. In a statistical study, if you replace a value that can be easily gotten (BMI value) by one that takes more work (measuring body fat with callipers), guess what happens? Yes, your study costs a *bunch* more money. Worse, you have to meet the people face to face, instead of doing it on the phone. You also have to higher trained people to do it, rather than use inexpensive students. You will also have to convince people to get half naked in front of the interviewer and to have their fat pinched in order to get the correct values. But yes, I'm probably lazy. 99% of the people doing research are lazy. That's probably the explanation. Anyway, lazyness explains everything in that world if we listen to you. > > > It does if you're very fat. Most modern people, slim or not, do not have > > > much use for their full range of mobility anyway. How many Americans [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I don't know, I don't watch TV much. I for one don't even own a television. > The fact still remain that Americans, slim or not, have no use for that > gain. Other than all the health benefits that come from being fitter and slimmer? Who has any use for that? It's your attitude which is why so many people are fat and unfit. > Actually, I suspect obese people in your country walk more than the norm. I think that obese people generally exercise less than everyone else, that's why they're obese. > After all, obese people spend a significant amount of time being on a diet, > and most diets involve exercising. I mean, I know a girl on a diet who > performs 500 crunch a day. It is useless, it is painful, and, most of all, > most slim Americans do not even do half of these. I wouldn't be so sure about that. I know plenty of obese people and the exercise they do is none. They live off fried food and beer. The word 'diet' is not in their vocabulary. > > Well, 30% is rather high, even for a woman. And they don't get to that > > 30% through healthy eating and exercise, they get there through > > inaction. > > That's still a healthy percentage. It's not central obesity, it's usually > worn on the butt and lower, no health risk there. Yet still unattractive, and if they could push a button and get rid of it, they would. It's only there because they can't get rid of it. > But yes, I'm probably lazy. 99% of the people doing research are lazy. And yet you will no doubt blindly believe the conclusions drawn from made-up numbers. "The Voice of Reason" <i_hate_hibs@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > I don't know, I don't watch TV much. > I for one don't even own a television. Why? Are you afraid you would not be able to moderate yourself if you had one? > > The fact still remain that Americans, slim or not, have no use for that > > gain. > > Other than all the health benefits that come from being fitter and > slimmer? Who has any use for that? It's your attitude which is why so > many people are fat and unfit. Added mobility won't help with that if they don't walk in the first place. They will just be more mobile sitting in front of the TV, won't help much. > > Actually, I suspect obese people in your country walk more than the norm. > > I think that obese people generally exercise less than everyone else, > that's why they're obese. You think what you want to. Just like obese people have the right to remain so, you can refuse to use your brain. But my point remains that gym clubs are litterally filled with obese people trying to get on a diet. > I wouldn't be so sure about that. I know plenty of obese people and > the exercise they do is none. They live off fried food and beer. The > word 'diet' is not in their vocabulary. Given what you think of obese people, I doubt you have that many friends among them. Statistics have shown that 60% of the Americans are either on a diet or are thinking about starting one. That's quite a lot of people who don't seem to know. > > That's still a healthy percentage. It's not central obesity, it's usually > > worn on the butt and lower, no health risk there. > > Yet still unattractive, and if they could push a button and get rid of > it, they would. It's only there because they can't get rid of it. Honestly, I doubt such a woman would be interrested in to dating you. It's still attractive enough to the majority of people. Within a pretty wide range, attraction has little to do with body fat percentage... There is a law of diminishing return. When you have very little extra fat, trying to lose it requires a lot of energy, it has a high risk of rebound and it doesn't yield a large improvement. All that energy would yield much better benefits if invested into other areas (like self-affirmation, learning how to seduce...). > > But yes, I'm probably lazy. 99% of the people doing research are lazy. > > And yet you will no doubt blindly believe the conclusions drawn from > made-up numbers. There is certainly more truth to be extracted from some studies than from the clich?s you keep throwing here. Yours don't help, they teach nothing new and have no value in understanding the obesity phenomenon or how to solve it. I think that there is some point that we are too harsh on people who are slightly overweight but I do think that those who are need to take responsibility for it instead of asking everyone else to pay for in the case of medicare. If is your responsibility of what you put in your mouth, so love yourself but pay for it yourself. > I do think that those who are need to take > responsibility for it instead of asking everyone else to pay for in > the case of medicare. If is your responsibility of what you put in > your mouth, so love yourself but pay for it yourself. The problem is that if you remove every people who have a slight responsability in their disease from Medicare, no one is going to be left on it... - You broke your leg? You should have been careful! - Got an genetic disease? Your parents should have aborted you, you should sue them or their doctor! - Got a cancer? Well, you should have moved to the countryside and eaten healthy! - Got the flue? Should have gotten a vaccine... - Got some old age condition? Well, you're probably too old, it's your responsability for wanting to live so old... If you push it far enough, we are all responsible for our health... > > I do think that those who are need to take > > responsibility for it instead of asking everyone else to pay for in [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > responsability for wanting to live so old... > If you push it far enough, we are all responsible for our health... Obesity is a self induced condition. Your corollary would be accurate only if someone suffered a broken leg because they repeatedly hit their own femur with a sledge hammer. People don't just "Get Obese". They make themselves so. > Obesity is a self induced condition. Your corollary would be accurate > only if someone suffered a broken leg because they repeatedly hit their > own femur with a sledge hammer. Unless you have bone cancer (which is probably your own fault, you exposed yourself to too many pollutants or something), legs don't break on their own. You probably took some risks you should not have (skiing, running, not paying attention to what you were doing, climbing down your stairs, crossing the street...) or you did not eat enough calcium or didn't practice musculation in your teenage years to strenghten your bones. If you go deep enough, you're eventually responsible for almost everything. > People don't just "Get Obese". They make themselves so. So, you think people who made themselves obese when they were two years old are responsible for their condition? You think that people who have a deficient thyroid are responsible for their own thyroid? What about the responsability of the school cafetarias which feed junk food to the kids? It's probably the kids responsability, they should seek a job and cook their own food... Many people do not make themselves obese alone, they do so with the help of the government and their doctor. The best way to become a super-obese is through yo-yo dieting after all. Many people started their way towards obesity by merely being healthy overweights and starting a diet. What about improper city planning that leaves plenty of areas with *only* junk food available? Or what about the FDA that has let every traditionnal food be replaced with a look-alike junk version of it? What about "official" dietitians that have been clueless for ages and have broadcast, with government approval, recipes to *become* obese masquerading them as "healthy" eating? There is a reality : obesity on such a scale just didn't exist a mere century ago. Or even twenty years ago. So, something must have happened. Either we have to admit that a bunch of people at once have decided to start a new fashion and go obese. In that case, that is indeed their own responsability. Or a deep sociological change has happened, that has caused a rise in obesity. In that case, obese people only have partial responsability. Besides, once obese, losing weight is not that easy for most people. There again, most recipes they are given are not good ways to lose weight permanently, they are ways to yo-yo into higher levels of obesity. Most obese people are advised to go on a diet. This is backed by the government, by medical authorities and by various schooled dietitians. Yet, diets have a very high failure rate, above 80%. Worse, many failures result in net weight gain. So, obese people are advised by self-appointed experts to go through a "cure" that will result in the majority of them becoming even fatter. Who is responsible then? The obeses who genuinely attempted to lose weight? Or the experts who advised them? Same with the FDA approved "light" products. Studies after studies have shown that they have no weight loss effect at all. Worse, they actually cause weight gain in obeses with eating disorders, because they have a desinhibiting effect. And many low fat products are actually very high starch, and many low carb stuff is far from healthy. The USA is the country with the highest consumption of "light" products of all the industrialized world. It's also the country with the highest obesity rates. Don't you see a link there? Do you honestly think the bunch of obese who spend extra money to eat light products are doing so with the intent of becoming fatter and less healthy? Same with the various miracle solutions : drugs, surgery... It has been proven that most drugs have no *lasting* effect. But some have some very real nasty side-effects. How many of these drugs have been pulled off the market after a few years? How many people have been on amphetamines or thyroid extracts or even Redux to get a weight loss that was only temporary? Once you stop them, the lost weight creeps back automatically. Sometimes with a bonus. Yet, they are FDA approved. Yet, doctors prescribe then. Same with surgery. We still don't know the long term effect of these surgeries. Yet, more and more people who do not qualify for them (BMI>40, no eating disorders, obesity related diseases) try to get them because they are advertised as miracle solutions or "the only thing that works", and more and more surgeons let them have it. There is very little control on the health effects of these surgeries. I saw the start of the War on Obesity in the USA with great fear. Little strategy and planning, but lots frantic and chaotic action against obesity. I can already predict the final result in a few years : a large chunk of the obese population of the USA will move en-masse into super-obesity. But it will be their fault I guess. I mean, it's not like everyone forced them into joining that war... They should have known it was doomed to failure... >> Obesity is a self induced condition. Your corollary would be accurate >> only if someone suffered a broken leg because they repeatedly hit their [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >musculation in your teenage years to strenghten your bones. If you go deep >enough, you're eventually responsible for almost everything. It is logical and productive behaviour to go about the normal business of life. Folks have to move around to get to work, take care of their families, maintain their properties, engage in social discourse, and exercise. On the other hand, eating more than the body will burn is almost always an illogical, non life affirming action. And it is a choice. Mind you, I'm personally not condemning the individual right to make the choice to continue to overeat, though I think it's a sad one. As long as overweight and obese folks are willing to accept the health and $$ consequences of their choices and not engage in political or social control measures in an attempt to place blame/costs elsewhere or demand acceptance as a "protected" class -- it's none of my business. Unfortunately, there are organizations that want to do just that. As a side note, to the extent that injuries result from known high risk activities such as bungee jumping or skydiving for example, participants generally and rightfully bear the burden of their responsibility (financially) for those activities, as most insurance will not cover treatment. Not sure about the skiing. >> People don't just "Get Obese". They make themselves so. > >So, you think people who made themselves obese when they were two years old >are responsible for their condition? Good point. However, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, one must and will assume current and ongoing responsibility for the problem. Attempts to assign blame after the fact are rather useless and frequently counterproductive. >You think that people who have a deficient thyroid are responsible for their >own thyroid? What about the responsability of the school cafetarias which feed junk food >to the kids? It's probably the kids responsability, they should seek a job >and cook their own food... A school lunch is only one meal a day. Furthermore, even if the foods aren't ideal, they are usually portion controlled. More importantly, what are the kids doing, learning, and eating at home? >Many people do not make themselves obese alone, they do so with the help of >the government and their doctor. Government and doctors don't shovel food into a person's mouth, people do. >The best way to become a super-obese is >through yo-yo dieting after all. Many people started their way towards >obesity by merely being healthy overweights and starting a diet. Which is all the more reason to adopt a lifetime eating and exercise plan, instead of yo-yo dieting. For example, weight training is an excellent way to build and maintain lean muscle mass. >What about improper city planning that leaves plenty of areas with *only* >junk food available? Where are these areas where one has _absolutely_ no access to lean meats and produce by walking, driving, or catching a bus to a proper market? >Or what about the FDA that has let every traditionnal >food be replaced with a look-alike junk version of it? Don't eat it. >What about "official" >dietitians that have been clueless for ages and have broadcast, with >government approval, recipes to *become* obese masquerading them as >"healthy" eating? Certainly, having access to accurate nutritional information is helpful, especially with all the food choices available today. However, people have known for eons that eating more than is burned by the body will cause weight gain. No one ever needed government or nutritionists to point out this simple fact. >There is a reality : obesity on such a scale just didn't exist a mere >century ago. Or even twenty years ago. So, something must have happened. Lack of exercise due to increased modernization, more variety of and access to convenience foods, unfortunate cultural shift away from value systems that emphasize the value of personal responsibility and hard work. (remainder snipped) > On the other hand, eating more than the body will burn is almost > always an illogical, non life affirming action. The problem is that most obese have no way of knowing how much their body will burn. The mecanism that regulates that in normal people is just broken, for psychological or physical reasons, in obese people. As a normal person, you have don't even have to think about losing weight, maintaining a proper weight is a natural function of your body. Just like inflating and deflating your lungs is something you perform automatically without paying attention. For various reasons, obese don't have this nice option. It's not like there is any positive action on your part to remain slim. > And it is a choice. > Mind you, I'm personally not condemning the individual right to make > the choice to continue to overeat, though I think it's a sad one. You don't get the point. A huge majority of obese people would rather be slim. Except they can't. I mean, ask most obese people. Over the course of their life, most have lost more weight than your total weight. It's not a matter of willpower. Most obese can beat you on that. Just try to stop eating and see how long you last and how you feel - well, most obese people are able to function with that level of hunger for months at a time. Actually, you do have an advantage. If you stop eating, hunger will disappear as you start to starve. If you diet, it won't. > As a side note, to the extent that injuries result from known high > risk activities such as bungee jumping or skydiving for example, > participants generally and rightfully bear the burden of their > responsibility (financially) for those activities, as most insurance > will not cover treatment. Not sure about the skiing. That's not the case here. You do get an insurance with some sport licenses, but healthcare will cover it anyway. But we do have "socialized" health care. > Good point. However, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, > one must and will assume current and ongoing responsibility for the > problem. Attempts to assign blame after the fact are rather useless > and frequently counterproductive. Usually, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, one just fails and gains even more weight as a bonus. That's the statistical truth. 85% of the diets fail within 5 years. Not because 85% of the dieters lack willpower, but because diets don't work as a long term cure for obesity. Do you blame people with cancer for their cure not working? I mean, they had their one chance at a cure, and now, they managed to get cancer *again*, and they want yet *another* cure! > A school lunch is only one meal a day. Furthermore, even if the foods > aren't ideal, they are usually portion controlled. More importantly, > what are the kids doing, learning, and eating at home? The role of the school is to educate the children. Despite the poor education their parents are giving them if it needs to. Obviously, schools are failing to educate the youth of your nation properly about their eating habits. You might think it's not your problem, but how long do you think the system can work this way? Do you think society will hold together with 50% of obese? 80%? 99%? 