Well, that blog is certainly…personal. Where did this number come from? “…but the typical 30-year-old 190-pound woman can consume about 2,600 calories to maintain her weight …” Every source I can find says the average woman ages 19 to 45 only needs only 2,000.
Where is the source of this claim: “Muscle biopsies taken before, during and after weight loss show that once a person drops weight, their muscle fibers undergo a transformation, making them more like highly efficient “slow twitch” muscle fibers. A result is that after losing weight, your muscles burn 20 to 25 percent fewer calories during everyday activity and moderate aerobic exercise than those of a person who is naturally at the same weight. That means a dieter who thinks she is burning 200 calories during a brisk half-hour walk is probably using closer to 150 to 160 calories.” other than Stoid’s citation of the claim, that is.
And this is exactly why I feel the claim “genetic cause for obesity” is harmful, misleading and dishonest: “A positive result, telling people they are genetically inclined to stay fat, might be self-fulfilling. In February, The New England Journal of Medicine published a report on how genetic testing for a variety of diseases affected a person’s mood and health habits. Over all, the researchers found no effect from disease-risk testing, but there was a suggestion, though it didn’t reach statistical significance, that after testing positive for fat-promoting genes, some people were more likely to eat fatty foods, presumably because they thought being fat was their genetic destiny and saw no sense in fighting it.”
The entire article, like the Zucker studies, is filled with studies in appetite, cravings, and the desire to eat. Where is the evidence that a restricted caloric intake and even a moderate exercise program will still result in obesity?
It’s not a lack of compassion, it’s a lack of patience for wild ass, unproven claims about obesity. The Zucker rat studies appear to be an exercise in learning what drives unhealthy appetites and lethargy, and in an hour+ of searching, I haven’t found one yet that demonstrates that Zucker rats on a restricted calorie intake plus exercise remain obese. If you can find it, I’d love to read it.
If you will read the entire thread, you will see that everyone on both sides of the Scout issue agrees that addictions are hard to kick, that bad habits are hard to unlearn, and that most people don’t want to be morbidly obese. But those searching for a magic pill and who claim they can eat a 2,000 calorie diet and still maintain a BMI of 40+ are wrong.
And if you’ll read again, you’ll notice that all the concern-y “fatty” comments aren’t coming from those who side with the Scout’s decision. That’s all coming from the other side, it’s unproductive.
I don’t think that’s quite the right challenge, since genes can also affect peoples’ psychiatric propensity to eat. Probably fat people have a stronger compulsion to eat than thin people and part of that compulsion is genetic.
Of course, you could argue in response that people have the ability to consciously override these sorts of compulsions. And you would be right. But the problem is that it’s possible to consume a diet-ruining amount of calories in less than a minute. Therefore successful weight loss requires conscious control pretty much every minute of every day, month after month, year after year. Even on days when the boss yells at you, or when someone throws a rock through the window of your car, etc.
Common sense says it’s psychologically very difficult to do such a thing and the evidence seems to bear this out – a large percentage of diets fail. It’s very unusual for people to lose a lot of weight and keep it off long term.
Possibly it’s even harder for people who are or were fat as children.
So when you say that it’s easier for individual scouts to lose weight than for the the organization to accommodate them, I am skeptical.
Acknowledged several times. “a genetic propensity towards overeating” seems a far more honest and likely claim than “a genetic propensity towards obesity” which sounds hopeless and removes the responsibility from the individual entirely.
The individual Scout would benefit far more by lowering his BMI even a little and upping his exercise level than he would by demanding limited activities to accommodate his illness. A combination of the metabolic panel recommended earlier by artemis, cognitive behavioral therapy and help from dieticians and/or personal trainers might be necessary to help a morbidly obese child or adult improve his overall health. But one thing is for certain: telling that person that his weight isn’t his fault and is entirely out of control while at the same time constantly lowering expectations and accommodating his limitations will fail him on every level.
The woman in the study is not “the average 19-45 year old woman.” She is a specific woman with a specific height, weight, age and body composition, all of which are taken into account to calculate her hypothetical base metabolism. If you seriously did not know this then that is kind of embarassing.
I am not really sure what it is that you are asking me here. Would you like a link to Liebel’s metabolic study? Here you go. I am afraid you will not find it as easy to make fun of as things that Stoid says or personal blogs or Stoid’s personal blogs or whatever the hell you were trying to compare it to in the previous paragraph, but them’s the breaks, as they say. Enjoy.
Do you know what it means when a study says “results failed to meet statistical significance”, Troppus? Because I do. I think that maybe you should look it up.
The article summarizes many different studies on many different things. One of those things is, yes, metabolic differences, although reading up on those things you mentioned are also crucial to an informed understanding of the issues involved in the problem of first-world obesity. Which, by the way, is something that I noticed you don’t appear to have.
So you haven’t read my comments admitted that some people have a dopamine imbalance (among other hormonal deficiencies) which lead them to crave and consume more calories than they burn? Because I’ve mentioned it several times. Genetic predisposition to self-medicate with food: yes. So you can certainly claim a genetic predisposition to eat more calories than you burn. You cannot claim a genetic predisposition to maintain morbid obesity with moderate diet and exercise.
Perhaps, but those are not the only two choices. Besides which, it’s not clear how the Boy Scout policy would affect the thinking of fat people.
Allowing fatties to participate in the Jamboree is NOT the same thing as telling a person that his weight isn’t his fault and is entirely out of his control.
So you are no longer certain about the relative burdens?
I have read many posts from you. What is it about this particular post from you that you believe addresses anything that I have said to you in this thread? Certainly it does little to back your earlier, stupider speculation that excluding fat children from physical activities has any chance of positively affecting their attitudes towards their health.
