Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-13-2020, 11:55 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
I'm dubious of this, because exercise has little impact on a person's weight. A person's weight is primarily a function of diet, not exercise.
For the modern lifestyle, perhaps. But the lifestyle from hundreds or thousands of years ago? I think activity was a significant driver of weight back then. If everyone had to spend at least 2 hours of just walking every day (which is likely even less than how most of humanity got around until very recently), I bet that would add up to some significant weight loss over time.
  #52  
Old 02-13-2020, 11:55 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
Including something of a small rant: I absolutely despise the "body-positive community". I DO think everyone should love themselves and their bodies, and no one deserves ridicule or mockery based on how they look. I'm not for shaming fat people, but I'm also not for fat people saying, "Look, obesity can be perfectly healthy, and you're a racist bigot if you say otherwise!" (and yes, many of them DO accuse you of racism, because they think only black women disproportionately suffer from the 'fat gene' or whatever ). Point is, these people need to stop glorifying it. Your car isn't 'fat-shaming' you because your seatbelt doesn't fit. The airline isn't 'fat-shaming' you because you can't fit in a single seat. I don't like a privileged life because I'm a normal weight - I worked extremely hard to get to this point, and no longer suffer the obvious consequences of being obese.
I agree - and my gripe is that the body-positivity community now conflates legit health warnings of obesity with "fat-shaming." This would be like smokers pushing a "charred-lung-positivity" movement and saying, "Showing people photos of charred ashen smoker's lungs is smoker-shaming." Shaming isn't the issue, the outright health facts are.
  #53  
Old 02-13-2020, 12:16 PM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I agree - and my gripe is that the body-positivity community now conflates legit health warnings of obesity with "fat-shaming." This would be like smokers pushing a "charred-lung-positivity" movement and saying, "Showing people photos of charred ashen smoker's lungs is smoker-shaming." Shaming isn't the issue, the outright health facts are.
Excuse me, are you lung-shaming me??
  #54  
Old 02-13-2020, 02:43 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,317
I agree that there's no message that will help, but there are tactics that can help, and they do so not by trying to get our rational minds to agree that junk food is bad for us, but by working at the irrational parts of our minds.

For example, tracking your weight and seeing it go down can provide positive feedback that helps people lose weight, but looking at your weight every day can actually provide negative feedback. Because your weight fluctuates by several pounds a day usually, and our brains are bad at trends. Eat healthy one day and see your weight go up a bit, or gorge one day and see no real change, and you can easily get the wrong association in your mind.

The solution: a scale that doesn't tell you what your daily weight is, but does tell you the trend over time.

I have not been obese, but I have been overweight, and I found that a food/exercise tracking app made losing that weight much easier. I got a little bit of positive reinforcement each day that I met my goal. I had to take one extra step to actually record what I was eating, which sometimes led me to have a healthier snack, and sometimes led me to count out and eat, say, 15 chips with salsa rather than just pull them out of the bag mindlessly.

It's true that the pleasure of eating fat and sugar is deeply ingrained in our bodies, but the pleasure of the little dopamine hits of winning every day is also pretty deeply ingrained, and I think so far we've only scratched the surface of using the latter to combat the former.

Last edited by iamthewalrus(:3=; 02-13-2020 at 02:43 PM.
  #55  
Old 02-13-2020, 05:53 PM
FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant View Post
Why would we want to make obesity rates "plummet dramatically"?

Let's assume, to make it simple, that obesity shortens your life by 5 years, and that it is associated with higher morbidity while you are alive.

WRT individuals:

Every individual should be allowed to decide their own greatest good. If an individual enjoys eating and makes a choice that unrestricted eating is a greater good for them than is diminished morbidity and a longer life, should we not permit them to make that choice? Is it necessarily the case that a skinny guy who ate lettuce for 85 years had an overall richer existence than a fat guy who enjoyed delicious meals for 75 years? And why should anyone but the fat guy weigh in on that?

WRT society:

The least economic cost to society is a shortened life expectancy. The highest cost to society is delivering a super healthy guy into retirement. Thanks, fat people! We don't have to expend our public funds to keep you alive for very long after retirement. Your terminal events are going to cost the health system about the same (we all die of SOMETHING), and your morbidity costs during your lifetime were mostly born by private insurers (at least, in the US).
I used to think like this in my early 20s, but then I realized that society doesn’t work this way. What are you proposing, that we have some kind of scale where the more unhealthy someone’s lifestyle is, the more they pay for their medical care? That’s basically what this line of thinking leads to.
  #56  
Old 02-13-2020, 10:47 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I opened this thread expecting that the bump would be due to this New York Times article (paywall warning) about a new law in Chile requiring labeling on unhealthy food. It's had quite an impact on consumption of sugary sodas. See also this journal article.
Except that the problem isn't only sugary beverages, or 'foods high in salt, sugar, fat or calories', by any means. The real problem is ultra-processed foods, as the latest research has shown.

Brazil and France are now taking the approach of warning the public about the dangers of high consumption of ultra-processed foods.

Quote:
The French Ministry of Health has announced that it wants to reduce consumption of Nova 4 products by 20% over the next three years.
I expected at least some intelligent response to the article and research I quoted, but it seems that nobody has bothered to read it.
  #57  
Old 02-13-2020, 11:03 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
On the one hand, fat-shaming can make obesity worsen even more.

On the other hand, body positivity causes obese people to believe that they are not obese - additional source here.
....

So if being pro-fat or anti-fat both have the effect of increasing obesity........then just what can or should be done?


(Speaking of the Healthy at Every Size movement - do they truly believe healthy at every size? If 200 pounds, that's one thing, but how could anyone be healthy at 600?)
First of all, ditch the outdated and useless BMI.


BMI was a idea by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, in like 1850. Based upon a few hundred peasants, none of whom were over 6 feet tall, and were likely not all that well nourished. It was never meant to to used as a tool to get people to lose weight. It also doesnt differ between someone fat and someone who is into body building. BMI is useless and outdated.

In addition, not too long ago, due to pressure from the diet industry the WHO and USA changed the definitions to make more people scale in at fat and obese. So, not only useless but full of crap and commercialized. They changed the scales just to get you to buy more diet worthless crap.

For example -Lasha Talakhadze, weighing in at 372 lb won the Gold Medal in weightlifting. He's be considered obese, but he's a freaking Olympic Gold medalist. World record setter.

