can't help being fat
Comments
-
There is a famous old saying that my Granddad once told me that was rather politically incorrect, but went along the lines of no-one fat ever coming out of one of the famous world war 2 prison camps.. I also subscribe to the calories in and calories out view. The problem is that some people naturally burn fewer calories, which could be for any number of reasons. It just means that they have to watch what they eat far more carefully than those who are calorie burning machines.0
-
Calories in/out is of course correct But you have to take into consideration how fast a person burns the afore mentioned calories. There's a guy in my office who admits that he almost only ever eats Nandos and McDonalds, he has had a McD's every lunchtime for weeks!!!. This guy does no exercise and is stick thin!!!0
-
the argument of simple energy balance of consumption vs expenditure is not entirely the case. The average daily calorific intake has dropped in the UK over the last 15 years, but we are becoming more obese. Obesity in China is extremely rare, but they consume on average 2630Kcals per day compared to the 2360 of the Americans. UK on average is 2000Kcals.
What is important is the glycaemic index of the food you eat: if its high then a rush of sugar enters the blood stream which causes the body to produce large quantities of insulin, which converts sugars into fat. Ideally your blood sugar level should remain as constant as possible, thus avoiding sugar and insulin surges.0 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:What is important is the glycaemic index of the food you eat: if its high then a rush of sugar enters the blood stream which causes the body to produce large quantities of insulin, which converts sugars into fat. Ideally your blood sugar level should remain as constant as possible, thus avoiding sugar and insulin surges.
True. But even if all your intake is high GI food, a calorie deficit will still cause you to burn fat.
.0 -
RedAende wrote:HarryB wrote:Excuses, excuses, excuses.
Same old bolocks about genes, heavy bones, I put on weight just looking at food . . .
It's simple physics. Calories in against calories used.
exactly , sums it up.
Careful now.
A couple of months ago I suggested this in a debate on the CC forum and the lardies tried to hang me out to dry - they couldn't catch me though
0 -
At the risk of repeating myself :roll: .
The original topic was pointing to the government study which states that todays society makes it easier for people to get fat. Fact.
We all know that some people naturally carry more fat than others. Fact.
We also all know that (as has been mentioned) there were no fat Japanese prisoners of war. Fact.
So instead of using this topic to have a pop at fatties (I include myself in that group), what can society do about it?
Keep in mind that it is also fact that 95% of people who go on a diet fail and of the 5% who succeed 90% of them have put the weight back on (and usually more) within 5 years.
What we are trying to do in Western society is reverse thousands of years of genetic programming to feast just in case there is a famine, while creating an indolent society, forcing people to sit around all day.
Just a thought but to my mind you can trace it all back to the invention of the tv remote control
0 -
Diets are a problem in themselves...
for example the dieter is taking in 2500 per day and decides to reduce this to say 1500 they start to lose weight... good, the body gets used to that calorie intake and once the diet is finished they go back to 2000 a day... the weight comes back on. What people need to do is continual exercise to help burn off the calorie intake, which is the biggest challenge.
The government are already and have been for some promoting exercise and '5 a day'; stopping McFat advertising to kids... it is really boiling down to individual to take the fork out of their gob or choose to cook rather than ready meal. I feel the latter is more the problem as people can and have been becoming inherently lazy.Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
The morbidly obese make great television.Dan0
-
-
carlstone wrote:So instead of using this topic to have a pop at fatties (I include myself in that group), what can society do about it?
:
Why should society do anything?
Why can't individuals be responsible for their own self inflicted health problems?
There are enough people in this country with real problems beyond their own control that require help.
All the advice a person could need for staying healthy is freely available. It's nobodies fault but their own if they choose to ignore it or are too damn lazy to follow it.
.0 -
Well said Mr Desiato. Couldn't agree more.0
-
Hotblack Desiato wrote:carlstone wrote:So instead of using this topic to have a pop at fatties (I include myself in that group), what can society do about it?
:
Why should society do anything?
Why can't individuals be responsible for their own self inflicted health problems?
There are enough people in this country with real problems beyond their own control that require help.
All the advice a person could need for staying healthy is freely available. It's nobodies fault but their own if they choose to ignore it or are too damn lazy to follow it.
.
I agree 98% with this - I leave 2% for the few who have a genuine reason for their weight problem such as disability etc.0 -
Hotblack Desiato wrote:SteveR_100Milers wrote:What is important is the glycaemic index of the food you eat: if its high then a rush of sugar enters the blood stream which causes the body to produce large quantities of insulin, which converts sugars into fat. Ideally your blood sugar level should remain as constant as possible, thus avoiding sugar and insulin surges.
True. But even if all your intake is high GI food, a calorie deficit will still cause you to burn fat.
.