99% of super-obese? When things take epidemic proportions, it becomes the responsability of the nation to deal with them... > >Many people do not make themselves obese alone, they do so with the help of > >the government and their doctor. > > Government and doctors don't shovel food into a person's mouth, people > do. No, they told them "here is a cure for you", and people believed them. But the cure happened to be worse than the disease. When this happens with a drug, it's customary for people to try to sue the hell out of the manufacturer. > >The best way to become a super-obese is > >through yo-yo dieting after all. Many people started their way towards [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > plan, instead of yo-yo dieting. For example, weight training is an > excellent way to build and maintain lean muscle mass. That's the "lifetime" eating plan that is causing the yo-yo dieting. You were thinking I was talking about fad diets? There is no difference between fad diets and the so-called balanced diet. Both work rather well at making people lose weight. Both have a high failure rate at the 5 years mark. And both trigger a rebound that can result in a net weight gain. People do not chose to yo-yo diet. They just chose to diet. They pick a diet that seems to work for people, that has good advertising (if something is a fraud, shouldn't it get banned from the medias?), that is FDA approved or that their doctor told them to follow. And then, like most diets, that diet eventually fails, and they gain some more weight. Then, one of the few options not to yoyo would be to discontinue any diet and live happily at their current weight. But then, you would call them lazy people who should pay for their self inflicted condition... So, many obese people go through yet another diet, that will also fail, and will push them to even higher extreme. And so on... > >Or what about the FDA that has let every traditionnal > >food be replaced with a look-alike junk version of it? > > Don't eat it. Even when everyone, including your doctor and the government, tells you to, because it's healthier for you? > Certainly, having access to accurate nutritional information is > helpful, especially with all the food choices available today. > However, people have known for eons that eating more than is burned by > the body will cause weight gain. No one ever needed government or > nutritionists to point out this simple fact. People have known for eons that being happy is better than being sad, but this doesn't prevent depressions from happening. Do you suggest depressive people should just be happier and stop depending on expensive drugs? People have known for eons that stress is bad for their health, yet they keep going to work daily. People have known for eons that air pollution is becoming our #1 health risk, yet most still drive their car. The human being is not a machine. Knowing something and rationnally reacting to it is not something we do easily. Besides, it might have helped if nutritionists and governemnt had *said* that simple fact. But they didn't. They blamed obesity on pretty much everything, except excess calories. It's because of the fats, or the carbs, or the water, or the salt... Because blaming it on the calories alone would mean blaming it on consumption. At the root of our economic systems is the idea that consumming more is better. If all the obese and overweight in the world stopped consumming so much and just ate what they need (instead of tons of light food), the food processing industry would just collapse. > Lack of exercise due to increased modernization, more variety of and > access to convenience foods, unfortunate cultural shift away from > value systems that emphasize the value of personal responsibility and > hard work. Lack of exercise doesn't make people obese. As you pointed out, it's eating too much that does. I don't see what hard work and personal responsability has to do with the deal. Unless you have spent any significant amount of time fasting in your life, you have no idea what dieting really means - and it means hard work. Besides, the USA is still the country in the world where "personal responsability and hard work" is at its highest. Yet, it's also the country in the world with the highest ratio of obese. On the other hand, highly socialized country, where we are not supposed to value these as much, still have a much lower obesity ratio. That seems counter-intuitive. Sure, we have access to more variety in food. But there again, facts do not fit. The average American eats a very poorly diversified diet, with an average of 5 different products a week. France reaches 15+ different products a week. Yet, obesity in France is a new and limited epidemia while it's explosive in the USA. >> On the other hand, eating more than the body will burn is almost >> always an illogical, non life affirming action. > >The problem is that most obese have no way of knowing how much their body >will burn. Really? Ever heard of a basal metabolism test? In any case, someone not knowing their precise current metabolism does not prevent them from eating less and losing weight. >The mecanism that regulates that in normal people is just broken, >for psychological or physical reasons, in obese people. Before we go any further in this discussion, define these mechanisms. >As a normal person, >you have don't even have to think about losing weight, You're making an assumption here that I've never been overweight. This is not the case. >maintaining a proper weight is a natural function of your body. >Just like inflating and deflating your lungs is something you perform >automatically without paying attention. >For various reasons, obese don't have this nice option. It's not like there >is any positive action on your part to remain slim. For the most part, it is a myth that thin people in general do not watch what they eat. Metabolism varies, but not to the significant extent that some people would have you believe. This has been proven time and time again in peer reviewed studies. >> And it is a choice. >> Mind you, I'm personally not condemning the individual right to make >> the choice to continue to overeat, though I think it's a sad one. > >You don't get the point. A huge majority of obese people would rather be >slim. Except they can't. Sure they can; no one said it was easy. It's matter of choosing to eat less than the body burns and stick with it. There are no shortcuts. (snip) >> As a side note, to the extent that injuries result from known high >> risk activities such as bungee jumping or skydiving for example, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >but healthcare will cover it anyway. But we do have "socialized" health >care. Okay, our system in the states is somewhat different. I see you are in France. My point was that these people engaging in the high risk activities are rightfully bearing the burden of their choice of activities. Remember, one of your initial premises was that everything is a risk to some extent, and you attempted to equate the responsibility of injury from required and productive daily activities such as walking, crossing the street, etc., to the risks associated with overeating. >> Good point. However, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, >> one must and will assume current and ongoing responsibility for the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >chance at a cure, and now, they managed to get cancer *again*, and they want >yet *another* cure! You are being repetitive here; I've already spoken to this point more than once. See below where I've mentioned the importance of a proper eating plan. >> A school lunch is only one meal a day. Furthermore, even if the foods >> aren't ideal, they are usually portion controlled. More importantly, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >are failing to educate the youth of your nation properly about their eating >habits. I wouldn't disagree that schools could certainly do a better job. However, I think it's rather foolish to hold the schools solely responsible for the welfare and education of children. (snip) >> >Many people do not make themselves obese alone, they do so with the help >> >of the government and their doctor. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >No, they told them "here is a cure for you", and people believed them. Please be more specific. What cures are you referring to? >But >the cure happened to be worse than the disease. When this happens with a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >That's the "lifetime" eating plan that is causing the yo-yo dieting. Huh? I am clearly advocating a sensible eating plan that can be followed for life (and finetuned as necessary), not a quickie weight loss method. This was stated before, read further down in the post where I had mentioned just that. >You >were thinking I was talking about fad diets? >There is no difference between >fad diets and the so-called balanced diet. Both work rather well at making >people lose weight. Both have a high failure rate at the 5 years mark. And >both trigger a rebound that can result in a net weight gain. See above. >People do not chose to yo-yo diet. They just chose to diet. They pick a diet >that seems to work for people, that has good advertising (if something is a >fraud, shouldn't it get banned from the medias?), that is FDA approved or >that their doctor told them to follow. And then, like most diets, that diet >eventually fails, and they gain some more weight. You're being repetitive again. Asked and addressed. >Then, one of the few >options not to yoyo would be to discontinue any diet and live happily at [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Even when everyone, including your doctor and the government, tells you to, >because it's healthier for you? Please list some of the specific foods you are talking about. >> Certainly, having access to accurate nutritional information is >> helpful, especially with all the food choices available today. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >People have known for eons that air pollution is becoming our >#1 health risk, yet most still drive their car. Again, your red herrings won't fly. You've tried it with the broken bones, the cancer, etc. Either address the points or get off the pot. >The human being is not a >machine. Knowing something and rationnally reacting to it is not something >we do easily. Well, duh. That in no way negates taking responsibility for our own wellbeing, instead of trying to place blame elsewhere. >Besides, it might have helped if nutritionists and governemnt had *said* >that simple fact. But they didn't. They blamed obesity on pretty much >everything, except excess calories. Nonsense. The majority of mainstream nutritionists have always taken a position that calories matter. So has the government (here). (snip) >> Lack of exercise due to increased modernization, more variety of and >> access to convenience foods, unfortunate cultural shift away from >> value systems that emphasize the value of personal responsibility and >> hard work. > >Lack of exercise doesn't make people obese. In and of itself, it does not. But it certainly helps in weight loss and maintenance. As I mentioned before, weight training is particularly beneficial in building and maintaining muscle mass. Do you understand the role of lean muscle mass in metabolism, or do I need to spell it out for you? >As you pointed out, it's eating too much that does. >I don't see what hard work and personal responsability has to do with the >deal. If you've really got your head stuck in the sand that far, and can't see how people have free will and ultimately make their own choices about how they treat their bodies, there's not much point of explaining it to you yet again. >Unless you have spent any significant amount of time fasting in your >life, Actually, I fast two days a month. I have never done it for an extended period of time, though. >you have no idea what dieting really means Sure I do. I've lost weight and kept it off. I've also had the unfortunate experience of failing at diets. But do go on. >- and it means hard work. Lol, didn't I just mention hard work above? >Besides, the USA is still the country in the world where "personal >responsability and hard work" is at its highest. It's not nearly as high as it once was, though. That was my point "unfortunate cultural shift away from..." (snip) > Really? Ever heard of a basal metabolism test? In any case, someone > not knowing their precise current metabolism does not prevent them > from eating less and losing weight. Isn't renting a man sized calorimeter for a day a bit expensive? Besides, it will only give you a value for that day, that's pretty useless. And that would be a pretty useless value anyway, it's not like you would have any reliable data to use to match your food with it, calorie tables are all but reliable... Trying to match a complex biological process with elementary school mathematics is not going to bring you anywhere. It's like a T1 diabetic trying to mimick a pancreas with his insulin shoots, it's close to impossible to get a perfect match. > >The mecanism that regulates that in normal people is just broken, > >for psychological or physical reasons, in obese people. > > Before we go any further in this discussion, define these mechanisms. As a regulated person, if you eat as much as you feel like, your weight remains stable. If for some reason you eat too much and gain weight, you will feel less hungry and get satiated sooner, until you snap back to your set weight. All this without feeling any hunger, since hunger *is* the regulation system. So, a normal well regulated person does not have to work at keeping a constant weight. Actually, moving away from it is an enormous amount of work for some of them (just check how much work some actors have had to gain and lose weight beyond their normal stable weight). On the other hand, many obeses, for one reason or another, are unable to do that. > >As a normal person, > >you have don't even have to think about losing weight, > > You're making an assumption here that I've never been overweight. > This is not the case. So, how did you lose your weight? Was it easy or effortless? And for how long have you maintained? Are you positive you will be able to maintain for life? Did you ever suffer from eating disorders or were you just the average over-eater? This can make a world of difference... Also, are you aware of how normal regulated people eat? The fact that to you losing weight was effortless doesn't mean it is the case for everyone. For most obeses, it isn't. On the other hand, maintening a constant weight *is* effortless for well regulated slim people. > >maintaining a proper weight is a natural function of your body. > >Just like inflating and deflating your lungs is something you perform [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > extent that some people would have you believe. This has been proven > time and time again in peer reviewed studies. Who talked about metabolism? The regulation happens reguardless of metabolism changes, fortunately, otherwise everyone would be obese (or too thin). And it's not a myth that thin people have to watch what they eat. If they are properly regulated (here, I'm excluding people who stay slim because they are on a permanent diet), they don't have to watch what they eat, since they stop being interrested in food once they have eaten enough. If you try to make these people gain weight, it becomes increasingly harder since lack of interrest turns into dislike and nausea. If you stop force-feeding them, they will slowly return to their normal weight, through lack of interrest in eating much. Nowhere in the process does it involve watching what they it, or for that matter, doing anything conscious. Nor does it involve anything about their metabolism. Nor do they eat special food to do that, like everyone else, they are able to lose weight on anything, including potato chips. Just like most infants who are breastfed are able to manage their inputs themselves to stick to the proper growth curve; they're certainly not counting calories. > >You don't get the point. A huge majority of obese people would rather be > >slim. Except they can't. > > Sure they can; no one said it was easy. It's matter of choosing to > eat less than the body burns and stick with it. There are no > shortcuts. Again, are you familliar with binge eating? Do you know how it feels to wake up in the morning only to discover you have raided the fridge while you were "sleeping"? Do you know how it feels to black out and return to reason with 9000 calories worth of food in your belly? Dieting is not a simple process. It's not like when you quit smoking and you just have to stop smoking cigarettes just because you don't want to smoke anymore. You can't stop eating altogether. You have to deal with large psychological issues too, and peer presure sometimes (some people often do not want you to lose weight). > You are being repetitive here; I've already spoken to this point more > than once. See below where I've mentioned the importance of a proper > eating plan. But you still miss my point. It's your proper eating plan that *has* that 85% failure rate! If you know of any "plan" with a higher success rate, by all mean, publish it and get rich! > I wouldn't disagree that schools could certainly do a better job. > However, I think it's rather foolish to hold the schools solely > responsible for the welfare and education of children. I don't hold them solely responsible. Noone is solely responsible, the whole issue is too complex for that. It's a problem of shared responsabilities between the schools, the doctors, the government, the famillies, the individuals... > >No, they told them "here is a cure for you", and people believed them. > > Please be more specific. What cures are you referring to? The low fat diet. The FDA pyramid. The balanced diet. The low carb diet (which will probably become official sooner or later). > Huh? I am clearly advocating a sensible eating plan that can be > followed for life (and finetuned as necessary), not a quickie weight > loss method. This was stated before, read further down in the post > where I had mentioned just that. Yes, like many doctors and the government has done before you. Except it doesn't work much better than most fad diets. Weight loss is roughly the same on most kind of restrictive diet. And long term success rate is around the same too. There are small variations from one diet to another, but it's not really significant. If you look at long term successes, you have people on your kind of diet *and* people on quickie VLC crash diets. The fact that you say that a diet should last for life doesn't make it work any better. If people stop following it because of some inner flaw, they just stop following it. Nowadays, every single diet claim it should be followed for life, from balanced diets to Atkins to Dunkan to the Pineapple diet or whatever. > You're being repetitive again. Asked and addressed. Not really. I still don't know what you diet is. And I still don't see why this miracle diet is supposed to work any better than all the existing diets. > >Even when everyone, including your doctor and the government, tells you to, > >because it's healthier for you? > > Please list some of the specific foods you are talking about. Margarine, which was advertised as healthy food. Low fat (whatever), which a lot of doctors tell you is better than regular options. Protein powders that a lot of of dietitians will actually tell you to use... > >The human being is not a > >machine. Knowing something and rationnally reacting to it is not something > >we do easily. > > Well, duh. That in no way negates taking responsibility for our own > wellbeing, instead of trying to place blame elsewhere. We're talking about an epidemia here, how you or I handle our particular problem is actually pretty irrelevant. When dealing with an epidemia, you do *have* to take into account psychological issue if they play any significant role in the statistics. In that case, they play an enormous role. > >Besides, it might have helped if nutritionists and governemnt had *said* > >that simple fact. But they didn't. They blamed obesity on pretty much > >everything, except excess calories. > > Nonsense. The majority of mainstream nutritionists have always taken > a position that calories matter. So has the government (here). When did the FDA create their pyramid then? Why the campain about cutting fats? Why do most diabete or likewise official documents recommend cutting fats? If calories are all that matter, why don't they just write it down? > >Lack of exercise doesn't make people obese. > > In and of itself, it does not. But it certainly helps in weight loss > and maintenance. As I mentioned before, weight training is > particularly beneficial in building and maintaining muscle mass. I know. It does help you after you lost weight. But it didn't make you gain weight in the first place. There are plenty of slim people with barely enough muscles to move from the couch to the bed. > Do you understand the role of lean muscle mass in metabolism, or do I > need to spell it out for you? I do understand it, except I don't see the point. As long as your metabolism is within the norm (that is, you burn more than 1200 calories a day), who cares how high or low it is? Naturally slim people are able to maintain weight on a low metabolism. No study has shown obese to have any specific kind of metabolism. Some obeses are much lower than the average (mostly those who have dieted a lot), but others are much higher than the norm (mostly those who never dieted). > If you've really got your head stuck in the sand that far, and can't > see how people have free will and ultimately make their own choices > about how they treat their bodies, there's not much point of > explaining it to you yet again. No , I don't believe people have free will when they have to go through a bunch of misinformation and conditionning. Conditionning is especially bad, since you're usually not even aware of it. > Sure I do. I've lost weight and kept it off. I've also had the > unfortunate experience of failing at diets. But do go on. No thank you. I don't believe in beating the same old path that has failed time and time again. If something fails repetitively, it's probably that that something is flawed. And I believe that diets are flawed, because of the very way they are built and their ignorance of basic psychological issues. Sometimes, people do happen to lose weight and maintain long term, but I tend to think they did *despite* their diet. So, I'm trying something else. Seems to work so far, and at least it doesn't make my life miserable. > >- and it means hard work. > > Lol, didn't I just mention hard work above? So, obeses should work a lot harder than normal people, just to achieve equality with them at something normal people do not even have to think about... Isn't that what social security is supposed to be all about? You know, the whole "we will give you equal chances so you can compete" and all... >> Really? Ever heard of a basal metabolism test? In any case, someone >> not knowing their precise current metabolism does not prevent them >> from eating less and losing weight. > >Isn't renting a man sized calorimeter for a day a bit expensive? One can go and get a test done. A university affiliated hospital would be a good place to start. Your premise was that it is rather hard to know what the metabolism is. I provided an example of how one could find out. >Besides, it >will only give you a value for that day, that's pretty useless. And that >would be a pretty useless value anyway, Not really. A test would aid in ruling out hypothyroidism (not common) and also put to rest any concerns that the metabolism is generally low. A complaint by many obese is that metabolism is sluggish and that is why they cannot lose weight. This has been proven time and time again not to be the case, both through metabolic tests and also by controlled conditions where the patient is hospitalized and put on a medically supervised diet. There are the occasional exceptions, but not enough to be significant in accounting for overweight in general. Also, if one were to have a basal metabolism test performed bi-weekly or monthly over a statistically significant period of time, and graph the results, metabolism would not generally be all over the place. There would be a somewhat of a distribution of results assuming one stayed at a similar weight and activity level. Do you dispute this? >it's not like you would have any >reliable data to use to match your food with it, calorie tables are all but reliable... Sure, I don't doubt that calorie tables may be inaccurate to some nth degree of precision. But that certainly does not rule out _any_ value they may have in providing a basis about what and how much to eat. Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage has more calories than a pound of salmon. >Trying to match a complex biological process with elementary school >mathematics is not going to bring you anywhere. It's like a T1 diabetic >trying to mimick a pancreas with his insulin shoots, it's close to >impossible to get a perfect match. A perfect match is not necessary short-term. It is a long-term attempt at a match or deficit that matters. You obviously understand this concept, and have alluded to it below when suggesting "regulated" people self-correct overeating by subsequently eating less to make up for it (which I somewhat disagree with). >> >The mecanism that regulates that in normal people is just broken, >> >for psychological or physical reasons, in obese people. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >On the other hand, many obeses, for one reason or another, are unable to do >that. There seem to be very few of these naturally thin "regulated" people floating around in the states. I've heard that this may differ a bit in France (does it really?). If so, what do you attribute the difference to? Almost without exception, even the thin folks here have to watch what they eat. >> >As a normal person, >> >you have don't even have to think about losing weight, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So, how did you lose your weight? I initially eliminated a significant amount of carbs by following Atkins induction, then gradually reintroduced complex carbs in the form of vegetables and the occasional fruits as I went along. I also began lifting weights regularly and swimming laps -- and find these to be rewarding and enjoyable activities. Today, I do not follow Atkins, but still generally watch starches and processed foods in general. The primary basis of my diet is lots of fresh vegetables and meats (fowl, seafood, red meat), with some fruits and nuts as snacks. I occasionally have a glass of red wine or a martini with or after dinner. I also cook a lot and also grow some of my own vegetables and herbs. >Was it easy or effortless? It was initially extremely difficult, but gradually became much easier over time. >And for how long have you maintained? A few years now. >Are you positive you will be able to maintain for >life? Sure, it is up to me. Last year, I hurt an ankle and was still able to keep from gaining weight. >Did you ever suffer from eating disorders or were you just the average >over-eater? I used to binge eat at least a couple of times a week and could wolf down an entire large pizza (and much more) in one sitting easily. I also overate in general on a fairly consistent basis. At the time, I rationalized it somewhat and wasn't completely honest with myself about what I was doing or the calories consumed. >This can make a world of difference... Also, are you aware of >how normal regulated people eat? Again, I just don't buy your premise that there are many of these "well regulated" slim people running around that have never had to give a conscious thought to what they eat. This is not what I am seeing in the states. What are you observing in France? How many of these folks do you see percentage wise and how do they eat? >The fact that to you losing weight was effortless Not the case; see above. >doesn't mean it is the >case for everyone. For most obeses, it isn't. On the other hand, maintening >a constant weight *is* effortless for well regulated slim people. I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Most of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a lot for lunch, etc. What's funny is now that I am thin, people occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other women. People see what they want to see. I don't doubt that there are some folks out there that absolutely never have to consciously watch what they eat. It just seems rare based on my observations and honest discussions with other people. (snip) >Again, are you familliar with binge eating? See my answer above. >Do you know how it feels to wake >up in the morning only to discover you have raided the fridge while you were >"sleeping"? Do you know how it feels to black out and return to reason with >9000 calories worth of food in your belly? How many folks out there percentage wise do you seriously think eat while they are sleepwalking? (snip) >> >No, they told them "here is a cure for you", and people believed them. >> >> Please be more specific. What cures are you referring to? > >The low fat diet. Won't work unless calories and portions are controlled. No diet will. This is common sense. If someone really thinks they can sit around and eat excessive portions of a bunch of low fat junk food, they are a victim of their own stupidity. The truth is out there and has been out there for quite some time. >The FDA pyramid. The pyramid recommends way too many starches and is also an oversimplistic model -- I've always thought that. >The balanced diet. >The low carb diet >(which will probably become official sooner or later). I actually eat a fairly low carb diet, and it seems to work fairly well. But I don't buy that low carb somehow magically permits people to consume an unlimited amount of calories. And I've had the common sense to know that since I was an adolescent and first heard of LC. What I'm seeing here in the states is that this LC "lifestyle" is going much the way of the low fat craze. There's a bunch of processed foods on the market now and people are overeating them. Folks are always looking for the quick fix, and marketers depend on it. People are duped because they play mind games with themselves and choose to believe what they want to believe. That is PRECISELY why I am advocating the crucial role of personal responsibility in all this. As I've stated before, if someone chooses to stay fat, that's fine. Just don't try and place the blame elsewhere. (snip) >> Please list some of the specific foods you are talking about. > >Margarine, which was advertised as healthy food. That is a good point about the trans fats. However, I don't think it was part of some great conspiracy or marketing ploy, but rather due to the information currently available at the time. Folks used to think the earth was flat... The labeling could still be improved in some cases when it comes to the whole hydrogenated/partially hydrogenated issue. >Low fat (whatever), which a >lot of doctors tell you is better than regular options. Protein powders that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >*have* to take into account psychological issue if they play any significant >role in the statistics. In that case, they play an enormous role. I don't dispute at all that there is a psychological component. In fact, I think it is a rather significant factor in overeating. >> >Besides, it might have helped if nutritionists and governemnt had *said* >> >that simple fact. But they didn't. They blamed obesity on pretty much [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >fats? Why do most diabete or likewise official documents recommend cutting >fats? If calories are all that matter, why don't they just write it down? It has been written down -- time and time again. People just don't want to listen; they are looking for quick fixes. >> >Lack of exercise doesn't make people obese. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I do understand it, except I don't see the point. Adding lean muscle mass increases metabolism. (snip) >No , I don't believe people have free will when they have to go through a >bunch of misinformation and conditionning. Conditionning is especially bad, >since you're usually not even aware of it. Learned helplessness never helped anyone improve their circumstances. (snip) >So, I'm trying something else. Seems to work so far, and at least it doesn't >make my life miserable. How are you eating and what are your particular circumstances? >> >- and it means hard work. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >equality with them at something normal people do not even have to think >about... Life's tough. We all have our problems. Usually, we can only solve our own problems. >Sure, I don't doubt that calorie tables may be inaccurate to some nth >degree of precision. But that certainly does not rule out _any_ value >they may have in providing a basis about what and how much to eat. >Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage >has more calories than a pound of salmon. Would that not be clear without calorie tables? >There seem to be very few of these naturally thin "regulated" people >floating around in the states. I've heard that this may differ a bit >in France (does it really?). If so, what do you attribute the >difference to? Almost without exception, even the thin folks here >have to watch what they eat. When I lived in France as a young adult, I lost over 20 lbs without even trying. And kept them off for years. I think it's due to the very different eating-habits over there - three meals a day, end of. No snacks. None. The concept of the "office stash" is totally unknown - you just don't eat during the day, except at a formal mealtime. The young, who do go to McDonald's, are beginning to get fat. And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there, whereas in the USA I feel positively slender! >I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Most >of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other >women. People see what they want to see. Partly conscious, partly because they are genuinely not hungry for a heavy meal in the evening if they've had a lot for lunch. Or for a pudding if they've had a large main course. That is what us fatties don't have, naturally - a natural appetite regulator. We eat because the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it. And of course many French women *do* watch their weight, but are discreet about it - and successful! But they have as many health magazines as anywhere else, and they are as full of diet tips as any other.... SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! > When I lived in France as a young adult, I lost over 20 lbs without even > trying. And kept them off for years. I think it's due to the very > different eating-habits over there - three meals a day, end of. As a side note, off these three meals, the breakfast tends to be pretty small. For most French people it's a cup of coffee and some bread and butter. End of meal. The idea of eating proteins for breakfast sounds disgusting to most people, even though some force themselves to do it under the presure of dietitians. It's actuall funny if you check the French diet boards. Plenty of people are posting tricks about how to manage to eat that much food in the morning without feeling nauseous or how to manage to get children to eat such a large breakfast. All because the dietitians/magazines told them to. So much for the idea that you *have* to eat a whole meal for breakfast to stay slim. On the three meals a day deal, there are different successful patterns in the world. Asia seems to do very well on much more than that. Japanese eat two extra meals (10am and 4pm) and seem to do fine on that diet. Other Asiatic countries practice snacking and do fine on them. > No snacks. None. The 4pm snack is an almost official meal for kids, but many (not all) adults drop it. Besides, nutritionists now make a distinction between a snack and a "collation" (small meal). A collation is just a snack that you eat while being hungry and while paying attention to what you eat. Collations = good, snacking = bad, according to them. > And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need > to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there, > whereas in the USA I feel positively slender! It's true that while visiting the USA, I felt positively slim. And I was in relatively slim cities (NYC, SF). Also, I had to struggle to find clothes at my size in France, but in the USA I could even find stuff that fitted me at Gap! :-o Most fashionable brands here stop at XL, and your XL is more like a XXL or XXXL here. > We eat because > the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it. That's what psychologists have called externalism. Slim people react from inner stimuli (they're hungry, they stop being hungry) while obese people tend to react from external stimuli (time to eat, there is food in front of me, people are eating, a serving = size of my appetite). > But they have as many health > magazines as anywhere else, and they are as full of diet tips as any > other.... This is a recent phenomenon. I read a statistical study on it actually. In just a few years, the number of articles concerning diets have multiplied tenfold. Worse, they are becoming common in the press targetted towards teenagers, while it was virtually unknown there a few years ago. There are now even a few dieting articles in the men magazines, and this one is totally new. (snip) >>Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage >>has more calories than a pound of salmon. >> >Would that not be clear without calorie tables? Yep. (snip) >And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need >to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there, >whereas in the USA I feel positively slender! I do too ;). It has really gotten bad over here; and quite noticeably so in the last 3-5 years. >>I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Most >>of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >don't have, naturally - a natural appetite regulator. We eat because >the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it. (snip) Well, even my naturally thin friends (*) generally all tell me that they do consciously watch what they eat when I quiz them a bit. That's what I'm going on. That, and observation. Certainly it is easier to varying degrees for some people to do this, though. Not disputing that. Having struggled quite a bit in the past with controlling appetite myself, I certainly do understand how difficult it can be! (It has gotten much easier over time, though) (*) defined as one who has never been overweight for discussion purposes. PS interesting website, btw. The pics are quite charming. Concordia wrote in alt.support.diet on Sat, 14 Aug 2004: >Well, even my naturally thin friends (*) generally all tell me that >they do consciously watch what they eat when I quiz them a bit. I was thinking about this last night; yesterday, we went out for brunch, and then out to dinner in the evening. My husband, a naturally thin person, was genuinely not very hungry in the evening, and contented himself with one course, where I had two (although I didn't finish my main course), which I didn't really need. (All the same, I seem to have lost another lb, which is brilliant considering we've had guests!) >That's what I'm going on. That, and observation. Certainly it is >easier to varying degrees for some people to do this, though. Not >disputing that. Having struggled quite a bit in the past with >controlling appetite myself, I certainly do understand how difficult >it can be! (It has gotten much easier over time, though) It does get easier. >PS interesting website, btw. The pics are quite charming. How kind, thank you! SignatureAnnabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/88.5/80kg > One can go and get a test done. A university affiliated hospital > would be a good place to start. Your premise was that it is rather > hard to know what the metabolism is. I provided an example of how one > could find out. I wasn't aware you could get free testing this way. This might indeed be interresting to do, for educative purpose. I wish we had done that in science class, might have been fun. However, I doubt it would have any practical use for a dieting purpose. > Not really. A test would aid in ruling out hypothyroidism (not > common) A blood sample would not *aid* ruling out hypothyroidism, it would diagnose it or not ;) I mean, when there is a direct exam and when it is so cheap it's almost free (like, I paid less than $1 for mine), why not use it? > and also put to rest any concerns that the metabolism is > generally low. A complaint by many obese is that metabolism is > sluggish and that is why they cannot lose weight. That's because of the general misunderstanding people have on this issue. And this includes doctors. Metabolism doesn't matter than much, as long as you match your inputs to it. It's only problematic if it's so low you have to eat only minimum amounts of food. That's when it's time to exercise some. > This has been proven time and time again not to be the case, both through metabolic > tests and also by controlled conditions where the patient is > hospitalized and put on a medically supervised diet. What has been proven is that there is no link between metabolic rate and obesity. But *some* obese do have very low metabolism, lower than normal, either because of crash diets (loss of lean mass) or because of hormnal problems (thyroid mainly). And some are actually higher than normal. Guessing from what I have to eat to maintain, I'm rather into the second category. Which is not a surprise, I have always been muscular, obese or not. > Also, if one were to have a basal metabolism test performed bi-weekly > or monthly over a statistically significant period of time, and graph > the results, metabolism would not generally be all over the place. If you keep a constant weight and keep the exact same level of exercise. And if you're not a woman, periods tend to mess things up. Besides, your intakes have to match basal