So yeah, you can be a athlete at 372 pounds but be fat and out of shape at 160.

600 is right out, yes.

The only way to tell if your weight is effecting your health is to get a physical. I am technically (under the new system) obese, but my doctor sez I am in great health, no blood pressure issues, etc. He sez if i lost a few pounds it'd be easier on my knees, and he's right.
  #58  
Old 02-13-2020, 11:47 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I opened this thread expecting that the bump would be due to this New York Times article (paywall warning) about a new law in Chile requiring labeling on unhealthy food. It's had quite an impact on consumption of sugary sodas. See also this journal article.
Except that the problem isn't only sugary beverages, or 'foods high in salt, sugar, fat or calories', by any means. The real problem is ultra-processed foods, as the latest research has shown.
I only mentioned sodas, but the changes in Chile also addressed processed foods.
  #59  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:01 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I only mentioned sodas, but the changes in Chile also addressed processed foods.
There are different categories of processed foods.


The Nova system classifies foods into 4 categories:

Nova 1 - Unprocessed or minimally processed foods
e.g.
Fresh vegetables and fruits
Chilled or frozen meat, fish, seafood.
Eggs
Milk, unsweetened yoghurt
Grains, nuts, legumes
Pasta, polenta

Nova 2 - Processed culinary ingredients
e.g.
Butter, lard
Sugar, molasses, honey
Vegetable oils
Salt

Nova 3 - Processed food
e.g.
Canned, pickled, or preserved foods
Salted, dried, smoked or cured meat or fish
Cheese
Fresh-baked bread
Beer, wine
(May include anti-oxidants, stabilisers, and preservatives.)

Nova 4 - Ultra-processed food
These are industrial formulations. Group 1 foods are a small proportion of, or are even absent from, ultra-processed products.

Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers, flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents, emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.

Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.

e.g
Carbonated drinks
Mass-produced packaged breads and buns
Poultry and fish 'nuggets' and 'sticks'
Commercial sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products
Powdered and packaged 'instant' soups, noodles and desserts.
Margarines and spreads
Ice-cream, chocolate, candies
Breakfast 'cereals'
'Energy' bars and drinks, 'fruit' yoghurts, 'fruit' drinks

The problem with Nova 4 foods is that they don't satisfy hunger in the same way as the other groups. So we end up eating far larger quantities of food, but we still feel a craving for more.

-> Hence obesity.
  #60  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:12 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
....

Nova 4 - Ultra-processed food
These are industrial formulations. Group 1 foods are a small proportion of, or are even absent from, ultra-processed products.

Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers, flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents, emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.

Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.

e.g
Carbonated drinks
Mass-produced packaged breads and buns
Poultry and fish 'nuggets' and 'sticks'
Commercial sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products
Powdered and packaged 'instant' soups, noodles and desserts.
Margarines and spreads
Ice-cream, chocolate, candies
Breakfast 'cereals'
'Energy' bars and drinks, 'fruit' yoghurts, 'fruit' drinks

The problem with Nova 4 foods is that they don't satisfy hunger in the same way as the other groups. So we end up eating far larger quantities of food, but we still feel a craving for more.

-> Hence obesity.
Good points, but-
Breakfast 'cereals'- some are pretty much just grain.

chocolate- cocoa & sugar.
  #61  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:50 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 2,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Good points, but-
Breakfast 'cereals'- some are pretty much just grain.

chocolate- cocoa & sugar.
Obviously, if a breakfast cereal is just home-cooked oat porridge or something like that, then it's group 1 - unprocessed or minimally processed. Froot-loops are group 4. It's easy to see the difference.

Just chocolate and sugar wouldn't be too bad. But if you find can a commercial chocolate bar that's just chocolate and sugar, I'd be very surprised. Usually they have a list of ingredients as long as your arm.
  #62  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:59 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,696
There's a method to obtain obstacle-jumping horses. Shoot every horse that fails the obstacle. Eventually, only agile jumpers are left.

A message can reduce obesity. Shoot everyone whose BMI exceeds 35 or whatever. Eventually only slimmer folks are left.

Yes, I know BMI is meant to compare populations, not individuals. That makes the message more potent. Drop weight or die, citizen.

But we're too humane for that. Thus the population of WalMart shoppers will continue growing. And growing.
  #63  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:14 AM
Hermitian's Avatar
Hermitian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
There's a method to obtain obstacle-jumping horses. Shoot every horse that fails the obstacle. Eventually, only agile jumpers are left.

A message can reduce obesity. Shoot everyone whose BMI exceeds 35 or whatever. Eventually only slimmer folks are left.

Yes, I know BMI is meant to compare populations, not individuals. That makes the message more potent. Drop weight or die, citizen.

But we're too humane for that. Thus the population of WalMart shoppers will continue growing. And growing.
Ya know, they say, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong morally questionable."
  #64  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:06 AM
Great Antibob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,509
Bullets cost too much money (Godwinning here, but this was the crux of the Third Reich's Final Solution - a cheaper solution to kill lots of people than shooting them).

Instead, get rid of the minimum wage. Once the poor no longer have enough money to afford even cheap, processed foods, they'll begin to starve, leading to a massive drop in BMI.
  #65  
Old 02-14-2020, 10:41 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,882
The problem of obesity is easily solved by mandating Physical Jerks and having egregious cases body-shamed over everyone's telescreens.
  #66  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:07 AM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
First of all, ditch the outdated and useless BMI.


BMI was a idea by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, in like 1850. Based upon a few hundred peasants, none of whom were over 6 feet tall, and were likely not all that well nourished. It was never meant to to used as a tool to get people to lose weight. It also doesnt differ between someone fat and someone who is into body building. BMI is useless and outdated.

In addition, not too long ago, due to pressure from the diet industry the WHO and USA changed the definitions to make more people scale in at fat and obese. So, not only useless but full of crap and commercialized. They changed the scales just to get you to buy more diet worthless crap.

For example -Lasha Talakhadze, weighing in at 372 lb won the Gold Medal in weightlifting. He's be considered obese, but he's a freaking Olympic Gold medalist. World record setter.

So yeah, you can be a athlete at 372 pounds but be fat and out of shape at 160.

600 is right out, yes.