No not neccesarily, you will just feel hungrier in between eating.0 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:Hotblack Desiato wrote:SteveR_100Milers wrote:What is important is the glycaemic index of the food you eat: if its high then a rush of sugar enters the blood stream which causes the body to produce large quantities of insulin, which converts sugars into fat. Ideally your blood sugar level should remain as constant as possible, thus avoiding sugar and insulin surges.
True. But even if all your intake is high GI food, a calorie deficit will still cause you to burn fat.
.
No not neccesarily, you will just feel hungrier in between eating.
So if you use 2500 calories in a day and consume only 2000 calories, where does your body take the extra 500 calories from??
.0 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:the argument of simple energy balance of consumption vs expenditure is not entirely the case. The average daily calorific intake has dropped in the UK over the last 15 years, but we are becoming more obese. Obesity in China is extremely rare, but they consume on average 2630Kcals per day compared to the 2360 of the Americans. UK on average is 2000Kcals.
What is important is the glycaemic index of the food you eat: if its high then a rush of sugar enters the blood stream which causes the body to produce large quantities of insulin, which converts sugars into fat. Ideally your blood sugar level should remain as constant as possible, thus avoiding sugar and insulin surges.
Whilst we are consuming less calories on average we are doing significantly less physical activity and there's the difference. The chinese can consume more cals 'cos they do more walking, cycling, manual work etc. Same in the USA, same in the UK. How many are employed at a desk these days with compared with more physical work 30 to 40 years ago. Also how many more labour saving devices, how few people now walk to work etc. Also most homes are centrally heated so even less fat consumed in thermogenesis.
Food is more available, cheaper and often energy dense than ever before and we're moving around less. That's why we have become more obese in the developed world.
It's not so complicated.0 -
some things I'd like to add:
There are limited (for obvious reasons!) studies on prisoners denied food etc. that suggest that up to point the body does adapt its energy needs to less food.
The 'food on demand24/7' industry is BIG business and has been encouraged by governtment policies. This industry provides calorie dense food and drink, easy to consume and digest. Suggest closing these places one day a week and watch the sh*t hit the fan!
Total fat consumption has halved since the seventies 'scare' about heart disease. On average we now eat the equivalent of one hours brisk walk a day less (as fat) but now we have cars. The average car journey is less than 5km a day - about 300-500kcal a day in exercise terms - about a kg a month in weight gain.
Yes people are weak and lazy, they were in the 50's and 60 's too. What has changed is the food industry and the lack of daily gentle exercise.0 -
agree, this would cure a lot of fatness as people would be more inclinded/forced to think about the 3 square meals a day ethos, rather than just eating ALL day like poeple do.ut_och_cykla wrote:The 'food on demand24/7' industry is BIG business and has been encouraged by governtment policies. This industry provides calorie dense food and drink, easy to consume and digest. Suggest closing these places one day a week and watch the sh*t hit the fan!0 -
But what happens when overweight people outnumber thin people, then the thin people aren't "normal". Maybe then thin people will be laughed at on TV programmes and be the objects of humour!! I say let people eat what they want, drink what they want, take what drugs they want. As long as they aren't stealing, raping, harming anybody else, then I don't see what the problem is.0
-
Why should society do anything?
Why can't individuals be responsible for their own self inflicted health problems?
Because it will soon be costing society (i.e. you and me and the 'fatties') £46 billion per year.
I agree that individuals should be responsible for their own self inflicted health prolems, unfortunatley 'society' over the last 30 years has given people the impression that it is always someone elses fault and it deserves help. We do live in the 'nanny state' after all.There are enough people in this country with real problems beyond their own control that require help.
Obesity reaching epedemic levels, killing off the next generation at an earlier age than their parents, costing £46 billion, etc. is not a 'real problem' ? What are the 'real problems' please feel free to itemise.All the advice a person could need for staying healthy is freely available. It's nobodies fault but their own if they choose to ignore it or are too damn lazy to follow it.
I agree, but as I stated in an earlier post there needs to be a new approach as all the advice in the world will not stop the 30 stone (or 15 stone) obese man from shoving that pie in his cake hole.
Just a thought, what about putting pictures (like on cigarette packets) of cancerous hearts and colons on food packaging containing products with high levels of saturated fat in them/crisps/chocolate etc. I'm sure that would put a lot of people off.0 -
What does it matter if you aren't "normal". What even IS "normal" anyway? No-one's normal, everyone's different.Eat My Dust wrote:But what happens when overweight people outnumber thin people, then the thin people aren't "normal". Maybe then thin people will be laughed at on TV programmes and be the objects of humour!! I say let people eat what they want, drink what they want, take what drugs they want. As long as they aren't stealing, raping, harming anybody else, then I don't see what the problem is.