We’re not talking about fat children, they can join the Jamboree with a medical report and doctor’s approval for vigorous activity. Excluding morbidly obese children with a BMI of 40 and above in an attempt to prevent them succumbing to stroke, overexertion, or heat exhaustion may not do anything for their attitudes, but it’s certain to avoid causing them further illness.
So far no parents, counselors, or kids have hit the press with complaints about being excluded. If I were responsible for a child with a BMI of 40 or above, I would care too much about him to risk sending him to a remote location to attempt to keep up with his healthier, fitter, competitive peers. I’d protect him from that risk either by holding him back or helping him lose a bit of weight and get used to exercise first. This isn’t a matter of discrimination, we’re not talking skin color here. Medical risks in this group are likely to be higher. I wouldn’t gamble on a kid’s life the way you apparently would.
I didn’t advocate quitting food, nor does that strike me as an especially clever plan. Your complaint here appears to be “But it’s not easy!” which deserves exactly zero sympathy. This was my point in the first place.
You have completely missed my point here, but I’ll address this anyway. No one is forcing fat people to sit around and stuff themselves. Healthy food is easily available if you choose to shop at an actual grocery store rather than the 7/11. I have easy access to handguns, yet somehow I have managed to avoid spree killing.
Right. Because they lack willpower and would rather cram food down their gullets willy-nilly than take an ordered approach to nutrition.
This is simply incorrect. The body is a machine. Give the machine less fuel than it burns and it will resort to using its reserves. Your model seems to include some sort of supernatural fat-generating factor that operates without regard for one’s diet. Do you also believe in ghosts and dowsing, or is your credulity limited to that which is required to justify your own obesity?
You obviously don’t know many “cripples” to think that they are so useless. Many of the paras in wheelchairs that I know are almost as mobile as any able bodied person. I strongly doubt that a para that couldn’t manage wouldn’t be wanting to go anyway.
I don’t know that it’s so much a question of “safety” anyway. IMO it’s more a PC way of excluding those that would hold back those that are fit. Why should they be penalised?
You are probably correct about the reasons the child became fat and can’t lose weight, but why do you want to penalise all the kids that aren’t obese.
I lived in a less PC world when I was young ( and obesity was an unknown word back then ), but if an excessively fat kid came to a Scout/ Guide camp s/he would probably have been headed home pronto once the other kids had enough of them spoiling their camp.
Come to it, they wouldn’t have lasted longer than the first hall meeting, so it wouldn’t have been an issue at camp anyway.
I don’t have “compassion” for people that willingly engage in self destructive activities like smoking or illegal drug use. Why would I sympathise with obese people?
I have concern for children that are overfed by their parents though. That’s not their fault.
Considering the barrage of uninformed disapproving clucking that the complainers would undoubtedly be subjected to, you’d have to have pretty big nuts to complain just now.
That is a nice story about what you would do for your imaginary fat child. Surely, if or when you gain care of such a precious, fragile creature your times together will be full of love and laughter and certainly if he is your child you are permitted to ground him during the day so that he doesn’t get heatstroke and make him wash the car at midnight every time he eats too many pies or whatever other stuff your sacred mother’s wisdom tells you to do. I bet it would make a great Lifetime movie of the month. I’m afraid it is lacking, though, in any hint of an actual medical justification for using a hard BMI cutoff as an absolute bar to entry.
Beats the shit out of ignoring widely accepted medical guidelines and putting an already at risk kid in a remote location with no motorized vehicles where he would be subjected to ridiculous amounts of peer pressure to keep up with 98% of the fitter, more ambitious and motivated peers. You think he’s being unfairly excluded by the Scout’s decision, but in your fantasy world he’ll somehow fart rainbows and unicorns as he charges up the mountain and down the river leading a pack of awestruck, admiring friends. Do me a favor, hit Walmart this weekend and find the most obese kid you can, and quiz him about his interests and activity level. Ask if he wants to spend the week in the July heat hiking, swimming, climbing, wading, and playing team sports with a few hundred of his typically developing, active and motivated peers. I bet he’d be all over it, wouldn’t you?
Sorry, but with all the recent handwringing about bullying and peer pressure, I can’t imagine why you or any of the other advocates for this iimaginary kid would shove him into that lake of fire just to prove something for fat acceptance. This whole bitch fest over “the hard cutoff” is a red herring, as I haven’t noticed any of you decrying the hard cut off for ages of consent, drinking and tobacco use, military service, or theme parks’ You must be this high to ride this ride rules. Not sure why encouraging a unhealthy kid who is very unlikely to have the drive, interest, or stamina to keep up with his healthy, competitive peers is your pet recreational outrage this week, but I’d love to hear your justification for throwing this kid to the wolves, regardless of how certain you are that kids exist with a BMI of 40+ who are sitting at home sobbing in their Doritos that they are being excluded from a voluntary boot camp. If it sounds like such fun to you, why aren’t you doing it?
Hey, Troppus! You know who knows more about “widely accepted medical guidelines” than someone who three days ago didn’t even know how BMI is calculated? Well, most people, probably, but also, physicians. So why exactly do you feel that it is unacceptable to allow physician input to factor into this decision? Do you think that all the other doctors will do a peer pressure on the scout’s pediatrician and it will make him decide to fudge the numbers on the cardiac stress test? Because I am pretty sure that is not a thing that happens.
Hey, remember the physician evaluation? You know, that thing that if the scout scores poorly in he doesn’t get to go to Jamboree? Guess what that means about any scout that gets cleared for Jamboree!
If we are measuring “handwringing quotient” by counting the number of times a poster uses the “but why don’t you care about the children?” appeal in this thread, then I’m afraid I’m behind you by about thirty points. Whoops! Make that thirty-two.