The only way to tell if your weight is effecting your health is to get a physical. I am technically (under the new system) obese, but my doctor sez I am in great health, no blood pressure issues, etc. He sez if i lost a few pounds it'd be easier on my knees, and he's right.
That is incredibly backwards. I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter how old an idea is, so long as it's still correct. And BMI allows for a pretty large range, letting it account for things like water weight, bone density, etc. And it's not an indicator of too much fat - it's saying there's too much WEIGHT on your frame, enough so to be potentially dangerous. Doesn't matter if that weight is bone, muscle, fat or an over-abundance of brain matter.

And dude, weightlifters are infamous for not actually being healthy. There's a reason why they go through seasons, and aren't incredibly lean from year to year. Because it's not healthy, even though the common misconception is that it is. Olympic gold winners can absolutely be unhealthy. Ever hear of gymnasts losing their periods because they're underweight or too lean? Same idea.

Athlete =/= healthy.

Even The Rock is only sliiiightly in the 'overweight' territory. Being heavy enough to qualify as obese through muscle only is nigh impossible. And again, if you were, that'd still be pretty unhealthy.
  #67  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:14 AM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,600
In the 1950s, food was a third of the average household budget. People spent a large proportion of their income on groceries. In the 2010s, food is a third of the average household budget. Since the price of food has plummeted since the 1950s, we spend a small portion of that third of our income on groceries, and a large portion of it on prepared food at restaurants. We also spend a much larger percent of our food budget on highly processed foods.

But the key, in my mind, is that we just eat more. Why do we eat more? Because the price of food has plummeted. I mean, it's Econ 101. When price goes down, quantity demanded goes up. People demand more food because it's cheaper, and they get it, and they mostly consume it.

Want people to weigh as little as they did in the 1950s? Raise the price of food by a lot, so that in real terms it is as expensive as it was then. Now, I'm no fan of price controls, but I suspect there are other ways of raising the price of food. Eliminating farm subsidies, for one. The government buying large quantities of nonperishable food to store in case of war or famine would also raise the price of the remaining food. There's also straight up taxation, I guess, but that's basically price control by another name.
  #68  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:17 AM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,846
An athlete who is overweight is gaining many health benefits from the exercise itself that can balance out the negative effects of the extra weight. The metabolic and cardiovascular improvements may mean that an overweight athlete is healthier than a skinny sedentary person. But regardless, the athlete angle for BMI being worthless is really a distraction. Many people who are overweight are also sedentary, so they get the double-wammy of health risks together. Addressing either or both issues will make a person healthier.

And I agree that even muscular athletes will typically not be obese on the BMI scale because of extra muscles. Those super-muscular athletes are in very specialized activities. Most normal people will not be packing on enough muscle through their weekly exercise to pack on enough muscles for that to make them obese on the BMI scale.

If someone had reason to believe their BMI ranking was incorrect, they should get a body fat test. That would be a better indicator for what might be considered extra weight they are carrying around. But for most typical people, if they are high on the BMI scale, they are going to be high on the body fat scale as well.

Last edited by filmore; 02-14-2020 at 11:19 AM.
  #69  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:45 PM
Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,319
I am told over and over, "Your lifespan will increase by an average of five years if you change your lifestyle completely by cooking only the healthiest food (and cleaning up after that as well), and including lots of daily exercise. Think of it, five extra years!"


It's worth noting that my response is usually, "Well gee, those five years will probably be in the shittiest phase of my life as I will be presumably quite elderly. Both of my parents were incapable of living unassisted in the last five years of their lives. Why go through all that unwanted rigamarole of healthy food and exercise just to get to a situation I probably wouldn't like anyway?"

Last edited by Two Many Cats; 02-14-2020 at 12:46 PM.
  #70  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:48 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
Obviously, if a breakfast cereal is just home-cooked oat porridge or something like that, then it's group 1 - unprocessed or minimally processed. Froot-loops are group 4. It's easy to see the difference.

Just chocolate and sugar wouldn't be too bad. But if you find can a commercial chocolate bar that's just chocolate and sugar, I'd be very surprised. Usually they have a list of ingredients as long as your arm.


https://www.valrhona-chocolate.com/v...-70-stick.html
Valrhona Dark GUANAJA 70% Stick

Ingredients:

Cocoa Beans
Sugar
Cocoa Butter
Emulsifier (Soy Lecithin)
Natural Vanilla Extract


Many gourmet chocolates are like that.

Kashi Nugget:
INGREDIENTS: Whole Wheat Flour, Kashi Seven Grain and Sesame, Flour (Stone Ground Whole: Oats, Hard Red Winter Wheat, Rye, Long Grain Brown Rice, Triticale, Buckwheat, Barley, Sesame Seeds), Malted Barley, Sesame Seeds), Malted Barley, Salt, Yeast, Mixed Tocopherols (Natural Vitamin E) for Freshness.
  #71  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:49 PM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 431
I don't really understand the references some people will make to bodybuilders like The Rock when they try to argue how fit obese people can be (yes, I know I'm the one who brought up The Rock here, but I do hear him brought up a LOT in the body-positive community, which is why I used him as an example above).

Them: "But The Rock is technically overweight by BMI standards, which means BMI is sexist and outdated and you can't tell someone's health just by looking at them, yadda yadda..."

Me: "Okay, so are you The Rock? No? Shut up and sit down."

Sorry, I just absolutely lose my patience with anyone preaching that obesity causes no harm, doctors are evil and hate fat people, anyone trying to lose weight is "fatphobic" and starving themselves, etc etc.
  #72  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:55 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
In the 1950s, food was a third of the average household budget. People spent a large proportion of their income on groceries. In the 2010s, food is a third of the average household budget. Since the price of food has plummeted since the 1950s, we spend a small portion of that third of our income on groceries, and a large portion of it on prepared food at restaurants. We also spend a much larger percent of our food budget on highly processed foods.

But the key, in my mind, is that we just eat more. Why do we eat more? Because the price of food has plummeted. I mean, it's Econ 101. When price goes down, quantity demanded goes up. People demand more food because it's cheaper, and they get it, and they mostly consume it.