It doesn't really matter if you're fat as long as you're happy with yourself and it isn't causing you health issues e.g. cholestorol. Let's not forget that there are a lot of people that would probably be described as 'a bit on the podgy side' but who are just as healthy in terms of heart function, blood pressure, etc as 'slim' people. Just because you've got more than a 34" waist doesn't mean you're automatically a "burden on the NHS".0 -
formerlyknownasbonj wrote:
What does it matter if you aren't "normal". What even IS "normal" anyway? No-one's normal, everyone's different.Eat My Dust wrote:But what happens when overweight people outnumber thin people, then the thin people aren't "normal". Maybe then thin people will be laughed at on TV programmes and be the objects of humour!! I say let people eat what they want, drink what they want, take what drugs they want. As long as they aren't stealing, raping, harming anybody else, then I don't see what the problem is.
It doesn't really matter if you're fat as long as you're happy with yourself and it isn't causing you health issues e.g. cholestorol. Let's not forget that there are a lot of people that would probably be described as 'a bit on the podgy side' but who are just as healthy in terms of heart function, blood pressure, etc as 'slim' people. Just because you've got more than a 34" waist doesn't mean you're automatically a "burden on the NHS".
I completely agree, that's why i put normal in " ". They way some people are harping on in this thread, you'd think fat people touch children!!0 -
Fab Foodie wrote:
Whilst we are consuming less calories on average we are doing significantly less physical activity and there's the difference. The chinese can consume more cals 'cos they do more walking, cycling, manual work etc. Same in the USA, same in the UK. How many are employed at a desk these days with compared with more physical work 30 to 40 years ago. Also how many more labour saving devices, how few people now walk to work etc. Also most homes are centrally heated so even less fat consumed in thermogenesis.
Food is more available, cheaper and often energy dense than ever before and we're moving around less. That's why we have become more obese in the developed world.
It's not so complicated.
Agree with that, the point that (Holford) makes is that independantly of activity, although the calorific value of some foods are higher than others, because of the way they are metabolised the net energy is different. I of course understand the simple thermodynamic argument of energy balance, but I asked the same question of my GP when talking about blood lipids which I havew a problem with, and supplements and diet etc. A nutrionist will always tell you so long as you use more than you put in you will lose fat. A GP will tell you its not quite so clear cut (after all we can metabolise protein for burning as fuel). In my own personal experience, I consume about 2/3 of the calories at age 41 than I did age 23. My expenditure has been roughly the same measured by the number of hours and intensity of exercise. My weight at 23 was 13st, with little visible body fat. My weight at 41 is 15st, with obvious signs excess body fat. My core body temps dont appear to have changed (I dont suddenly suffer from cold extremeties for example), so my thermo-metabolic rate (ugh sorry) does not appear to have changed. The simple thermodynamic equation of energy balance does not explain that (and nor could the nutritionist other than "its your age...") satisfactorily to me.0 -
SteveR_100Milers wrote:Fab Foodie wrote:
Whilst we are consuming less calories on average we are doing significantly less physical activity and there's the difference. The chinese can consume more cals 'cos they do more walking, cycling, manual work etc. Same in the USA, same in the UK. How many are employed at a desk these days with compared with more physical work 30 to 40 years ago. Also how many more labour saving devices, how few people now walk to work etc. Also most homes are centrally heated so even less fat consumed in thermogenesis.
Food is more available, cheaper and often energy dense than ever before and we're moving around less. That's why we have become more obese in the developed world.
It's not so complicated.
Agree with that, the point that (Holford) makes is that independantly of activity, although the calorific value of some foods are higher than others, because of the way they are metabolised the net energy is different. I of course understand the simple thermodynamic argument of energy balance, but I asked the same question of my GP when talking about blood lipids which I havew a problem with, and supplements and diet etc. A nutrionist will always tell you so long as you use more than you put in you will lose fat. A GP will tell you its not quite so clear cut (after all we can metabolise protein for burning as fuel). In my own personal experience, I consume about 2/3 of the calories at age 41 than I did age 23. My expenditure has been roughly the same measured by the number of hours and intensity of exercise. My weight at 23 was 13st, with little visible body fat. My weight at 41 is 15st, with obvious signs excess body fat. My core body temps dont appear to have changed (I dont suddenly suffer from cold extremeties for example), so my thermo-metabolic rate (ugh sorry) does not appear to have changed. The simple thermodynamic equation of energy balance does not explain that (and nor could the nutritionist other than "its your age...") satisfactorily to me.
YEs it is your age - partly. As testosterone level decreases you lose muscle which 'burns' more energy , even at rest, than fat does. AND
A 1,5 pound a year gain isn't much - about 25 kcals a day too many - two teaspoons of sugar a day, less than 10 minutes walk aday in broad terms. So little you don't think about it - between the pizza and the pie its nothing... but it all counts if its more than you need!