metabolism + daily activities. So you would have a nice number, but not many useful things to do with it... > There would be a somewhat of a distribution of results assuming one > stayed at a similar weight and activity level. Do you dispute this? I do have some doubts about women, but no, for men, that would be right. But activity level would still vary, and this can make a lot of difference. And hopefully, weight will be going down too ;) > Sure, I don't doubt that calorie tables may be inaccurate to some nth > degree of precision. I'm not talking nth degree. You remember that hot summer we had in Europe? Hot and warm. Well, farmers reported a 30% increase in the sugar content of fruits. Likewise, on a bad year, you will have large drops in sugar content. Same for grapes, being on the good side of the hill is a variation high enough that one side will give great wine and the other a crappy barely drinkable beverage. The same applies with a lot of other food. Animals will have varying fat contents, depending on how they were fed (industrial food, grazing...) or kept (savage, semi-freedom, battery). That's a lot of variation you won't find in your calorie table. And I doubt you would have to go to the nth degree of precision to find it. Remember that 5% extra on a 2000 calories diet will give out 36000 calories by the end of the year - that's at least 9 extra pounds... Sure, variations will cancel each others on average, but 5% is a very small margin of error... > Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage > has more calories than a pound of salmon. Sure, a table will do that. It does have an educative value. You don't need a large level of precision to sort food items like this. But you do need that level of precision to keep a stable weight over an extended period of time. It also becomes problematic when you can't control the food, like with exotic stuff, at friends or in a restaurant. How do you get the caloric load of a restaurant meal, if you don't know how it was cooked? Besides, I could have told you that by just eat these food. The same amount of salmon will not give the same lasting satiety as the same amount of sausage... > A perfect match is not necessary short-term. It is a long-term > attempt at a match or deficit that matters. You obviously understand > this concept, and have alluded to it below when suggesting "regulated" > people self-correct overeating by subsequently eating less to make up > for it (which I somewhat disagree with). Studies have proven that there is a meal to meal compensation, except, again, in obeses. It's also something I experienced personnally. You're also building a system that is a lot more complex than the original biological one. The brain *will* adjust its calorie table. When you feed "light" food to a rat, the brain will adjust the quantities in no more than a couple of days and keep the diet iso-caloric. On the other hand, your calorie table will remain the same even on hot dry years. You're still lacking several levels of flexibility. > There seem to be very few of these naturally thin "regulated" people > floating around in the states. I've heard that this may differ a bit > in France (does it really?). Obesity is rising in France. If we define obesity as BMI>30, the 2003 numbers are 11.3% (9.6% in 1997). The overweight or obese population is at 41.6% (36.7% in 1997). Massive obesity (>40) is now at 0.6%. I haven't checked the American numbers for a while, I don't know how you compared right now. There are indeed less and less of these people, since it's becoming hard not to be under the influence of a bunch of dietetical advices. You can still find them among kids, some teenagers and still quite a lot of adults. I still do know quite a lot of them though. My father mostly doesn't watch what he eats, and maintains his weight despite completely chaotic levels of physical activities. Don't you find it strange that the more dietetical advice we receive, the more obese we become? As you pointed, most Americans are very conscious about what they eat. Yet, most Americans also happen to be fat. If you go back forty years ago, few Americans cared, yet less of them were fat. > If so, what do you attribute the > difference to? Almost without exception, even the thin folks here > have to watch what they eat. That's actually very scary when you're a Frenchman visiting the USA, especially big cities. Actually seeing fitness shops selling diets products (most of them being illegal here) like they are candies is completely surreal to us. I mean, if I wanted to find such a shop in Paris, I would have to seek in the yellow pages to get the addresses of the handful of them we have. In NYC, it was impossible not to go past one daily. I do think that's one of the key difference. We do watch what we eat - a little. A lot less than you do anyway. Most people *like* eating. Most people have enough respect for cultural eating that eating powdered food is highly depressive to them. But we have been paying more attention to what we eat in the past years. We even have our diet reality show now. But we are now catching up on you quickly... There are of course other factors too. We walk much more than the average American does (except New Yorkers). Many flats also have no elevator, I live at the 6th floor, no elevator, and that's a minimum daily amount of exercise I have no way of doing without. Most famillies don't eat in front of the TV. We don't eat in our cars either. The dinner is still a social meeting for the familly. We don't eat all the time in the streets "as Americans do" (sorry, that's exactly how people would describe it). We drink soda, a little or mostly light - noone would think about drinking a gallon of coke a day. We buy food in small containers, not per the gallon. You can have two people eat from a single entree at a French restaurant - something most French people do when they visit the USA. The supersize deal in French McDonalds is roughly equivalent to the medium menu in US McDonalds, likewise the small French fries we have just doesn't exist in that size in the USA. The first McDonald in France already had salads on the menu, and they were healthier than the new "healthy" salads they are now selling. So, there are cultural differences, and they do play a role (especially since some of these keep us focussed on what we are eating and our feelings - like actually liking the food or not watching TV). But I think the overall attitude towards diet is a good part of the equation. > I initially eliminated a significant amount of carbs by following > Atkins induction, then gradually reintroduced complex carbs in the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and nuts as snacks. I occasionally have a glass of red wine or a > martini with or after dinner. So, you started on Atkins, and eventually ended with a "balanced" diet, or something pretty close to what doctors recommend (at least what ours recommend when they don't go crazy on some hyper-proteic sh.t). This is still a diet that, in itself, has a high failure rate. There are probably other factors that explain your success. Like, I doubt the diet itself solved your bingeing. What did? Did your attitude towards food evolved with time or do you eat like you used to (except in quantities and kind of food of course)? > >Are you positive you will be able to maintain for > >life? > > Sure, it is up to me. Last year, I hurt an ankle and was still able > to keep from gaining weight. I'm not too concerned about physical traumas. Most people regain weight from psychological traumas, like a divorce or something that is experienced as emotionaly strongly. The problem is that most diets do not try to prepare you against that. > I used to binge eat at least a couple of times a week and could wolf > down an entire large pizza (and much more) in one sitting easily. I > also overate in general on a fairly consistent basis. At the time, I > rationalized it somewhat and wasn't completely honest with myself > about what I was doing or the calories consumed. Well, at least, that's something not included in your diet plan : admitting you were over-eating, and even bingeing. When faced with that word, many people go into denial and claim they only have a small problem with food. Do you think you would have been successful if you had kept yourself in denial? Besides admitting what you were doing, did you also come to understand *why* you were doing it? Do you think that knowledge has allowed you to lose that weight? What I'm trying to get at is that most diets only allow people to lose weight. They don't give them any tool to understand why they became fat and how to prevent that from happening again (except by sticking to the diet). Successful dieters seem to be successful because they went beyond the diet and gained understand of how they work. Their success is a consequence of their own introspection, not of the diet itself. Now, if you scale back to the epidemic level, this means going to an all diet approach is bound to failure, because it seems only a small numbers of people are able to make that introspection on their own. Even worse, a lot of energy is devoted to methods that completely obliterate the need to do any kind of introspection : diet pills, surgery, "miracle" diets... > Again, I just don't buy your premise that there are many of these > "well regulated" slim people running around that have never had to > give a conscious thought to what they eat. Well, decent dietetic models are rather recent. If you go back in time, all kind of crap theories were around. Even nowadays, a lot of people do not buy into the caloric explanation! If you do a history of obesity, a lot of things have been blamed for it, not only mere calories : fat, carbs, proteins, water, salt, red meat... Yet, throughout history, a majority of humanity was able to maintain a stable weight. And we haven't been starving much in recent history, nor have we always been exercising ourselves. If you limit yourself to the rich part of the population (plenty of food, not much exercise), obesity was much lower than today. Especially massive obesity. How could these people maintain their weight? By following the dietetic advice of the time? > This is not what I am > seeing in the states. What are you observing in France? How many of > these folks do you see percentage wise and how do they eat? Well, looking around me, I would say roughly 30-50% of the people are still eating normally. My father and mother are. My girlfriend is a recovered overweight lady who is now listening to her instincts and doing well along that way. Of course, the more you tell everyone that they should watch what they eat, the more they will just do that. And this is exactly what we are doing. I mean, I can't live a single day without being submitted to some form of diet information. This is like getting it brainwashed in. How can you explain we *still* have any obese person left with all the information we receive? > I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Well, at least, losing weight has been effortless for me. Even better, it has been more pleasant than eating as an obese, because at least I appreciate what I eat (I used to just throw food down my throat). > Most of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are > honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second > helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a > lot for lunch, etc. I do often pass on dessert and second helping, because I just plainly do not feel hungry anymore. This is sometimes annoying, since I have thrown to the garbage bin tons of delicious stuff I had bought for dessert (until I figured out how to manage my hunger throughout the various parts of the meal or if I really badly want a dessert, I just start the meal with it). But it's not a conscious effort. I have tried to force myself to eat past the hunger a few time, and it just doesn't taste good without it. But I will make a conscious decision not to take a second helping in order to keep some hunger for the dessert, that one is true. The difference is that the final decision comes from my hunger, it's where the limit is set, not from some artificial conception of where I should stop eating or what I should eat. The difference is that there is no frustration that way, I don't give up something I would have wanted, I give up something I did have to hunger for. > What's funny is now that I am thin, people > occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away > with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other > women. People see what they want to see. Same here. But that *is* exactly my point. Most people have their mind poluted by information and values from diets. They have their views so distorted that they won't even see reality when it's in front of their eyes. To them, someone who is slim is someone who doesn't eat "bad food". In deep, very few people actually believe in the caloric equation. I can tell them I can eat 100g of chocolate for lunch *and* that I will still lose weight because my caloric balance is in deficit, they will not believe me. Or, worse, they will believe it's some kind of miracle diet that involves eating chocolate in its process. > >The low fat diet. > > Won't work unless calories and portions are controlled. No diet will. > This is common sense. Totally agreed. But then, why does the doctor asks you to cut fats? I mean, if it's only calories, why the hell should I *also* cut the fats? Why can't I cut a bit of fats and a bit of carbs? Or carbs or fats in various proportion according to my fancy of the day? The problem is that deep down, the doctor doesn't believe in the caloric theory himself. He believes you have to cut fats, and also, almost as an afterthought, cut the calories. But if you don't cut the fats, terrible things will happen. They pay lip service to the caloric balance, but they do believe in the fat is evil dogma with all their might. > If someone really thinks they can sit around > and eat excessive portions of a bunch of low fat junk food, they are a > victim of their own stupidity. Then, I'm sorry to tell you, but a good deal of the American population *is* stupid. I mean, check how much low fat junk food people buy a year... > The truth is out there and has been out there for quite some time. But even doctors do not believe in the caloric equations. They believe you should cut some bad foods/nutriments and, also, cut the calories. > >The FDA pyramid. > > The pyramid recommends way too many starches and is also an > oversimplistic model -- I've always thought that. See? You too... If the goal is to achieve a caloric deficit, why not do it on the FDA pyramid? But you also believe that carbs are bad. Don't you think you can lose weight on eating a large amount of carbs? Do you believe you can't control your appetite if you eat carbs? > What I'm seeing here in the states is that this LC "lifestyle" is > going much the way of the low fat craze. There's a bunch of processed > foods on the market now and people are overeating them. Folks are > always looking for the quick fix, and marketers depend on it. That's because noone really believes in the caloric theory. Why? Because we want to lose weight while being able to eat as much as we want? Yes, in many aspects we are a bulimic society. We always want more (cars, food, riches, entertainment, travels...) but we don't want any of it to change us or have consequences (polution, obesity, poors, evolving...). Our attitude towards food only mirror our attitude towards society in general. But I think there's another factor. The caloric theory is amoral. It doesn't matter what you eat and how much you enjoy it, as long as you eat just what you need and with moderation, you will stay slim. There is no evil or good food. That's dietetic atheism. Somehow, the mind of people seem to revolt at that. They want some food to be evil. Even in tiny amounts. They want a price to be paid for pleasure. Do you know the amount of people who are convinced that a single chunk of chocolate can destroy a careful diet? Or how many people actually demand of their dietetian that he puts them on the most strict diet and make them suffer? > People are duped because they play mind games with themselves and > choose to believe what they want to believe. Yes. The problem is that a huge majority of the people are in that situation. When, as a government, you spend a enormous budget communicating about obesity, seeing that kind of result should call for some brainstorming. And I don't mean creating some new ads. I mean, rethinking the whole strategy. Yet, the only reaction to the fact that it is obviously not working is to spend yet more funds to do the exact same campains, only louder. > That is PRECISELY why I > am advocating the crucial role of personal responsibility in all this. I still don't think people are responsible. They're not the direct conscious *cause* of their obesity. That's what being responsible means, being guilty of something. I don't think they are guilty of being obese. Nor are they guilty of failing when they try to solve their obesity using the consensual methods. Sure, they *can* help themselves, and the only available tool for that is introspection. Except it's incredibly difficult to access in the current hostile context. You can't blame people for not finding the gold nugget in the pile of dung to pay their healthcare with. > As I've stated before, if someone chooses to stay fat, that's fine. Few people do that. Some people just give up trying. Given the statistical net results of diets, I can't blame them. If one has to chose between 5% of chances of losing some weight and 95% of chances of becoming fatter, being cautious and chosing to be as healthy as possible at one's current weight is not a bad choice. > >Margarine, which was advertised as healthy food. > > That is a good point about the trans fats. However, I don't think it > was part of some great conspiracy or marketing ploy, but rather due to > the information currently available at the time. I don't blame conspiracies when I can blame common idiocy. The problem is that, when you are a doctor, you are sworn not to broadcast false informations. Yet, they put everyone on margarine without proper proof that margarine was safe *and* without real proof that butter was unsafe. And it's not an isolated event. Concerning obesity, it's done all the time. Just check the past history of obesity surgery an drugs. How many of these have been released and pulled from the market a few years after because of serious problems with them? Yet, they keep doing it. We still don't know the long term consequences of bypass surgery, but this doesn't prevent a bunch of people (including some with only moderate obesity) from having their body mutilated. > I don't dispute at all that there is a psychological component. In > fact, I think it is a rather significant factor in overeating. It's a significant factor that gets little coverage in the press or books or even in doctors' office. It also gets little research. A lot more energy is devoted in finding the *genetic* roots of over-eating. What's the likehood that genetics play a large role in the over-eating habits of the majority of the American population? > Learned helplessness never helped anyone improve their circumstances. Understanding why you are helpless is the first step on the path to finding a way around it. > >So, I'm trying something else. Seems to work so far, and at least it doesn't > >make my life miserable. > > How are you eating and what are your particular circumstances? Not hungry = I don't eat. Hungry = I eat. Satieted = I stop eating. Whatever I want (or crave for, or feel like eating or however you call it), whenever I want (no set number of meals, no set time, no obligation to eat at any particular meal), as long as I'm hungry. This is of course a little more involved. I get psychological support, I'm supervised by a nutritionnist, I have frquent blood samples, there was a lot of actual work involved in feeling my hunger and satiety and breaking up various food taboos... Initial circumstances, six months ago, were 1m82 for 132kg, with a recently diagnosed diabete and bad lipids. I had a past experience of binge-eating and bulimia, though I took care of this one on my own. Currently, I'm at 108kg. Diabete is in good control (A1c at 5.8%, FG at 1g) and lipids are within the norm. I also stopped my diabete medication a few months ago. > Life's tough. We all have our