Want people to weigh as little as they did in the 1950s? Raise the price of food by a lot, so that in real terms it is as expensive as it was then. Now, I'm no fan of price controls, but I suspect there are other ways of raising the price of food. Eliminating farm subsidies, for one. The government buying large quantities of nonperishable food to store in case of war or famine would also raise the price of the remaining food. There's also straight up taxation, I guess, but that's basically price control by another name.
There's this subtle thing you may have heard of, called "hunger". It's when the tummy goes rumbly. It has a flipside called "satiety", when the tummy no go rumbly.

It doesn't matter how cheap food is, satiety will stop you from eating more. Have somebody give you fifty free loaves of wheat bread and try to eat them all in a sitting, you'll see what I mean. So before we can be convinced to spend our life savings on cheap food something else has to happen first: foods that don't trigger satiety. Which was deliberately designed. It's not a bug, it's a feature, and it's an aspect of most or all "ultra-processed" foods.

If you want to get food that will actually fill you up, you have to pay more. So the food industry gets your money either way, and if you aren't rich then your food is very literally trying to get you to overeat and get fat.
  #73  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
That is incredibly backwards. I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter how old an idea is, so long as it's still correct. ...

Even The Rock is only sliiiightly in the 'overweight' territory. Being heavy enough to qualify as obese through muscle only is nigh impossible. And again, if you were, that'd still be pretty unhealthy.
BMI was never, ever a "good idea' for healthy weight. It wasnt designed for ti, and today it's even worse, having been changed by the diet industry so they can make more $$.


https://europepmc.org/article/med/15615272
Abstract
--The Body Mass Index (BMI) is used as a measure of overweight and obesity. In epidemiological studies age, sex and ethnic background all have to be taken into consideration, particularly when determining the health risk caused by the amount of body fat. --Caution should be observed when using the BMI as a measure for interpreting overweight and obesity as body composition can be highly variable yet have the same BMI. Therefore, BMI is not a reliable measurement of body composition in individuals particularly in older and younger people. --Excess body fat in the visceral depot poses a separate health risk. The BMI does not give any insight into regional body fat distribution. Waist circumference is a valid index of visceral fat accumulation and can therefore be used as an indicator of health risks associated with visceral obesity.


https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/3/379/4690122
Waist circumference and not body mass index explains obesity-related health risk

https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo201617
Misclassification of cardiometabolic health when using body mass index categories in NHANES 2005–2012

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/...i-201603309339
Should we stop giving so much “weight” to BMI?
That’s exactly what’s being asked in the discussion generated by a new study. For this study, researchers looked at how good the BMI was as a single measure of cardiovascular health and found that it wasn’t very good at all:

Nearly half of those considered overweight by BMI had a healthy “cardiometabolic profile,” including a normal blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar.
About a third of people with normal BMI measures had an unhealthy cardiometabolic profile.
The authors bemoaned the “inaccuracy” of the BMI. They claim it translates into mislabeling millions of people as unhealthy and also overlooking millions of others who are actually unhealthy, but are considered “healthy” by BMI alone.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ure-of-health/
BMI Is A Terrible Measure Of Health
But we keep using it anyway...Taken alone as an indicator of health, the BMI is misleading. A study by researchers at UCLA published this month in the International Journal of Obesity looked at 40,420 adults in the most recent U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and assessed their health as measured by six accepted metrics, including blood pressure, cholesterol and C-reactive protein (a gauge of inflammation). It found that 47 percent of people classified as overweight by BMI and 29 percent of those who qualified as obese were healthy as measured by at least five of those other metrics. Meanwhile, 31 percent of normal-weight people were unhealthy by two or more of the same measures.2 Using BMI alone as a measure of health would misclassify almost 75 million adults in the U.S., the authors concluded.


https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265215
Why BMI is inaccurate and misleading
BMI (body mass index), which is based on the height and weight of a person, is an inaccurate measure of body fat content and does not take into account muscle mass, bone density, overall body composition, and racial and sex differences, say researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.

Every few months the same comment is made by experts “BMI is flawed”. The news hits the headlines, everybody agrees, and then all goes quiet for a while.
  #74  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:04 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Two Many Cats View Post
I am told over and over, "Your lifespan will increase by an average of five years if you change your lifestyle completely by cooking only the healthiest food (and cleaning up after that as well), and including lots of daily exercise. Think of it, five extra years!"


It's worth noting that my response is usually, "Well gee, those five years will probably be in the shittiest phase of my life as I will be presumably quite elderly. Both of my parents were incapable of living unassisted in the last five years of their lives. Why go through all that unwanted rigamarole of healthy food and exercise just to get to a situation I probably wouldn't like anyway?"
AIUI, it's not just a matter of lengthened lifespan, but quality of life.

Suppose you're 40 now. If you live a sedentary unhealthy lifestyle, you may live just 30 more years, of low-quality, joint-aching, slow-moving, sciaticatic, pricking-fingers-every-day-because-of-diabetes, eyesight-blurry life.

But if you exercise and eat and live well, you get 35 more years of high-quality, invigorating, feel-good life. So the difference is immense.

(I don't mean "you" as in you Two Many Cats personally, but as in people in general)
  #75  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:16 PM
Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
AIUI, it's not just a matter of lengthened lifespan, but quality of life.

Suppose you're 40 now. If you live a sedentary unhealthy lifestyle, you may live just 30 more years, of low-quality, joint-aching, slow-moving, sciaticatic, pricking-fingers-every-day-because-of-diabetes, eyesight-blurry life.

But if you exercise and eat and live well, you get 35 more years of high-quality, invigorating, feel-good life. So the difference is immense.

(I don't mean "you" as in you Two Many Cats personally, but as in people in general)
Yes, but I have never had a high-quality, invigorating, feel-good life, and I sincerely doubt eating healthy and exercising would supply one, based on my own experience. I think a great deal of obese people would agree with me based on theirs.
  #76  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:33 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
AIUI, it's not just a matter of lengthened lifespan, but quality of life.

Suppose you're 40 now. If you live a sedentary unhealthy lifestyle, you may live just 30 more years, of low-quality, joint-aching, slow-moving, sciaticatic, pricking-fingers-every-day-because-of-diabetes, eyesight-blurry life.

But if you exercise and eat and live well, you get 35 more years of high-quality, invigorating, feel-good life. So the difference is immense.

(I don't mean "you" as in you Two Many Cats personally, but as in people in general)
Yeah, see, I went through a period of over a year where I was seriously constraining my diet and using the exercise bike for an hour and a half a night, every night. Lost a hundred pounds.