(and don't I know it)0 -
Eat My Dust wrote:
but the BMI is crapPurveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Eat My Dust wrote:I completely agree, that's why i put normal in " ". They way some people are harping on in this thread, you'd think fat people touch children!!
they probably do, there's no actual proof, but it's scientific fact!!!! Purveyor of sonic doom
Very Hairy Roadie - FCN 4
Fixed Pista- FCN 5
Beared Bromptonite - FCN 140 -
Eat My Dust wrote:I completely agree, that's why i put normal in " ". They way some people are harping on in this thread, you'd think fat people touch children!!
I think you'll find that most pf the people 'harping on' don't care how fat anyone is. It's people blaming their condition on genes, fast food companies and society as a whole that gets our back up.
I agree that the availability of cheap high calorie, low nutrition food is greater than ever, but the choice of what you shove in your mouth is yours and yours alone.
Likewise the blame game for lack of exercise. The 'too busy' line just does not work. There are very few people in this this country who could not fit 30mins of exercise into their day.
.0 -
carlstone wrote:There are enough people in this country with real problems beyond their own control that require help.
Obesity reaching epedemic levels, killing off the next generation at an earlier age than their parents, costing £46 billion, etc. is not a 'real problem' ? What are the 'real problems' please feel free to itemise.
.
How about my next door neighbour with leukemia?
Maybe the young child having spinal surgery today that we had to keep pumping blood. plasma and platelets into?
How may examples do you want??
Obesity for most people is a self inflicted condition that can be directly helped by the actions of the individual concerned.
.
.0 -
ut_och_cykla wrote:SteveR_100Milers wrote:Fab Foodie wrote:
Whilst we are consuming less calories on average we are doing significantly less physical activity and there's the difference. The chinese can consume more cals 'cos they do more walking, cycling, manual work etc. Same in the USA, same in the UK. How many are employed at a desk these days with compared with more physical work 30 to 40 years ago. Also how many more labour saving devices, how few people now walk to work etc. Also most homes are centrally heated so even less fat consumed in thermogenesis.
Food is more available, cheaper and often energy dense than ever before and we're moving around less. That's why we have become more obese in the developed world.
It's not so complicated.
Agree with that, the point that (Holford) makes is that independantly of activity, although the calorific value of some foods are higher than others, because of the way they are metabolised the net energy is different. I of course understand the simple thermodynamic argument of energy balance, but I asked the same question of my GP when talking about blood lipids which I havew a problem with, and supplements and diet etc. A nutrionist will always tell you so long as you use more than you put in you will lose fat. A GP will tell you its not quite so clear cut (after all we can metabolise protein for burning as fuel). In my own personal experience, I consume about 2/3 of the calories at age 41 than I did age 23. My expenditure has been roughly the same measured by the number of hours and intensity of exercise. My weight at 23 was 13st, with little visible body fat. My weight at 41 is 15st, with obvious signs excess body fat. My core body temps dont appear to have changed (I dont suddenly suffer from cold extremeties for example), so my thermo-metabolic rate (ugh sorry) does not appear to have changed. The simple thermodynamic equation of energy balance does not explain that (and nor could the nutritionist other than "its your age...") satisfactorily to me.
YEs it is your age - partly. As testosterone level decreases you lose muscle which 'burns' more energy , even at rest, than fat does. AND
A 1,5 pound a year gain isn't much - about 25 kcals a day too many - two teaspoons of sugar a day, less than 10 minutes walk aday in broad terms. So little you don't think about it - between the pizza and the pie its nothing... but it all counts if its more than you need!
(and don't I know it)
I'm kinda with ut_och_cycla (say Hi to Helsingborg for me). I've never heard any convincing argument against the simple energy balance. I still have a basic understanding of the Biochem pathways from my Degree days and IIRC it's not impossible for the normal balance to be shifted towards excess fat storage from Carbs or fat. Protien can also be used as a fuel but primarily in very low/no- carb conditions. Whilst this could be the case in a few people it does not explain the general obesity of the population.
There are a lot of smart scientists working on the problem and the fact that the best they can come up with is the eat-less/move more suggestion tells me that there isn't a better message or any more complex solutions. Those that think they have solved the problem usually have books or potions to sell. Time after time people do not realise (or don't want to admit) that every day they are consuming a little too much, not gluttony always, but a little too much daily.
I can at least admit that much...I think it's called Red Wine!0 -
How about my next door neighbour with leukemia?
Maybe the young child having spinal surgery today that we had to keep pumping blood. plasma and platelets into?
How may examples do you want??
Obesity for most people is a self inflicted condition that can be directly helped by the actions of the individual concerned.
Yes, and I think you will find that both of the above get help for their conditions and rightly so. Just imagine how much good could be done with the £46 billion saved if we helped overweight people get fit. As with smoking, drinking, drug abuse etc. 90% of overweight people do want to loose weight, we just need to come up with workable solutions.0 -
Just shoot the f@ckers (with an elephant gun) :idea:Dan0