problems. Usually, we can only solve > our own problems. We can get help on our way though. Nowadays, most obeses trying to solve their problems have to go *against* the flow (society judgement, dietetic advice, doctors' advice...). >The first McDonald in France >already had salads on the menu, and they were healthier than the new >"healthy" salads they are now selling. It didn't, you know, nor did it have breakfast foods. We used to go there in 1974 or thenabouts and buy a Big Mac and a milkshake, and that was a *lot* of food. No fries, we never bothered. SignatureAnnabel Smyth mailto:annabel@amsmyth.demon.co.uk http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! > It didn't, you know, nor did it have breakfast foods. We used to go > there in 1974 or thenabouts and buy a Big Mac and a milkshake, and that > was a *lot* of food. No fries, we never bothered. Really? I would have sworn they had salads from the start... Though I was only two years old back then ;) Anyway, they were introduced pretty early on, in my memories, I have always seen salads there... It was actually pretty funny the first time I went there... My father told me we were going to try out "American food" lol And yes, a shake and a Big Mac *is* a lot of food! That would be around the same number of calories as a Big Mac + Small Fries or BM + Small Salad I guess, that's about what many people eat at McDonald (except hyper-active youths, but I suspect some of them do burn that much calories). (snip) >I wasn't aware you could get free testing this way. I didn't say it was free. (snip) >> and also put to rest any concerns that the metabolism is >> generally low. A complaint by many obese is that metabolism is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >you match your inputs to it. It's only problematic if it's so low you have >to eat only minimum amounts of food. That's when it's time to exercise some. I disagree. It _does_ matter to the extent that chances of being able to match inputs to a higher metabolism are greater. What are people more prone to do, eat more or less? Wouldn't it be beneficial to have a higher metabolism, or for that matter increase activity and muscle mass to aid in that? (Okay, I see you mention exercise too). Who wouldn't want a higher metabolism? These are rhetorical questions. >> This has been proven time and time again not to be the case, both through >> metabolic tests and also by controlled conditions where the patient is >> hospitalized and put on a medically supervised diet. > >What has been proven is that there is no link between metabolic rate and >obesity. That is precisely my point. >But *some* obese do have very low metabolism, lower than normal, >either because of crash diets (loss of lean mass) or because of hormnal >problems (thyroid mainly). And some are actually higher than normal. >Guessing from what I have to eat to maintain, I'm rather into the second >category. Which is not a surprise, I have always been muscular, obese or >not. Isn't this a different way of stating a similar position? Let's not get too bogged down in semantics ;) >> Also, if one were to have a basal metabolism test performed bi-weekly >> or monthly over a statistically significant period of time, and graph [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >have to match basal metabolism + daily activities. So you would have a nice >number, but not many useful things to do with it... What about those people that insist they eat less than 600 kcal/day, 1000 kcal/day, and so on, and still gain weight. Shouldn't they look into some testing? However, it seems many more people make such claims than you'd expect statistically... In those cases, it could be used to either prove or disprove such claims. The test doesn't have to yield a precise result to serve such a function. If it indicates metab. is (for example) somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500-2000 instead of 600 or 1000, that would be helpful information. It would also be helpful to know if the person was actually correct -- but rare. The more likely case is that they are not being honest with themselves. Let me remind you, my position wasn't that everyone needed to run out and get a metabolism test. You had said: "The problem is that most obese have no way of knowing how much their body will burn." And my counterpoints were (1) one _could_ get a metabolism test, and that (2) "someone not knowing their precise current metabolism does not prevent them from eating less and losing weight." Do you or do you not agree with #2? Yes or no? (calorie tables) >I'm not talking nth degree. You remember that hot summer we had in Europe? >Hot and warm. Well, farmers reported a 30% increase in the sugar content of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >will cancel each others on average, but 5% is a very small margin of >error... Gotcha. But it's not that important in the scheme of things when it comes to weight loss. I seriously doubt people are fat due to these factors. >Sure, a table will do that. It does have an educative value. You don't need >a large level of precision to sort food items like this. But you do need >that level of precision to keep a stable weight over an extended period of >time. It also becomes problematic when you can't control the food, like with >exotic stuff, at friends or in a restaurant. How do you get the caloric load >of a restaurant meal, if you don't know how it was cooked? Lack of precision in calorie tables or not knowing exact metabolism doesn't keep people from losing and maintaining weight. People have ways to measure weightloss or lack thereof, and can adjust accordingly. >Besides, I could have told you that by just eat these food. The same amount >of salmon will not give the same lasting satiety as the same amount of >sausage... True. (snip what it's like in France, thanks for the insight) >So, you started on Atkins, and eventually ended with a "balanced" diet, or >something pretty close to what doctors recommend (at least what ours >recommend when they don't go crazy on some hyper-proteic sh.t). What I am doing is balanced for me, and I have figured this out by trial and error -- but is not what would be considered a traditional balanced diet by any means. Note that I rarely eat processed carbs. >This is >still a diet that, in itself, has a high failure rate. It's not the diets that fail... >There are probably >other factors that explain your success. Like, I doubt the diet itself >solved your bingeing. What did? Did your attitude towards food evolved with >time or do you eat like you used to (except in quantities and kind of food >of course)? I quit making excuses and started doing what I need to do. Period. (snip) >Do >you think you would have been successful if you had kept yourself in denial? No. >Besides admitting what you were doing, did you also come to understand *why* >you were doing it? Do you think that knowledge has allowed you to lose that >weight? I was hypoglycemic. In my case, eating all those refined carbs were making me hungry and tired all the time; that was really a large part of it. >What I'm trying to get at is that most diets only allow people to lose >weight. They don't give them any tool to understand why they became fat and >how to prevent that from happening again (except by sticking to the diet). >Successful dieters seem to be successful because they went beyond the diet >and gained understand of how they work. Their success is a consequence of >their own introspection, not of the diet itself. Agreed. But I still think they have to find the tools for themselves. >Now, if you scale back to the epidemic level, this means going to an all >diet approach is bound to failure, because it seems only a small numbers of >people are able to make that introspection on their own. Willing or able? So? If you've got a better solution, let's hear it. >> Again, I just don't buy your premise that there are many of these >> "well regulated" slim people running around that have never had to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >kind of crap theories were around. Even nowadays, a lot of people do not buy >into the caloric explanation! Sure they do. They just try quick fixes instead. (we've discussed this before) (snip) >If you >limit yourself to the rich part of the population (plenty of food, not much >exercise), obesity was much lower than today. Especially massive obesity. >How could these people maintain their weight? By following the dietetic >advice of the time? By controlling themselves, I'd imagine. (snip, it's getting rather long) >That's because noone really believes in the caloric theory. Why? Because we >want to lose weight while being able to eat as much as we want? Yes, in many >aspects we are a bulimic society. We always want more (cars, food, riches, >entertainment, travels...) but we don't want any of it to change us or have >consequences (polution, obesity, poors, evolving...). Our attitude towards >food only mirror our attitude towards society in general. I agree, but so what? I mean really... it's nice to theorize and discuss the state of society and all on usenet. And this has been an interesting conversation, don't get me wrong. However, if one wants to lose weight, they do the introspection, take the steps, etc. There is no other way. >But I think there's another factor. The caloric theory is amoral. It doesn't >matter what you eat and how much you enjoy it, as long as you eat just what >you need and with moderation, you will stay slim. There is no evil or good >food. That's dietetic atheism. Somehow, the mind of people seem to revolt at >that. They want some food to be evil. Even in tiny amounts. They want a >price to be paid for pleasure. Again, you're singing to the choir. (snip) >> That is PRECISELY why I >> am advocating the crucial role of personal responsibility in all this. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >hostile context. You can't blame people for not finding the gold nugget in >the pile of dung to pay their healthcare with. You give people way too little credit for the ability to make their own choices, and tacit permission to be victims subject to the forces of society. That is a shame. (snip) >> I don't dispute at all that there is a psychological component. In >> fact, I think it is a rather significant factor in overeating. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that genetics play a large role in the over-eating habits of the majority of >the American population? I agree, for the most part. >> Learned helplessness never helped anyone improve their circumstances. > >Understanding why you are helpless is the first step on the path to finding >a way around it. Lol, that is my point. (snip) >> How are you eating and what are your particular circumstances? > >Not hungry = I don't eat. Hungry = I eat. Satieted = I stop eating. Whatever >I want (or crave for, or feel like eating or however you call it), whenever >I want (no set number of meals, no set time, no obligation to eat at any >particular meal), as long as I'm hungry. Yet you manage to lose weight without knowing your precise metabolism. ;) > > Really? Ever heard of a basal metabolism test? In any case, someone > > not knowing their precise current metabolism does not prevent them > > from eating less and losing weight. > > Isn't renting a man sized calorimeter for a day a bit expensive? Besides, it > will only give you a value for that day, that's pretty useless. You don't need one. Select a number of calories to eat per day. Your bodyweight in pounds * 12 is a good start. Then eat that many calories a day. If you lose weight at aroudn 1-2 pounds a week then you know it's the right number. If you don't lose weight then decrease the number by 500. If you're losing weight too fast then increase the number until you're losing it at a sensible rate. It's not rocket science. When you try a new diet, and it doesn't work, you have two options. The first is to alter it and experiment until it does work. The second is to give up. Most fat people chose the second option. That is the option for failure. Once a fat person has chosen that option, he can remain fat and claim that he tried to lose weight but failed, so he must be genetically destined to be fat, it's not his fault, dieting doesn't work etc. Sustained weight loss involves hard work and adjustments when necessary, not giving up when things go slightly wrong. Imagine if everyone had the same attitude as fat people do with dieting: Computer programmers saying 'programming doesn't work' if a program doesn't compile because of a typo, chefs saying 'cooking doesn't work' because they messed up a single recipe because they slightly over-cooked it, car drivers saying 'driving doesn't work' because they once stalled the engine... However thankfully they don't think like that. When something goes wrong they work out what went wrong and go about fixing it, they don't just give up. > And that > would be a pretty useless value anyway, it's not like you would have any > reliable data to use to match your food with it, calorie tables are all but > reliable... What...you're saying all the nutritional information on food packaging is made up? That all these scientists across the world are involved in a giant conspiracy to make you fat? > Trying to match a complex biological process with elementary school > mathematics is not going to bring you anywhere. It's like a T1 diabetic > trying to mimick a pancreas with his insulin shoots, it's close to > impossible to get a perfect match. Yet they manage to get by somehow... Maybe it's because they just get on with it rather than whining about how difficult everything is. > So, how did you lose your weight? I can't speak for him but I for one have lost a not-insignificant amount of weight. > Was it easy or effortless? No, it was hard and disciplined. I watched nearly everything I ate and forced myself into the gym twice a week, not to mention a not-insignificant amount of cardio outside of the gym. No-one said it was supposed to be easy. I think that is the real issue for fat people saying that dieting is impossible. It's not impossible, it's just harder than they want it to be. > And for how > long have you maintained? Are you positive you will be able to maintain for > life? Once I lose enough fat I don't plan to maintain, I plan to then start to put on muscle mass. Looking after your body is a life-time commitment, not something you do once then give up. > Did you ever suffer from eating disorders or were you just the average > over-eater? I got fat from eating everything I could lay my eyes on, and through doing absolutely no exercise. I lost the weight from doing the opposite. > The fact that to you losing weight was effortless doesn't mean it is the > case for everyone. He hasn't even replied saying whether it was effortless or not and you're already replying as if he'd replied that it was. > For most obeses, it isn't. On the other hand, maintening > a constant weight *is* effortless for well regulated slim people. Well, if it's easy for them, and not for you, that's just tough sh.t. Not everything is equal and fair. <snip excuse making> > > Sure they can; no one said it was easy. It's matter of choosing to > > eat less than the body burns and stick with it. There are no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "sleeping"? Do you know how it feels to black out and return to reason with > 9000 calories worth of food in your belly? Ah ok, obese people are obese because they sleepwalk and eat 9000 calories worth of food in the night... I won't ask why 9000 calories of prepared food was so readibly available though, or why you didn't think to put a lock on the fridge door or something... Fat people aren't fat through sleep-eating, it's through over-eating at every meal and through under-exercising. > Dieting is not a simple process. It's not like when you quit smoking and you > just have to stop smoking cigarettes just because you don't want to smoke > anymore. You can't stop eating altogether. Who said anything about stopping eating altogether? You don't stop eating, you start eating a sensible diet. That's not the hardest thing in the world, it just takes discipline. > You have to deal with large > psychological issues too, and peer presure sometimes (some people often do > not want you to lose weight). Of course, surely that's even more inspiration to do it? > > You are being repetitive here; I've already spoken to this point more > > than once. See below where I've mentioned the importance of a proper > > eating plan. > > But you still miss my point. It's your proper eating plan that *has* that > 85% failure rate! When followed it has a 0% failure rate. If people are lazy, ill-disciplined, gluttonous etc and give up, that's not the diet's fault, that's the fault of the people following it (or not following it!). > If you know of any "plan" with a higher success rate, by > all mean, publish it and get rich! So in other words you want a magic bullet that will make you start taking responsibility for your own life. > > >No, they told them "here is a cure for you", and people believed them. > > Please be more specific. What cures are you referring to? > The low fat diet. The FDA pyramid. The balanced diet. The low carb diet > (which will probably become official sooner or later). How many fat people have stuck to a sensible, balanced diet of the correct portions with regular exercise and not lost weight? Stop blaming other people for your failures and start taking responsiblity. > > Huh? I am clearly advocating a sensible eating plan that can be > > followed for life (and finetuned as necessary), not a quickie weight [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, like many doctors and the government has done before you. Except it > doesn't work much better than most fad diets. Yes, it does, you just don't want to believe it does, because if you know it does, then you know that it's your own fault that you're fat, which means you can't carry on blaming other people for your own failings. > > You're being repetitive again. Asked and addressed. > > Not really. I still don't know what you diet is. And I still don't see why > this miracle diet is supposed to work any better than all the existing > diets. A 'miracle' diet is 10-12*(body weight in pounds) in calories a day, with 0.8g of protein per pound of body weight, adjusted when necessary. This also involves weight-lifting, working out the whole body 1-2* a week, and regular cardio. This works as it allows you to lose fat and maintain muscle at a steady rate and also doesn't place heavy restrictions on what you can eat. However it has its downsides: it involves planning, discipline and hard work, those horrible old-fashioned things. > Margarine, which was advertised as healthy food. Low fat (whatever), which a > lot of doctors tell you is better than regular options. Protein powders that > a lot of of dietitians will actually tell you to use... What's wrong with protein powder? > > Nonsense. The majority of mainstream nutritionists have always taken > > a position that calories matter. So has the government (here). > > When did the FDA create their pyramid then? Why the campain about cutting > fats? Why do most diabete or likewise official documents recommend cutting > fats? If calories are all that matter, why don't they just write it down? The US government doesn't equal the whole world of nutritionists. The world doesn't end at America's borders. > > In and of itself, it does not. But it certainly helps in weight loss > > and maintenance. As I mentioned before, weight training is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > weight in the first place. There are plenty of slim people with barely > enough muscles to move from the couch to the bed. So? They're not you. Stop blaming your problems on other people. > > Do you understand the role of lean muscle mass in metabolism, or do I > > need to spell it out for you? > > I do understand it, except I don't see the point. As long as your metabolism > is within the norm (that is, you burn more than 1200 calories a day), who > cares how high or low it is? Wow, you really are clueless, no wonder you have such trouble losing weight. A higher metabolism means you burn more calories so you lose fat more easily. A lower metabolism means you lose weight much more difficultly. > Naturally slim people are able to maintain > weight on a low metabolism. If you're not naturally slim then what applies to them is irrelevent to you. Stop trying to deflect criticisms onto other people. Also you'll find that 'naturally slim' people either have naturally higher metabolisms or eat less food than normal. Either way it probably doesn't apply to you. No study has shown obese to have any specific > kind of metabolism. Some obeses are much lower than the average (mostly > those who have dieted a lot), but others are much higher than the norm > (mostly those who never dieted). You've completely missed the point. > > If you've really got your head stuck in the sand that far, and can't > > see how people have free will and ultimately make their own choices [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No , I don't believe people have free will when they have to go through a > bunch of misinformation and conditionning. There's information all over the place, it's up to you to work out which is good information and which is bad. Nothing comes on a silver plate. This is another example of you not taking responsiblity for your own actions but instead blaming other people. > > Sure I do. I've lost weight and kept it off. I've also had the > > unfortunate experience of failing at diets. But do go on. > > No thank you. I don't believe in beating the same old path that has failed > time and time again. If something fails repetitively, it's probably that > that something is flawed. Or perhaps you haven't adjusted it to make it work, or perhaps you just can't follow it properly. > And I believe that diets are flawed, because of > the very way they are built and their ignorance of basic psychological > issues. No, people are flawed because they don't follow the diets. The diets themselves are fine, they work. If you chose to follow it badly it's not the diet's fault. Stop blaming your obesity on other people, it's not their fault for not making a magic bullet to stop you stuffing yourself with food. > > >- and it means hard work. > > Lol, didn't I just mention hard work above? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > know, the whole "we will give you equal chances so you can compete" and > all... Er, sorry to disappoint you, but people aren't created equal. If you have a tendency to put on more weight than other people, then you're going to have to work harder to get rid of it. If you don't like it's tough sh.t, no-one ever said life was fair. You seem to be surprised by the requirement of hard work in losing weight. Somehow this doesn't surprise me. > You don't need one. Select a number of calories to eat per day. Your > bodyweight in pounds * 12 is a good start. Then eat that many calories > a day. You don't have that level of precision on the calorie table. The only way to reach that level of precision would be to eat only industrially prepared food. > If you lose weight at aroudn 1-2 pounds a week then you know > it's the right number. If you don't lose weight then decrease the > number by 500. If you're losing weight too fast then increase the > number until you're losing it at a sensible rate. It's not rocket > science. It's not rocket science, because it's not science. It doesn't take into account the fact that you don't have the needed level of precision. It confuses variables with constants. > When you try a new diet, and it doesn't work, you have two options. > The first is to alter it and experiment until it does work. The second > is to give up. The third option is to understand that if the reality doesn't match the theory, then it means that the theory is wrong, not reality. Diets do not work. When they work, they only do for a limited time. Then, apply reason and try to find another theory that works in the real world. Thankfully, I didn't wait on your advice to lose weight. Otherwise, I would still be morbidly obese instead of being on the way to overweight... > Most fat people chose the second option. No, most fat people keep going the wrong way without doubting what people like you or their doctor said. Then, what must fail fails, and they gain back all the weight and then more. All direct consequence of the diet. > Once a fat person has chosen that option, he can > remain fat and claim that he tried to lose weight but failed, so he > must be genetically destined to be fat, it's not his fault, dieting > doesn't work etc. You have a chronic disease. In its current state, it is annoying, but not yet life threatening. You have two options : 1) try a cure that has 15% of chances to cure you partly, but 85% of chances to fail. If it fails, it is likely to make your disease worse. 2) stop the evolution in its track and deal with the disease in its current state. Obviously, you pick #1. That might be because you're daring, idiot or just because you don't have the disease and it is purely hypothetical for you. Some people prefer #2. In a choice like that, there is no correct answer. > Computer programmers saying 'programming doesn't work' if a program > doesn't compile because of a typo So, a diet not working because it's flawed is like a typo in a program? You seem to have problems making correct analogies. Sometimes, courageous programmers admit they have made a mistake and go back to the design phase when it really doesn't work. Cowards produce some piece of bloatware and pretend it works as intended. > chefs saying 'cooking doesn't work' > because they messed up a single recipe because they slightly > over-cooked it, Well, if their hundredth reciple is still over-cooked, I do hope they give up cooking. You do realise that most people do not stop dieting on their first diet, right? Some people have done dozens of them. > car drivers saying 'driving doesn't work' because they > once stalled the engine... I wish, would improve air pollution in my city... > However thankfully they don't think like that. When something goes > wrong they work out what went wrong and go about fixing it, they don't > just give up. Yes, they are stubborn people. And sometimes, some people realize the *way* of doing things is wrong. Instead of keeping at it, hoping that eventually it will work despite the fact that it has failed dozens of time, they stop and think. Then, they invent a new and better way of doing things. You seem to have an endless admiration for stubborn people. I admire intelligent ones much more. > What...you're saying all the nutritional information on food packaging > is made up? That all these scientists across the world are involved in > a giant conspiracy to make you fat? No, information on industrial food is rather reliable, because it is extremelly standardized. Do you suggest we should use only industrial prepared products? But, I can guarantee you that the random apple you bought and are ready to eat doesn't have the exact calorie value written on your table. Likewise, the "spaghetti bolognaire" on your table has nothing to do with the one served at your local Italian restaurant. It's not a conspiracy, it's just easy concepts to grasp, such as "sample", "average", "individual variations" and "error margin". Calorie table have a large margin of error, because they are built on samples of natural living products that can display a *huge* range of individual variations. > > Trying to match a complex biological process with elementary school > > mathematics is not going to bring you anywhere. It's like a T1 diabetic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yet they manage to get by somehow... Maybe it's because they just get > on with it rather than whining about how difficult everything is. No, they don't. Sadly, most T1 cannot get their A1c bellow 6.5%, which is already considered a very good value (for a T1), which is way above the norm. So, no, they don't manage to mimick nature. That's why many do not escape having complications. Besides, T1 do have better tools to mimick nature. They can get their glycemia whenever they need to. They can also inject insulin in a dose that has a very predictable amount of insulin. Now, replace their meter with one with a +-30% level of precision and give them poor quality insulin with +-30% the advertised amount of insulin. How good their control will be? > No, it was hard and disciplined. I watched nearly everything I ate and > forced myself into the gym twice a week, not to mention a > not-insignificant amount of cardio outside of the gym. So, you became what psychologists call a slim obese. Most obese have a very high level of empathy, but you burnt it in your quest for becoming slim. You are so egocentrist that you lost the ability to project yourself into others. You are also bitter that you had to suffer so much to lose your weight. So, you hate obese for not suffering like you do. You also probably hate them because they remind you of what you are. You haven't slimmed down, you're still obese in your head. Otherwise you would not spend so much time hating them. > No-one said it was supposed to be easy. Why not? Because you have to suffer to receive redemption? I don't think so. It doesn't have to be hard, it just has to be done the right way. All the weight I have lost has been effortless. Better, it has been pleasureable. I have never enjoyed food as much as I do now, I have never enjoyed my body more than I do now. > I think that is the real issue for fat people > saying that dieting is impossible. It's not impossible, it's just > harder than they want it to be. It's neither. Dieting is close to impossible. Losing weight isn't. > Once I lose enough fat I don't plan to maintain, I plan to then start > to put on muscle mass. Looking after your body is a life-time > commitment, not something you do once then give up. Ah, so you're still losing? Why not put the muscle right now btw? > I got fat from eating everything I could lay my eyes on, and through > doing absolutely no exercise. I lost the weight from doing the > opposite. Then, you got fat the easy way, and you're also losing fat the easy way. For your type of obesity (no compulsion, no genetics), losing weight is not a problem, maintening is. That's the reverse for compulsive types. Once they have mastered their compulsions, the rest tends to be easy. > Ah ok, obese people are obese because they sleepwalk and eat 9000 > calories worth of food in the night... I won't ask why 9000 calories > of prepared food was so readibly available though Because, when you binge, you don't stop at having prepared food. Plain butter or flour with water does the job... >, or why you didn't think to put a lock on the fridge door or something... Because it doesn't solve the problem, it just hides it. Solving the problem will involve removing the lock and putting food in the fridge anyway. > > You have to deal with large > > psychological issues too, and peer presure sometimes (some people often do > > not want you to lose weight). > > Of course, surely that's even more inspiration to do it? Not really. I don't care what other people think about me anymore. That's what allowed me to start losing weight in the first place. > When followed it has a 0% failure rate. If people are lazy, > ill-disciplined, gluttonous etc and give up, that's not the diet's > fault, that's the fault of the people following it (or not following > it!). Wait and see, you're only at the beginning. The 85% failure rate is at the five year mark. Are you there yet? Are you so afraid you *will* fail that you refuse the statistics? > > If you know of any "plan" with a higher success rate, by > > all mean, publish it and get rich! > > So in other words you want a magic bullet that will make you start > taking responsibility for your own life. No, I just want a methodology that works, not some badly put together piece of pseudo-science advertised as a diet. > How many fat people have stuck to a sensible, balanced diet of the > correct portions with regular exercise and not lost weight? Stop > blaming other people for your failures and start taking responsiblity. 85%. These statistics come from doctors - that's the number for diets monitored by a professionnal. > A 'miracle' diet is 10-12*(body weight in pounds) in calories a day, > with 0.8g of protein per pound of body weight, adjusted when > necessary. This also involves weight-lifting, working out the whole > body 1-2* a week, and regular cardio. That's what doctors sell you. It still doesn't work for most people. > What's wrong with protein powder? It's one of the worst diet. Very fast weight loss, very fast fat regain. Besides, it tastes awful. > The US government doesn't equal the whole world of nutritionists. The > world doesn't end at America's borders. Thankfully, that would be annoying for me. :p > So? They're not you. Stop blaming your problems on other people. I'm not blaming *my* problems. I was sensible enough to stop doing diets very early on. > Wow, you really are clueless, no wonder you have such trouble losing > weight. Errr... I don't have troubles... Looking at what you have to do to lose it, I would say I'm having a much easier time than you do ;) > A higher metabolism means you burn more calories so you lose > fat more easily. A lower metabolism means you lose weight much more > difficultly. And? Is it a race to lose as quickly as possible? I thought it was a long distance run, to maintain as long as you can... Who cares who covers the first 100 yards in a marathon, what's important is to be there at the finish line... If you're in deficit, you will lose anyway, no matter where your metabolism is at. > If you're not naturally slim then what applies to them is irrelevent > to you. I'm naturally slim. As you keep saying, if I'm overweight, it's not because of my genetics, it's because I ate too much. This means I'm unnaturally obese. Still naturally slim then... > Either way it probably doesn't apply to you. It does now. It still doesn't apply to you though, you have to exercise yourself and watch what you eat. > > No , I don't believe people have free will when they have to go through a > > bunch of misinformation and conditionning. > > There's information all over the place, it's up to you to work out > which is good information and which is bad. I did. 99% is bad. So, I stopped believing most of it, and just believed my own feelings. Works much better. > Nothing comes on a silver plate. When you try to cure a major epidemia, as a government, your job *is* to put clear and efficient information on a silver plate... > No, people are flawed because they don't follow the diets. Ah, true, if the theory doesn't work, it's the reality that has to be changed. The inability of people to follow the diet *is* a major flaw of the diets. It's like designing a cure that requires people to swallow a 10m wide pill whole, and pretending it's the fault of the patients if it didn't work. > > You don't need one. Select a number of calories to eat per day. Your > > bodyweight in pounds * 12 is a good start. Then eat that many calories [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > reach that level of precision would be to eat only industrially prepared > food. Well I really don't think they're that inaccurate, they're often near identical to ones on the packaging, I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. > It's not rocket science, because it's not science. It doesn't take into > account the fact that you don't have the needed level of precision. It > confuses variables with constants. Calories are precise enough for what you're measuring them for, you don't need anything beyond accuracy to the nearest calorie. Calorie counting works for everyone who seriously uses it, you're the only one I've heard complaining about inaccurate numbers. > > When you try a new diet, and it doesn't work, you have two options. > > The first is to alter it and experiment until it does work. The second > > is to give up. > > The third option is to understand that if the reality doesn't match the > theory, then it means that the theory is wrong, not reality. Then what if it the theory does match reality? > Diets do not work. When they work, they only do for a limited time. Yeah, that limited time being until you stop following it, which is not a failure of the diet but rather of you. > Thankfully, I didn't wait on your advice to lose weight. Otherwise, I would > still be morbidly obese instead of being on the way to overweight... So other than by changing your eating habits how did you lose weight? > > Most fat people chose the second option. > > No, most fat people keep going the wrong way without doubting what people > like you or their doctor said. Then, what must fail fails, and they gain > back all the weight and then more. All direct consequence of the diet. No, all the direct consequences of them not implementing the diet correctly. It's a common property of obese people that they like to blame other people for their failings. > You have a chronic disease. In its current state, it is annoying, but not > yet life threatening. You have two options : [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > because you don't have the disease and it is purely hypothetical for you. > Some people prefer #2. In a choice like that, there is no correct answer. That's insane. I think the following analogy is better: You have a chronic disease etc... You have two options: 1) Try a cure that works 100%, but it is hard and requires discipline and dedication, and will take years to work. You may have to constantly adjust it to meet your requirements, but when it works the disease is completely gone. 2) Try a cure for a few days, get tired of it then give up, say that the cure doesn't work and there's nothing you can do about your disease. > > Computer programmers saying 'programming doesn't work' if a program > > doesn't compile because of a typo > > So, a diet not working because it's flawed is like a typo in a program? You > seem to have problems making correct analogies. No, if you try a diet and it doesn't work, it may need adjusting, i.e. you may have to adjust the number of calories to suit your metabolism, or may have to increase your protein or decrease your carbs. This is a rough analogy to incompatabilities in a program. If a program doesn't work because it requires libraryX version 2.0 rather than 1.4, and you have 1.4, it doesn't mean that programming is flawed, or that the program is flawed, it just means you have to get a version that works with library 1.4. > > chefs saying 'cooking doesn't work' > > because they messed up a single recipe because they slightly > > over-cooked it, > > Well, if their hundredth reciple is still over-cooked, I do hope they give > up cooking. If they cook a recipe and it's a bit over-done, they don't throw the recipe away, they cook it for a bit less time next time. They fine-tune the recipe to suit them. The same is true of diets, if a diet doesn't work you fine-tune it so it works for you, you don't just give up at the first hurdle. > You do realise that most people do not stop dieting on their first diet, > right? Some people have done dozens of them. If they were dedicated and logical they would get the first one to work. If someone can't be bothered to follow a diet and gives up, it isn't the fault of the diet it's the fault of the person following it. Why are people so quick to blame other people for their own failings? > > However thankfully they don't think like that. When something goes > > wrong they work out what went wrong and go about fixing it, they don't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You seem to have an endless admiration for stubborn people. I admire > intelligent ones much more. It doesn't take 'dozens of times' to adjust your calorie intake to start losing weight, it just takes patience and dedication. Are you saying it's intelligent to give up on a diet when things get a bit difficult? > > What...you're saying all the nutritional information on food packaging > > is made up? That all these scientists across the world are involved in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > extremelly standardized. Do you suggest we should use only industrial > prepared products? Use what works for you. > > No, it was hard and disciplined. I watched nearly everything I ate and > > forced myself into the gym twice a week, not to mention a > > not-insignificant amount of cardio outside of the gym. > > So, you became what psychologists call a slim obese. What on earth is that? > Most obese have a very > high level of empathy, but you burnt it in your quest for becoming slim. I have empathy, I just can't stand moaning people who make excuses and blame other people rather than taking responsibility for their own lives. > You are also bitter