At no point during that did I ever feel more invigorated or energetic or any of that stuff. I am not kidding here - I lost a hundred pounds and felt exactly the same before and after.

That "healthy living makes you feel great!" stuff might work for some people, but for me it's a load of crap. Yeah it makes my numbers better, and my doctor happier, but as far as my life experience goes it's a complete and massive waste of time.
  #77  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:48 PM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
BMI was never, ever a "good idea' for healthy weight. It wasnt designed for ti, and today it's even worse, having been changed by the diet industry so they can make more $$.


https://europepmc.org/article/med/15615272
Abstract
--The Body Mass Index (BMI) is used as a measure of overweight and obesity. In epidemiological studies age, sex and ethnic background all have to be taken into consideration, particularly when determining the health risk caused by the amount of body fat. --Caution should be observed when using the BMI as a measure for interpreting overweight and obesity as body composition can be highly variable yet have the same BMI. Therefore, BMI is not a reliable measurement of body composition in individuals particularly in older and younger people. --Excess body fat in the visceral depot poses a separate health risk. The BMI does not give any insight into regional body fat distribution. Waist circumference is a valid index of visceral fat accumulation and can therefore be used as an indicator of health risks associated with visceral obesity.


https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/3/379/4690122
Waist circumference and not body mass index explains obesity-related health risk

https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo201617
Misclassification of cardiometabolic health when using body mass index categories in NHANES 2005–2012

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/...i-201603309339
Should we stop giving so much “weight” to BMI?
That’s exactly what’s being asked in the discussion generated by a new study. For this study, researchers looked at how good the BMI was as a single measure of cardiovascular health and found that it wasn’t very good at all:

Nearly half of those considered overweight by BMI had a healthy “cardiometabolic profile,” including a normal blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar.
About a third of people with normal BMI measures had an unhealthy cardiometabolic profile.
The authors bemoaned the “inaccuracy” of the BMI. They claim it translates into mislabeling millions of people as unhealthy and also overlooking millions of others who are actually unhealthy, but are considered “healthy” by BMI alone.


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ure-of-health/
BMI Is A Terrible Measure Of Health
But we keep using it anyway...Taken alone as an indicator of health, the BMI is misleading. A study by researchers at UCLA published this month in the International Journal of Obesity looked at 40,420 adults in the most recent U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and assessed their health as measured by six accepted metrics, including blood pressure, cholesterol and C-reactive protein (a gauge of inflammation). It found that 47 percent of people classified as overweight by BMI and 29 percent of those who qualified as obese were healthy as measured by at least five of those other metrics. Meanwhile, 31 percent of normal-weight people were unhealthy by two or more of the same measures.2 Using BMI alone as a measure of health would misclassify almost 75 million adults in the U.S., the authors concluded.


https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/265215
Why BMI is inaccurate and misleading
BMI (body mass index), which is based on the height and weight of a person, is an inaccurate measure of body fat content and does not take into account muscle mass, bone density, overall body composition, and racial and sex differences, say researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.

Every few months the same comment is made by experts “BMI is flawed”. The news hits the headlines, everybody agrees, and then all goes quiet for a while.
I'm seeing an awful lot of those studies saying things like, "Turns out BMI isn't a good measure of cardiovascular/fat/etc health!" That's probably because BMI was never a means to measure cardiovascular health, body fat, or health in general. It's a simple ratio between your height and your weight, and gives you a reasonable idea of what sort of increased (or decreased) risks you might be exposing yourself to. That's it.

I agree that it's not the end-all, be-all on it's own. You should also look at things like your fat ratio. But BMI is something that anyone can easily check at home, where as any home methods of measuring body fat percentage are pretty useless (personally, I'd LOVE to get a DEXA scan, just to get a totally accurate look at what my own body fat percentage is. Unfortunately, my insurance would never cover it). Calipers are probably the most accurate at-home option, but not everyone has those.

If your BMI is high, your first thought shouldn't be, "Well, BMI is stupid and wrong, anyway!" It should be, "My BMI matches The Rock. Do I look like The Rock? No? Maybe I should lose a little weight."

TBH, I would have called myself healthy when I was obese. My blood pressure wasn't high, my heart was great, I could walk for miles, etc. I was also in my 20's. Youth is a HUGE benefit, but it doesn't last forever. The longer you're obese, the more you risk developing obesity-related affects. I'm so, SO happy I lost the weight when I did, and am going into my 20's with a body that has the best chance of living longer and staying healthier.

Also, please tell me what you mean by the 'diet industry'. Yeah, fad diets are bullshit and not sustainable. Anyone looking to sell you on a guarantee to lose weight is trying to get paid and nothing else. A real, sustainable diet (or lifestyle change) doesn't cost you anything extra - I actually saved a ton of money when I lost most of my weight. Because, shocker, I wasn't eating so much junk.
  #78  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:54 PM
rsat3acr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,778
Jim Fixx couldn't outrun his genes.
  #79  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:59 PM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
AIUI, it's not just a matter of lengthened lifespan, but quality of life.

Suppose you're 40 now. If you live a sedentary unhealthy lifestyle, you may live just 30 more years, of low-quality, joint-aching, slow-moving, sciaticatic, pricking-fingers-every-day-because-of-diabetes, eyesight-blurry life.

But if you exercise and eat and live well, you get 35 more years of high-quality, invigorating, feel-good life. So the difference is immense.

(I don't mean "you" as in you Two Many Cats personally, but as in people in general)
Exactly.

Look at the people on My 600 lb Life. I feel so, so much for them. Often completely bed-bound, suffering from breathing problems, diabetes, a failing heart, skin rashes, wounds that will not heal, the list goes on. And you do NOT have to be 600 lbs to face less-extreme versions of these problems, either. They can sneak up on you, leading you to think you always felt this way.

I 'only' hit 200 lbs (as a 5'4 female). Obese, but not vastly so. Not anywhere near morbidly obese. But I had a rash on my ankle that had lasted so long it discolored my skin. My doctor said it wasn't harming me, but there's a good chance my skin would always be discolored. I also had the WORST fry, scaly elbows. It actually hurt to brush them. I figured that was just the way I was, seeing as I had them as long as I really remembered.

After losing 80 lbs, the rash is entire gone, as are my scaly elbows. In general my skin is much healthier. My periods are also a LOT lighter (which I'm only realizing now, having gone off BC in the last couple months). I won't say you go through extreme weight loss without any issues at all (my hormone are still kind of fluctuating). Weight loss can have some odd, unexpected effects, and I certainly won't deny that. It's more like adjusting to a difference that doesn't really matter that much, when I also have a stronger, healthier and, IMO, much better-looking body (and I don't feel that wanting to look better is anything to apologize for).
  #80  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:19 PM
Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Yeah, see, I went through a period of over a year where I was seriously constraining my diet and using the exercise bike for an hour and a half a night, every night. Lost a hundred pounds.

At no point during that did I ever feel more invigorated or energetic or any of that stuff. I am not kidding here - I lost a hundred pounds and felt exactly the same before and after.

That "healthy living makes you feel great!" stuff might work for some people, but for me it's a load of crap. Yeah it makes my numbers better, and my doctor happier, but as far as my life experience goes it's a complete and massive waste of time.
I am with you all the way. There was a time where I exercised regularly three times a week for two years. I managed to lose over twenty pounds. The gym owner oohh'ed and aahh'd. But did I feel better? I did not. In fact, I resented every minute the gym took away from me being able to get home and do the frickin' chores that were still there waiting for me.

Did the exercise do me good? I must admit, I had more stamina to do the workouts compared from when I began to when I quit the gym. But stamina for what? To do all the frickin' work I had to do otherwise? I didn't feel great. I just felt pissed off that the workouts were another frickin' chore on my list.

I understand that exercise is good for your health. I understand that it is a necessary thing. But please, quit lying about how great you will feel about it once it's a part of your life. Please stop saying that it will cure your depression. It probably won't.
  #81  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:31 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Two Many Cats View Post
I am with you all the way. There was a time where I exercised regularly three times a week for two years. I managed to lose over twenty pounds. The gym owner oohh'ed and aahh'd. But did I feel better? I did not. In fact, I resented every minute the gym took away from me being able to get home and do the frickin' chores that were still there waiting for me.
The only reason I can bring myself to exercise at all is because I have my bike pointed at my screen and can watch my DVDs as I go. And I still hem and haw and find various ways to avoid doing it, until it's two in the morning and my subconscious can stall no longer.

At some point my subconscious is going to realize that I AM going to ride that bike and am NOT going to sleep until I do, but until it catches on I will continue to have a completely destroyed sleep schedule and suffer accordingly.
  #82  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:56 PM
Dinsdale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 19,226
Depends on how you define "message"

-Permit no medical treatment for anyone over a certain BMI (or some other measure of obesity you prefer.)

-Heavily subsidize/tax food/drink reflecting it's nutritional/caloric value.

-Alternatively, you could offer obese people free sodas and fast food, with the expectation that they would eat themselves to death sooner than otherwise.
__________________
I used to be disgusted.
Now I try to be amused.
  #83  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:11 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 422
Why are people getting fat when we aggressively market high calorie deliciousness and give people little control over their lives?

I think stop doing both of those things.
  #84  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:27 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
First of all, ditch the outdated and useless BMI.


BMI was a idea by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, in like 1850. Based upon a few hundred peasants, none of whom were over 6 feet tall, and were likely not all that well nourished. It was never meant to to used as a tool to get people to lose weight. It also doesnt differ between someone fat and someone who is into body building. BMI is useless and outdated.

In addition, not too long ago, due to pressure from the diet industry the WHO and USA changed the definitions to make more people scale in at fat and obese. So, not only useless but full of crap and commercialized. They changed the scales just to get you to buy more diet worthless crap.

For example -Lasha Talakhadze, weighing in at 372 lb won the Gold Medal in weightlifting. He's be considered obese, but he's a freaking Olympic Gold medalist. World record setter.

So yeah, you can be a athlete at 372 pounds but be fat and out of shape at 160.

600 is right out, yes.

The only way to tell if your weight is effecting your health is to get a physical. I am technically (under the new system) obese, but my doctor sez I am in great health, no blood pressure issues, etc. He sez if i lost a few pounds it'd be easier on my knees, and he's right.
Lasha is almost certainly obese. Being strong doesn't mean that you're "healthy". Like BMI and health, the correlations are loose. Strength is a better proxy for health than a lower BMI, but neither is perfect. That is, of course, of we assume that the one measure of "health" is longevity.

If you look at the life expectancy for heavyweight sumo wrestlers, for example, it's significantly shorter than the average Japanese person's. Lasha is, almost certainly, shrinking his lifespan if he continues to maintain his weight for too long.
  #85  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:58 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Want people to weigh as little as they did in the 1950s? Raise the price of food by a lot, so that in real terms it is as expensive as it was then. Now, I'm no fan of price controls, but I suspect there are other ways of raising the price of food. Eliminating farm subsidies, for one. The government buying large quantities of nonperishable food to store in case of war or famine would also raise the price of the remaining food. There's also straight up taxation, I guess, but that's basically price control by another name.
I don't think that would work, practically.

Right now, the West is wealthy enough that many (but certainly not all) poor people are overweight. Some poor people are actually starving, though. If food prices went up, overweight poor people might see weight reduction, but poor people who are already starving could end up like this.

In Canada, Native Canadian children are removed by the children's aid societies at a high rate.

Quote:
Children are apprehended because their families can’t afford adequate housing, food and clothing for their family.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/05/14/I...-Poverty-Care/

Or to put it more bluntly, the parent has to choose between paying for food or for adequate housing. They often can't afford both.
  #86  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:18 PM
Kovitlac is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Two Many Cats View Post

I understand that exercise is good for your health. I understand that it is a necessary thing. But please, quit lying about how great you will feel about it once it's a part of your life. Please stop saying that it will cure your depression. It probably won't.
You really don't think it's possible that people can enjoy exercise? And I don't think most people claim it can CURE depression, but it CAN improve it. Note: That doesn't mean it will help for everyone.

Me, I feel far better in the summer when I'm able to go for long walks in the sun, getting some steps in and playing Pokémon GO than I do in the winter when I'm cold, cooped up inside and 10 lbs heavier. Not everyone feels the same way, and that's perfectly fine. I'd really resent anyone telling me I'm lying when I say that, however, or when I suggest exercise and a better diet on top of therapy to someone who is feeling depressed or otherwise shitty (obviously not in the case of, say, someone's parent just died, or other extreme circumstances).
  #87  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:52 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
You really don't think it's possible that people can enjoy exercise? And I don't think most people claim it can CURE depression, but it CAN improve it. Note: That doesn't mean it will help for everyone.