that you had to suffer so much to lose your > weight. Bitter? Not at all. I enjoy the challenge, and I like the fact that my weight loss was entirely my own effort. I am reaping the rewards of my hard work and dedication, and that is a great feeling. > So, you hate obese for not suffering like you do. You also probably > hate them because they remind you of what you are. I don't hate obese people at all. What I do hate is their attitudes. I hate the excuse making. I hate the blaming other people for their own flaws. If they just said 'I don't have the discipline to follow this diet' or 'I can't be bothered exercising' I would admire the honesty, but that's not what I'm seeing here. > You haven't slimmed down, you're still obese in your head. Otherwise you > would not spend so much time hating them. I don't hate them, I hate the way they say that their obesity is someone else's fault, either doctors, the evil diet industry conspiracists, evil gyms, evil fast food outlets, it's always someone else's fault. I hate the way they think their obesity is not in their control, as if there was nothing they could do about it, when the opposite is true and they just don't want to put in the long-term commitment necessary. > > No-one said it was supposed to be easy. > > Why not? Because you have to suffer to receive redemption? Because that's the way it is. > > I think that is the real issue for fat people > > saying that dieting is impossible. It's not impossible, it's just > > harder than they want it to be. > > It's neither. Dieting is close to impossible. Losing weight isn't. Everyone 'diets', it is merely the process of consuming food. Perhaps it would be better if you chose a more specific wording. > > Once I lose enough fat I don't plan to maintain, I plan to then start > > to put on muscle mass. Looking after your body is a life-time > > commitment, not something you do once then give up. > > Ah, so you're still losing? > Why not put the muscle right now btw? I'd rather get my bf lower first. That's my main priority. I can't gain muscle without gaining fat, and I don't want to gain any fat for a while. I think if I get down to around 10% then I'll start putting it on. Also I still need to join a gym near to where I live now. I'll look better with lower-bf and less muscle than I will with more of both due to the added definition so that is my first goal. Also it will enable clothes to fit better, including old ones that haven't seen the light of day for years. > > I got fat from eating everything I could lay my eyes on, and through > > doing absolutely no exercise. I lost the weight from doing the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > problem, maintening is. That's the reverse for compulsive types. Once they > have mastered their compulsions, the rest tends to be easy. No compulsion? You'd be surprised at how much I can eat if it's in front of me. It's not unusual for me to eat 5000 calories+ a day, the trick is to form the correct shopping and eating habits so that compulsive eating isn't an issue. This is a lot harder when you live with someone who regularly buys junk food and leaves it where I end up seeing it, but that's what discipline's for. The more discipline I have the closer I am to my goals. > > Ah ok, obese people are obese because they sleepwalk and eat 9000 > > calories worth of food in the night... I won't ask why 9000 calories > > of prepared food was so readibly available though > > Because, when you binge, you don't stop at having prepared food. Plain > butter or flour with water does the job... So, out of all the obese people, how many do you think became obese through sleep-eating flour? > > > You have to deal with large > > > psychological issues too, and peer presure sometimes (some people often [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not really. I don't care what other people think about me anymore. That's > what allowed me to start losing weight in the first place. Well, it can be inspiring to me, especially when my dad who was giving me sh.t before for being fat is still a fat-a.s and I'm not anymore. In fact come to think of it most of my family on my dad side's obese, I don't know whether that's a genetic or an enviromental thing. > > When followed it has a 0% failure rate. If people are lazy, > > ill-disciplined, gluttonous etc and give up, that's not the diet's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Wait and see, you're only at the beginning. The 85% failure rate is at the > five year mark. Even if it does fail 85%, it's not the diet failing it's the people. > Are you there yet? Are you so afraid you *will* fail that > you refuse the statistics? What statistics? I've come to learn that statistics are not to be trusted, neither is anything that starts with 'studies show that...'. > > So in other words you want a magic bullet that will make you start > > taking responsibility for your own life. > No, I just want a methodology that works, not some badly put together piece > of pseudo-science advertised as a diet. I dunno, the diet I follow works, and it's based on science, not 'pseudo-science', whatever you mean by that. What sort of methodology would you recommend following? > > How many fat people have stuck to a sensible, balanced diet of the > > correct portions with regular exercise and not lost weight? Stop > > blaming other people for your failures and start taking responsiblity. > 85%. These statistics come from doctors - that's the number for diets > monitored by a professionnal. How many people have 'professionals' monitoring them 24 hours a day, measuring everything they eat and watching all their exercise, for 5 years? I am really skeptical of these studies. > > A 'miracle' diet is 10-12*(body weight in pounds) in calories a day, > > with 0.8g of protein per pound of body weight, adjusted when > > necessary. This also involves weight-lifting, working out the whole > > body 1-2* a week, and regular cardio. > > That's what doctors sell you. No, doctors are never that precise, most doctors don't know a lot, they'll just tell you to exercise more and eat a low-fat diet or something vague. People who 'sell you' that are generally people who have a lot of first hand experience of losing weight and training other people. It's based on real-life >It still doesn't work for most people. How many people follow it? Not many, so you can't really say. Most people don't want a carefully planned and monitored diet, nor something that takes months or years. > > What's wrong with protein powder? > > It's one of the worst diet. Very fast weight loss, very fast fat regain. > Besides, it tastes awful. It's not a diet it's a food. What on earth are you talking about? > > So? They're not you. Stop blaming your problems on other people. > > I'm not blaming *my* problems. I was sensible enough to stop doing diets > very early on. So in other words you ate nothing? Starvation doesn't work sorry. > > A higher metabolism means you burn more calories so you lose > > fat more easily. A lower metabolism means you lose weight much more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > line... If you're in deficit, you will lose anyway, no matter where your > metabolism is at. The point is, when your metabolism is higher you lose the same amount of weight on more food. Also you will find it easier to lose weight once your weight is lower, as the lighter you are then generally the lower your metabolism. Also when you are obese, you want to lose weight a lot quicker, muscle loss is the least of your concerns. > > Nothing comes on a silver plate. > > When you try to cure a major epidemia, as a government, your job *is* to put > clear and efficient information on a silver plate... The information's there, it's just that people don't want to follow it, they want a magic bullet that lets them sit watching TV eating cake and lose weight. > > No, people are flawed because they don't follow the diets. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's like designing a cure that requires people to swallow a 10m wide pill > whole, and pretending it's the fault of the patients if it didn't work. No, it's like designing a cure that requires regular injections. People might not like the injections and might stop taking them, but that doesn't mean the cure is flawed, it's that the people won't take it. Also you can't compare swallowing a 10m pill to eating a sensible amount of food and regularly exercising, you're just insane. >>> You don't need one. Select a number of calories to eat per day. Your >>> bodyweight in pounds * 12 is a good start. Then eat that many [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > counting works for everyone who seriously uses it, you're the only one > I've heard complaining about inaccurate numbers. [snip] I didn't feel like reading all that. Was that person arguing that Calorie counting is impossible or so difficult as to be impractical and thus possible only in principle? Can someone give me the executive summary on that because I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that. August Pamplona SignatureThe waterfall in Java is not wet. - omegazero2003 on m.f.w. a.a. # 1811 apatriot #20 Eater of smut The address in this message's 'From' field, in accordance with individual.net's TOS, is real. However, almost all messages reaching this address are deleted without human intervention. In other words, if you e-mail me there, I will not receive your message. To make sure that e-mail messages actually reach me, make sure that my e-mail address is not hot. You wrote at 22:33:53 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004: > I didn't feel like reading all that. Was that person arguing that >Calorie counting is impossible or so difficult as to be impractical and >thus possible only in principle? Can someone give me the executive >summary on that because I can't believe anyone would seriously argue >that. The latter, I think. The point is that to count the precise amount of calories needed for your personal metabolism, you need to eat foods whose calorific value can be determined very precisely. While this is easy if you eat bought food, out of a packet, it is far less easy if you cook for yourself - you can estimate, certainly, but at best it will only be an estimate. SignatureAnnabel - "Mrs Redboots" 90/89/70kg >You wrote at 22:33:53 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >cook for yourself - you can estimate, certainly, but at best it will >only be an estimate. If you use a scale and don't cheat you can be very accurate in counting calories for home-prepared foods. Further, if you do the above in conjunction with a nutrition analysis website or software or even a logbook you can tweak your intake ratios very easily. I use Fitday and find it extremely helpful in tailoring my diets to whatever stage of training I'm in, i.e., cutting, bulking, etc. People who say that calorie counting doesn't work aren't doing it right or are cheating or both. Outside of crap fad diet books no one says that it's easy. It takes discipline and commitment for the long haul. And as an aside I'll add that every calorie requirement estimator I've ever seen has been way off. I'd start by knocking 500 off whatever number they give you and even at that it's a safe bet that it'll still be too high. Paul >Annabel - "Mrs Redboots" >90/89/70kg >>You wrote at 22:33:53 on Thu, 12 Aug 2004: >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >>Annabel - "Mrs Redboots" >>90/89/70kg I've lost 121 lbs. by counting calories. Did I count perfectly all the time? No, of course not. Did I do it well enough? Apparently. It's possible to be quite accurate with home-prepared foods by weighing ingredients. But it is some work, so I tended to do this the first few times I made a particular dish, and then assume future incarnations were the same. (I don't mean things with set recipes that should be exactly repeatable, but things like meatloaf or pot roast.) Packaged foods with nutrition labeling are, of course, a no-brainer. For restaurant meals, or meals in friends' homes, I just guessed. I also created database entries for dishes I order often (like an awesome seared tuna salad at a favorite restaurant) so I can just enter that dish each time I have it. (I use a rather sophisticated Excel spreadsheet -- DH and I are computer geeks -- but I'm sure one can do everything that's needed with Fitday.) I've never paid any attention to calorie requirement estimators. I think there's too much individual variation for them to be useful for everyone, anyway. I just picked a starting calorie goal per day and then adjusted based on whether it was giving me the desired results. I'm still doing it that way now that I've been in maintenance for a few months. (And am still working on getting it right -- have lost a bit more than I'd planned.) Chris 262/141/ (145-150) > If you use a scale and don't cheat you can be very accurate in counting > calories for home-prepared foods. I don't think so. You're assuming the values for the base components are accurate when they're not. Does your calorie table distinguish between a Golden apple and a Granny Smith? Does it make a difference between spring-summer beef (fed with thick grass, hence fatter) and winter beef (slimmer)? Does it list both American corn and traditionnal corn (less sugar)? Does it differenciate between African and Carribean bananas? If it doesn't, you can't claim to have much accuracy, you're just getting a rough estimate. Moreover, the calories per gram are themselves estimates, rounded to the nearest digit. A gram of protein is not 4 calories, it's 4.2. A gram of carbs is 3.74, not 4. Likewise, fat is 9.3 per gram. A lot of sources do not even take that into account, and that's almost a 10% margin of error already. Obviously, some people do not understand that. I mean, I see people posting their daily diet down to the single digit. That's a level of precision that is just impossible to get. > Further, if you do the above in > conjunction with a nutrition analysis website or software or even a logbook > you can tweak your intake ratios very easily. I use Fitday and find it > extremely helpful in tailoring my diets to whatever stage of training I'm > in, i.e., cutting, bulking, etc. This means you have to plan your meal in advance. It makes it hard to eat daily at the restaurant or at friends. It means weighting your food precisely. Otherwise, you will only have a very rough estimate of the calories you ate. Compared to the brain natural ability to count calories, it's a very very weak substitute. Your taste buds are able to distinguish sugar content down to the single calorie (like, sorting several tea cups per sugar content). Your brain has a four way feedback to adjust for your food intake (real-time estimation, 15 minutes mark during the meal, from meal to meal, from week to week). I would rather devote energy to restore proper function of that fantastic tool rather than waste it on trying to make a shaky substitute work. > People who say that calorie counting doesn't work aren't doing it right or > are cheating or both. Outside of crap fad diet books no one says that it's > easy. It takes discipline and commitment for the long haul. Calorie counting works to lose weight, because the deficit is high enough to absorb the lack of precision. If you burn 2400 calories a day and are trying to eat 1500, even a +30% error keeps you in deficit. So, it does work during that phase. The problem comes when you're tying to maintain weight. That 30% margin of error then becomes enormous. It does take more discipline and commitment to tune your own brain; there is no software to help you and you can't press F1 for help. But I still feel the reward is worth the extra troubles compared to calorie counting, in terms of results, stability and flexibility. > And as an aside I'll add that every calorie requirement estimator I've > ever seen has been way off. I'd start by knocking 500 off whatever number > they give you and even at that it's a safe bet that it'll still be too > high. That's precisely what I have been saying... As you have noticed, the whole process has a wide margin of error. The "correction" you're making doesn't correct that error, it just makes sure you always end up in deficit. That's fine for losing weight, but you can't count on it for maintaining. If you did any chemistry or physics, you know what to think of these experiments where you "just add/substract random number, and it works exactly as in the formula, so it's a success"... > I didn't feel like reading all that. Was that person arguing that > Calorie counting is impossible or so difficult as to be impractical and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > August Pamplona Actually, I have not found it to be difficult at all. I calculate the calories using my recipe program -- I happen to use Living Cookbook but I think that MasterCook and other popular programs also do this. The first time I make it, I measure it out so I know what a portion size is (total volume/# of portions). Then I put it in my food log. I eat at home at least 6 days out of 7. I lost weight, met my goal and I have been maintaining using a food and exercise log. So, call it impossible. Call it impractical. The fact of the matter is, it worked for me and I understand that it has worked for many others on this ng. P.S. removed cross posts Signaturejmk in NC What is the point? The Osmonds had weight problems cuz they all had big round heads? I saw that coming 25 years ago. Now..its an issue! They should have known. Jim "Sure they can; no one said it was easy. It's matter of choosing to eat less than the body burns and stick with it. There are no shortcuts." I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy. > I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't > overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy. Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately, it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity... That's where fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal. Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity... >> I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't >> overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >body to anorexic >proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity... I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that promotes obesity of any kind. If you think different you should provide an example. LV Lady Veteran - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- For every person with a spark of genius, there are a hundred more with ignition trouble. - -Unknown - ------------------------------- > I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that > promotes obesity of any kind. > > If you think different you should provide an example. I was not specifically talking about this newsgroup. It has, after all, a very limited impact on public opinion. But if you look at the whole fat-acceptance movement, put it through the media and look at the end result, what appears is what I described. The problem is that that end result is what shapes the opinion. This is quite unlike most of the fat-acceptance movement in France, which focusses most of its energy on medium obesity and overweight women and on investing the fat body with an healthy and sexy image. This seems to survive through the media a little better (though it does get distorted). But we have also gone slightly less far in the anorexic look, many actresses still have a little something left on their bones. Maybe it's just cultural. > Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will > just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately, > it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you > would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and > overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and > start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity... You could do that, or you could follow a diet that leads to low body-fat whilst maintaining muscle, which wouldn't lead to obesity but an even better body. W > That's where > fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole > range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal. I would agree, IF fat acceptance meant accepting slightly over-weight bodies of people in the process of weight loss. However fat acceptance in its current form seems to be promoting obesity and attacking any thought of weight-loss. Just look how the poster 'Lady Veteran' responds to diet tips posted in soc.support.fat-acceptance, you'd think that gas-chamber building tips had been posted to a Jewish newsgroup! In theory fat acceptance would be a good thing, promoting positive body image to help in the process of healthy weight loss, however it has ended up as something very sinister. > Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we > are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic > proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity... Or trolls like me who promote muscular bodies with low body-fat!!! I have mixed thoughts on fat acceptance. In my line of thinking, it is important to accept and appreciate your body at any size. When you value it, you will be in a better position to make better choices. Consider if you wake up every morning hating yourself because you are overweight. You end up with no self esteem and lack of confidence that you can do anything about it. By appreciating everything that is good about your body and striving to make it healthier, it makes more sense not to down the Oreos. Normal, healthy bodies come in all shapes and sizes. To be certain, fashion has always played a role in what is considered beautiful but even fashion changes. We no longer aspire to be the Kate Moss waif type of the 80's. Many of today's models and actresses are stronger and healthier than in the past two decades. When the goal is health and not vanity, body fat percentage is a key number. The incidence of multiple disease processes increases at an alarming rate with the percentage of body fat. I am just beginning maintenance after reaching my goal of 115 (I am 5'4"). Although my 'dieting' days are over, I am not going to abandon my way of eating. It works for me on multiple levels. I will not only maintain my level of exercise but now that have no more pounds to lose, I intend to build muscle to help maintain my loss. Am I listening to my body or am I trying to be magazine thin? Let's see - chronic knee problems are gone. PMS not nearly as intense as before. I sleep better. I have more energy. I no longer crave sugar or get sleepy two hours after lunch. I enjoy my food and feel good about it - never deprived. My allergies are lessened but I have not been able to figure that one out. My blood pressure was to the point that I had to take medicine. Now it is hanging in the 90's and 100's over 60's. At one point, it was 177/120 earlier in the year. After getting past the crisis point it stayed in the 140 range over 90 to 100. My fasting blood sugar has gone from 109 to 87 and I would like to see that lower still. I am playing really good tennis and having fun with it. Am I magazine thin? Of course not. Will I ever have a perfect body? I think not. Am I satisfied with my body? Absolutely. The point is that when you choose foods and activities to promote health and not vanity, Just my two cents worth. j > > Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will > > just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Or trolls like me who promote muscular bodies with low body-fat!!! > I have mixed thoughts on fat acceptance. In my line of thinking, it is > important to accept and appreciate your body at any size. When you value [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about it. By appreciating everything that is good about your body and > striving to make it healthier, it makes more sense not to down the Oreos. Yes, being happy is one ingredient in leading a healthier lifestyle. When you're happy, you're more likely to want to eat in a disciplined way and to exercise. When you're miserable you don't feel like exercising and just want to eat nice food. > I am just beginning maintenance after reaching my goal of 115 (I am 5'4"). > Although my 'dieting' days are over, I am not going to abandon my way of > eating. It works for me on multiple levels. I will not only maintain my > level of exercise but now that have no more pounds to lose, I intend to > build muscle to help maintain my loss. That is a good idea. > > Obesity is a self induced condition. Your corollary would be accurate > > only if someone suffered a broken leg because they repeatedly hit their [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Either we have to admit that a bunch of people at once have decided to start > a new fashion and go obese. I think that you are making a certain amount of sense with your post here. However: I doubt that very many people have ever paid much attention to what various experts have said about diet. Eating "low fat" probably is a bad idea for lots of people but the consumption of fatty foods has never been low in this country. The idea that dieting changes a persons metabolism is a myth that getys repeated and shot down nearly weekly. The typical "diet" does not work well but major lifestyle changes work fine. Just join the Army and find out how many fat people you see. The main factor, in my opinion, is the steady reduction in daily activity levels until a threshold is reached where appetite is no longer an accurate guide to food requirements. Appetite is not designed to cope with needing only 1500cal day for steady weight. Burn 3-4000 a day and things will work better. In that case, that is indeed their own > responsability. Or a deep sociological change has happened, that has caused > a rise in obesity. In that case, obese people only have partial [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > even fatter. Who is responsible then? The obeses who genuinely attempted to > lose weight? Or the experts who advised them? Who cares? It is your body. What possible difference could it make who might conceivably be blamed for people being fat? That is just words. The thing that works is doubling/tripling ones energy burn. > Same with the FDA approved "light" products. Studies after studies have > shown that they have no weight loss effect at all. Worse, they actually [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > will be their fault I guess. I mean, it's not like everyone forced them into > joining that war... They should have known it was doomed to failure... > I doubt that very many people have ever paid much attention to what > various experts have said about diet. Eating "low fat" probably is a > bad idea for lots of people but the consumption of fatty foods has > never been low in this country. Fat consumption in the USA is at its lowest nowadays. It's actually lower than in France now. So, obviously, a majority of Americans have been listening. In the meantime, obesity has kept going up. At least, we have a countrysized experiment proving that obesity is not related to the amount of fat we eat. > The idea that dieting changes a persons metabolism is a myth that > getys repeated and shot down nearly weekly. I don't see how this could be a myth. Starving does change your metabolism, and some diets put you very close to starving - but true, it's only a short term change (which will nevertheless allow you to make a very nice rebound right after the diet). But merely losing lean mass also change your metabolism, for obvious reasons, and many diets make you lose as much lean mass as fat mass. Even the best designed diets will lead to *some* loss of lean mass. You also have a purely mechanical effect : you use more energy to haul around an overweight body than to move a slim one. Energy needs go down with dieting. However, I think the metabolism effect of diet is actually the least of the worries. Diets make long lasting psychological changes and deeply alter your relationship with food. And these pave the way for weight gain. > The typical "diet" does not work well but major lifestyle changes > work fine. Just join the Army and find out how many fat people you > see. If 30% of the country joins the army, you're going to have a problem :D I spent 10 months in the army. I put on 20lbs during that time, thanks to unlimited French fries portions and depression from being surrounded by so many idiots. Lack of activity didn't help either, spending hours waiting or spending straight yelling the national hymn doesn't burn a lot of calories. For me, it was not a good dieting experience. I'm sure there are also plenty of fat people in the US army. Remember, not all soldiers are Marines. A majority are just doing office work, guarding a stupid base noone will ever invade or doing all kind of low level activity. It's like saying you can't find a fat cop... Right... Lifestyle changes can indeed be the solution. However, I'm afraid the kind of changes you're thinking about would not work very well on a large scale. > The main factor, in my opinion, is the steady reduction in daily > activity levels until a threshold is reached where appetite is no > longer an accurate guide to food requirements. Appetite is not > designed to cope with needing only 1500cal day for steady weight. Burn > 3-4000 a day and things will work better. Yet, many people are successful at staying slim on that 1500 calories budget. You can also gain weight even while burning a lot of calories. True, that will avoid extremes. You should get rid of super-obesity with this kind of regimen. But you will still have obese people. There are fat furniture movers. Yes, they're strong obese, and they're probably healthier, but they're still obese. Besides, the problem with that is that at some point, people will not be able to burn these 4000 calories a day anymore. Maybe they will get moved to an office job. Or they will break a leg and have to rest. Or they will just become old. That's what happens to many professional sportsmen. They're very slim (not because they exercise a lot mind you, but because they're on a very strict diet) until they retire. Then, they inflate in a matter of months. They also tend to develop a truckload of health problems at a frightening pace : diabete, liver illnesses, dyslipidemia, joint problems... Normal people are able to cope with extreme variations of caloric needs. My father works a very irregular job - acting. Sometimes he will work 14 hours a day for weeks, carrying heavy stuff or people around, and during these times, he is well over the 4000 calories mark. But at other times, he will not work at all, for weeks, and then he is on low activity level. Worst, he often suffers from torn muscles or tendinitis (getting old, building too much muscle without stretching...) which means he barely moves until it is healed. Yet, he keeps a pretty constant weight all the time. And he never watches what he eats, I have never ever seen him on a diet. Actually, pretty much everyone in his line of work has a stable weight, despite wide variations of the caloric needs. > Who cares? It is your body. What possible difference could it make > who might conceivably be blamed for people being fat? That is just > words. It matters when we start talking about issues like health care and who should pay. Some Americans seem to think health care should not pay for self inflicted diseases. Personnally, I don't mind paying, but since the issue was raised here... It also matters if you want to solve the obesity epidemia. If we're unable to understand its roots, I doubt we will ever solve it. > The thing that works is doubling/tripling ones energy burn. Let's assume you actually manage to triple the energy burn of 30% of the American population. Including those who spend 12 hours a day in an office. Then, healthcare will have to cover for the cost of turn muscles, bursted articulations and heart attack. New year sportsmen go through an incredible amount of injuries... Besides, tripling your energy burn does not help if you also triple your intake. You're only shifting the problem. If the underlying problems that caused people to over-eat is still there, it is likely they will continue to over-eat. Actually, if the underlying mecanism that made people drop off their diet is not fixed, it's likely that they will drop of the exercise program as often as they dropped off the diet. Then, you will have to face the ex-sportsman problems compounded with the obese problems. > > I doubt that very many people have ever paid much attention to what > > various experts have said about diet. Eating "low fat" probably is a > > bad idea for lots of people but the consumption of fatty foods has > > never been low in this country. > > Fat consumption in the USA is at its lowest nowadays. According to who? Do you mean that Americans no longer feast on burgers, fries, steaks, donuts etc, and are sticking to low-fat alternatives? Somehow I think not. > right after the diet). But merely losing lean mass also change your > metabolism, for obvious reasons, and many diets make you lose as much lean > mass as fat mass. Even the best designed diets will lead to *some* loss of > lean mass. Not all of them, although it is a difficult feat to accomplish. > > The typical "diet" does not work well but major lifestyle changes > > work fine. Just join the Army and find out how many fat people you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > unlimited French fries portions and depression from being surrounded by so > many idiots. I think that's more to do with your particular army. A correctly run army would not have obesity or recruits given unlimited access to the local chippy. >>I doubt that very many people have ever paid much attention to what >>various experts have said about diet. Eating "low fat" probably is a >>bad idea for lots of people but the consumption of fatty foods has >>never been low in this country. > > Fat consumption in the USA is at its lowest nowadays. Where do you get your facts on this? Americans consumed 73 grams of fat per day in 1994 versus 72 grams of fat in 1990 and while the percent of fat is lower, the total amount of fat consumed per day is greater because the total calories are higher so in reality, the number of fat grams consumed per day continued to rise at least until 1994. Signaturejmk in NC >>> I doubt that very many people have ever paid much attention to what >>> various experts have said about diet. Eating "low fat" probably is a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > because the total calories are higher so in reality, the number of fat > grams consumed per day continued to rise at least until 1994. Actually, where does anyone get this info? They didn't ask me (who was on low fat for 20 years and ate lower then 10% fat by calories per day for many years). Now, I'm on low carb and eat way, way more fat than I did before. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply >>>> I doubt that very many people have ever paid much attention to what >>>> various experts have said about diet. Eating "low fat" probably is a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > for many years). Now, I'm on low carb and eat way, way more fat than I > did before. I got mine from USDA. See their site for a comprehensive explanation of their data collection methods. Signaturejmk in NC >>>>> I doubt that very many people have ever paid much attention to what >>>>> various experts have said about diet. Eating "low fat" probably is a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I got mine from USDA. See their site for a comprehensive explanation of > their data collection methods. Thanks. SignatureBob in CT Remove ".x" to reply > > Obesity is a self induced condition. Your corollary would be accurate > > only if someone suffered a broken leg because they repeatedly hit their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > yourself to too many pollutants or something), legs don't break on their > own. No, they get broken in accidents also. Obesity is not an accident. You don't accidenly slip at the dinner table and gain 50kg. It's a long-term thing. > > People don't just "Get Obese". They make themselves so. > > So, you think people who made themselves obese when they were two years old > are responsible for their condition? No, that's their parents fault, and the parents should pay for it, then they should be horse-whipped for child-torture. > You think that people who have a deficient thyroid are responsible for their > own thyroid? Those are the exceptions that prove the rule. The majority of obese people are obese from their own doing, and those are the ones who should have to pay for things themselves. > What about the responsability of the school cafetarias which feed junk food > to the kids? It's probably the kids responsability, they should seek a job > and cook their own food... Who said anything about that? We are discussing obese adults with no medical conditions, i.e. the majority of obesity. When a child is obese the parents and schools are responsible. Personally I think schools should be banned from feeding kids junk food and that there should be an obligatory 2 hours exercise a day, but that's another matter. > the government and their doctor. The best way to become a super-obese is > through yo-yo dieting after all. The best way to become super-obese is to live off a high-calorie diet and remain immobile. I don't know of anyone who got obese from greens and lean meats. > obesity by merely being healthy overweights and starting a diet. > What about improper city planning that leaves plenty of areas with *only* > junk food available? I can't think of any areas in which healthy food is not available. Although if you live in a place like that perhaps you should live somewhere decent. > There is a reality : obesity on such a scale just didn't exist a mere > century ago. Or even twenty years ago. So, something must have happened. People started eating more and exercising less. You can list all the factors in the world but those two are the ones that caused it in the end. > Besides, once obese, losing weight is not that easy for most people. It would be, if they planned a decent sensible diet and stuck to it. The awful, non-PC truth is though, most fat people are fat because they don't want to think about the nutrition of the food they're eating. They like to eat large quantities of the tastiest food and to do as little hard work as possible. If they do change their diet, they want something quick, like a grapefruit-diet or something that'll last 2 days, then they can say that they tried to lose weight and it didn't work, so they must be genetically programmed to be fat, it's not their fault. They don't want to put in the long-term commitment to healthy eating and regular hard exercise needed to lose weight healthily and steadily. > > the case of medicare. If is your responsibility of what you put in > > your mouth, so love yourself but pay for it yourself. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > - Got some old age condition? Well, you're probably too old, it's your > responsability for wanting to live so old... That is illogical, as not all of those conditions are self-induced. If someone smashed their own leg in then they are responsible for it, not if it's in a car crash. No-one is responsible for their own genetics, that's just a ridiculous comparison, I don't think you're taking this discussion very seriously. >Quoting Marie Osmond: "And I don't know anything worse than being >puffy and fat. " > >Ain't that the truth! There's NOTHING acceptable about being fat. There is nothing acceptable about being an idiot for sure. Do you hold the record? LV Lady Veteran - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- For every person with a spark of genius, there are a hundred more with ignition trouble. - -Unknown - ------------------------------- Boy, I do, How about having interstitial cystitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lichen solicos, and severe allergies! I have lost 60 pounds on WW but I would trade it all back just to not have so many health issues!! There are a lot worse things then being over weight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Becky > Quoting Marie Osmond: "And I don't know anything worse than being puffy and > fat. " > > Ain't that the truth! There's NOTHING acceptable about being fat. Becky generously shared with us this little ditty: > Boy, I do, > How about having interstitial cystitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> Ain't that the truth! There's NOTHING acceptable about being fat. I believe the lady knows this, as she is deeply involved in the children's miracle network. She was probably being flippant. Signaturerevek ''It's not an information superhighway. It's a maze of twisty little passages, all different, inhabited by MUD players.'' -- JQ Johnson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.