Me, I feel far better in the summer when I'm able to go for long walks in the sun, getting some steps in .....
I really enjoy long walks. No other exercise, tho, maybe a little free weights if I have the time.
  #88  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:20 PM
Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kovitlac View Post
You really don't think it's possible that people can enjoy exercise? And I don't think most people claim it can CURE depression, but it CAN improve it. Note: That doesn't mean it will help for everyone.

Me, I feel far better in the summer when I'm able to go for long walks in the sun, getting some steps in and playing Pokémon GO than I do in the winter when I'm cold, cooped up inside and 10 lbs heavier. Not everyone feels the same way, and that's perfectly fine. I'd really resent anyone telling me I'm lying when I say that, however, or when I suggest exercise and a better diet on top of therapy to someone who is feeling depressed or otherwise shitty (obviously not in the case of, say, someone's parent just died, or other extreme circumstances).
I didn't say you were lying about how exercise makes you feel. Just don't assume that everyone feels that way, which you acknowledge. And it's a rare article about coping with depression that doesn't push the whole "get out and get moving" spiel. If exercise were as great for depression as it's claimed to be, there'd be a whole lot more people doing it.
  #89  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:57 PM
Ulfreida is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: pangolandia
Posts: 3,826
Stop subsidizing corn. Use that money to subsidize vegetable, legume (not soybeans) and fruit farming.

Make it illegal to provide or vend refined sugar products in schools, or even near them (that would include all the hidden sugar like in peanut butter, spaghetti sauce, bread).

Soda cans must have large warning labels on them, like cigarettes.

Trans fats must be made illegal.

Fast food restaurants must have calories posted beside each offering together with the percentage of an average adult's caloric requirements it fulfills.

High-calorie snack foods (including breakfast 'cereals') sold in supermarkets have to be stocked inside a cage that the clerk must unlock in order to dispense.

Zoning departments must prioritize safe, pleasant pedestrian and bicycle accessibility to shopping and work.

Dedicated community gardening space must be provided in every new development, and every redevelopment plan.

Offices must provide exercise equipment and space, and also the time to use it. Government mandated. People don't have to use that time to exercise but businesses must provide it.

Notice how all this stuff is about GOVERNMENT? Because that is what it would take. Not "messages". Laws that regulate how these cumulatively toxic "foods" are dispensed, that create avenues for exercise to happen conveniently, and so forth.
  #90  
Old 02-14-2020, 06:30 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Stop subsidizing corn. Use that money to subsidize vegetable, legume (not soybeans) and fruit farming.

Make it illegal to provide or vend refined sugar products in schools, or even near them (that would include all the hidden sugar like in peanut butter, spaghetti sauce, bread).

Soda cans must have large warning labels on them, like cigarettes.

Trans fats must be made illegal.

Fast food restaurants must have calories posted beside each offering together with the percentage of an average adult's caloric requirements it fulfills.
Reasonable, or at least arguably so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
High-calorie snack foods (including breakfast 'cereals') sold in supermarkets have to be stocked inside a cage that the clerk must unlock in order to dispense.

Zoning departments must prioritize safe, pleasant pedestrian and bicycle accessibility to shopping and work.

Dedicated community gardening space must be provided in every new development, and every redevelopment plan.

Offices must provide exercise equipment and space, and also the time to use it. Government mandated. People don't have to use that time to exercise but businesses must provide it.
Not reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
Notice how all this stuff is about GOVERNMENT? Because that is what it would take. Not "messages". Laws that regulate how these cumulatively toxic "foods" are dispensed, that create avenues for exercise to happen conveniently, and so forth.
Absolutely, for any progress to be made we need to force the issue with the hand of government; myriad studies have shown that human willpower is simply not up to the task, negligible exceptions aside. Though we should probably limit ourselves to things that are reasonable.
  #91  
Old 02-14-2020, 06:53 PM
Hilarity N. Suze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 8,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Two Many Cats View Post
I didn't say you were lying about how exercise makes you feel. Just don't assume that everyone feels that way, which you acknowledge. And it's a rare article about coping with depression that doesn't push the whole "get out and get moving" spiel. If exercise were as great for depression as it's claimed to be, there'd be a whole lot more people doing it.
About that bolded sentence. The thing is that exercise probably is good for a lot of people with depression, but some depressed people are too depressed to even try it.

Now about the obesity epidemic. I read somewhere, maybe Wikipedia, but I can't find it, that during the Siege of Leningrad, when people got 200-600 calories a day, if they were lucky, for a period of months, 98% of the population lost weight. Oh, a great number of them starved to death.

I think on the whole I'd rather have fat people, you know? The obese don't bother me at all.

About the two percent that didn't, hm. I have questions.
  #92  
Old 02-14-2020, 08:58 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilarity N. Suze View Post
Now about the obesity epidemic. I read somewhere, maybe Wikipedia, but I can't find it, that during the Siege of Leningrad, when people got 200-600 calories a day, if they were lucky, for a period of months, 98% of the population lost weight. Oh, a great number of them starved to death.

I think on the whole I'd rather have fat people, you know? The obese don't bother me at all.

About the two percent that didn't, hm. I have questions.
Well, it doesn't have to be a dichotomy between obesity and starvation.

Plus, if we move towards a single-payer system as some are recommending, the more prevalent obesity is, the higher it'll drive up everyone's premiums.
  #93  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfreida View Post
...

Soda cans must have large warning labels on them, like cigarettes.

..

...

High-calorie snack foods (including breakfast 'cereals') sold in supermarkets have to be stocked inside a cage that the clerk must unlock in order to dispense.
...
I will go along with these two the day after they ban smoking which kills 50000 Americans a year, 50000 from secondhand smoke. No one dies from second-hand fat.

Some of those are already law in CA. They dont seem to work.
  #94  
Old 02-14-2020, 09:31 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Plus, if we move towards a single-payer system as some are recommending, the more prevalent obesity is, the higher it'll drive up everyone's premiums.
Hmm.

Because of the obesity paradox, obesity substantially raises medicare costs. This is both because the obese use more health care, and because, if they make it to old age, they then live longer.

There are five FDA-approved prescription drugs for obesity. None will cause obesity to plummet, but the evidence is pretty strong that Liraglutide, at least, causes substantial decline in obesity comorbidities. Yet private and public drug plans won't pay for it. So one good message might be to put medical treatment of obesity (which addresses health issues) on the same plane as surgical treatment (that may be more somewhat more directed to cosmetic issues). No, I don't own drug stocks, and a case could be made for waiting until a drug goes generic.
  #95  
Old 02-22-2020, 07:04 PM
Razncain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: TX & CO
Posts: 1,786
Lots of good advice given, particularly about the ultra-processed foods not feeling you up, but having you crave more and more. So many are taking the good stuff out, nutrients, fibers, and filling them with them sugars, salts and the wrong kind of fats and who knows what chemicals and preservatives.

In America as soon as we get in our car, in any city, there's hardly a block that you can drive by without seeing some kind of fast food, restaurant or convenience store to get your favorite, food, drink or snack, you can go in, or drive-thru window, hamburgers, chicken, pizza, sweets, drinks, coffee or colas, and in any commercial area, you're usually less than one minute away from many choices.

In our homes, we are bombarded with commercials showing us favorite foods on a regular basis. When we go the supermarket, we generally skip the most important isle of fresh produce, fruits and nuts, and head to the boxed and packaged stuff. When we go out, our lives generally center around food all of the time. It's how couples bond, friends gather to meet over perhaps some sporting event, playing cards or whatever. It's like we have no other interests to occupy our minds with.

I lost about 12-15 lbs by accident, and it turned out to be a game changer for me. Was never heavy, but just losing that after 25 years of having acid reflux and needing a prescribed medicine, 3 1/2 years later I'm still acid reflux free and still no medicines, eating anything with no problems, but usually healthy food choices, haven't had a cola in over six years. I got lucky, and hope you can too, but not sure I can be of any help, especially since I've never really had a serious weight problem. Maybe you'll consider someone else who did that lost it without dieting, but doing something fairly basic.

Four important words are eat less, move more. Do at least one, or both. That's how a physicist did it, and quit cigarette smoking at the same time. He was surprised how easy it was, and still has kept it off. No diets, just those four words, figuring out exactly what calories he was going through in a day, and what was going into his body. Finding out what filled him up, what didn't.

He was also very curious about where does the fat go when you lose weight. 98% of doctors, nutritionist and health professionals got this answer wrong. Without looking for the answer, did you know? I certainly didn't. I believe he also has a TED talk.
  #96  
Old 02-22-2020, 07:18 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,938
The causes of obesity are complicated, have many roots in modern culture, and difficult to fight, including that our bodies are designed to hold onto weight in the face of dieting, because your body thinks you are starving. Why would you think that coming up with the perfect “message” is the main problem?

I just read an article that suggests that the rise of dieting culture and the weight loss industry might be one of the primary causes of widespread obesity. And then there’s the modern food industry, which is using cutting edge science to keep people eating the worst food.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 02-22-2020 at 07:20 PM.
  #97  
Old 02-22-2020, 07:32 PM
monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 21,220
I recently came across this article: The healthiest weight could actually be 'overweight', a study finds. The article gives some credence to the argument that BMI has some deep flaws. But I wonder what a similar study using waist-to-height ratio would show. I'm guessing the manner of fat distribution matters more than the total amount of fat (up to a certain point, of course).

I don't know if a single message would do anything. People don't get fat because they haven't heard enough about the risks of obesity. They get fat because sugary and fattening food tastes good and is addictive.
  #98  
Old 02-22-2020, 08:18 PM
madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
The causes of obesity are complicated, have many roots in modern culture, and difficult to fight, including that our bodies are designed to hold onto weight in the face of dieting, because your body thinks you are starving. Why would you think that coming up with the perfect “message” is the main problem?

I just read an article that suggests that the rise of dieting culture and the weight loss industry might be one of the primary causes of widespread obesity. And then there’s the modern food industry, which is using cutting edge science to keep people eating the worst food.
So its everybodys/everythings fault except for the individual. Exercise alongside diet will lead to weight loss. Its not easy nor fun but its very simple.
  #99  
Old 02-22-2020, 08:20 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
So its everybodys/everythings fault except for the individual. Exercise alongside diet will lead to weight loss. Its not easy nor fun but its very simple.
For the individual, it may be simple (if still not easy). But for society? Policies and practices today by society are increasing obesity. It's reasonable to look at changing some of those policies and practices.
  #100  
Old 02-22-2020, 08:54 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
So its everybodys/everythings fault except for the individual. Exercise alongside diet will lead to weight loss. Its not easy nor fun but its very simple.
So if it’s so easy why do studies show that the vast majority of people who lose weight gain it back plus more?

You can call it simple like a mathematical equation, but to lose weight you aren’t just applying a mathematical equation, you are fighting your body every step of the way.

Do you really think all the obese people in the world remain obese simply because they haven’t been given the right motivation Or they don’t want it hard enough?

Every moment of every day an obese person gets the message that E is unattractive or assumed to be lazy or stupid, discriminated against socially and professionally. How much more motivation or message do you think is required?

And on top of that, losing weight is not the only thing that people have to deal with on a day to day basis. Life is demanding and stressful. For many people, every moment of that stress makes your body and mind demand food.

Maybe if there were only one obese person in the world you might be excuse for thinking that it’s all down to the moral or motivational failing of that individual but look at the overall picture. By and large, people don’t stop being obese, except for a small proportion of exceptions.

Everyone has to eat every day. The bigger a person you are, the more calories you need to keep going on a day to day basis. Your body and mind fight you every step of the way.

And there are entire economic systems set up to make us want to make bad eating choices. Advertising, the food chemistry Industrial complex.

On top of that studies show that dieting literally makes you stupider. If you work in a creative or mentally taxing job, your body will demand calories to keep your mind in form.

My close friend’s ex-wife even got baryatric surgery, which Is a drastic step to take. Among their acquaintances eight of them had it. Seven of them eventually gained all the weight back. The eighth committed suicide.

Look at movie stars. They spend fortunes or hiring armies of people to keep them in top shape. How may regular people have the time or resources for that?
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 02-22-2020 at 08:56 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017