not interested in responding to strawmen.
cute. I walk a mile and a half just going to and from a meeting. and guess what? even after my previous posts in this thread, I’m still a doughy, flabby fatass.
I disagree. I find eating healthy to be enjoyable. It takes effort and a little discipline, but for the most part, it’s a good thing. I get far less heartburn than I ever did when I ate like shit. Plus, I usually have more energy and am in a better mood.
That guy might be selling things but I haven’t had to buy nothing. The meal plans and exercise routine are all there free of charge. No, he’s not the truth, but he is still an inspiration to me.
Are you exercising more than that?
It is really cheap available food. It takes 1/2 an hour of vigorous exercise to burn 350 calories. 350 calories is what a frappuccino is. Exercise while helpful in loosing weight will result in significant weight loss without also eating less.
the problem is with the lipid hypothesis and the development of the food pyramid in the early 90s. The food pyramid is the worst diet scheme ever devised, largely because it was pushed by politicians instead of scientists.
Yeah, like people know what the food pyramid was; the only food pyramid most people know is the pile of food on their plate.
Add in what Lynn Bodini said, it’s not that people are too lazy to go to the gym, it’s that more and more jobs are sedentary. People sit on their arse in a car to get to work, sit on their arse all day at work, sit on their arse on the way home from work, sit on their arse and watch TV at home then go to bed. Rinse and repeat. Add that to high calorie food and guess what happens.
Not that many generations ago, many more jobs involved some actual physical activity and there wasn’t the same availability of convenience food. The next generation will be worse, all they do in their spare time is watch TV, play online games and eat crap.
So the short answer is, eating too much and not doing enough physical activity to burn the calories.
Speaking as a GBFF (great big fat fuck), I’ve always had a problem with my weight. Some of the reasons are:
-
I associate exercise with embarassment and ineptitude. I’ve never, ever, ever, liked exercise, not even football. I found it utterly boring, and it didn’t help that being made to play it at school gave people an opportunity for a good laugh at my expense. For that reason exercise depresses me.
-
I associate people who exercise as being dumb jocks. I know that logically this isn’t true. I know that most exercisers are just normal people, but in my gut (haha) I feel it’s something that idiots, jocks and self-obsessed egotistical dumbasses obsess over, and feel my IQ dropping just thinking about it. Just to stress, I know this isn’t true, but it’s an involuntary revulsion.
-
Growing up in 1980s Essex, England, my family weren’t exactly wealthy and the idea of nutrition instead of eating to be full, whatever you eat, was a novel one. I still haven’t caught up really, and a lot of the information about nutrition just baffles and infuriates me: consequences of eating this, benefits of eating that, you can eat this type of thing but not that type of thing, just doesn’t seem fair, and I simply cannot conjur up the interest or willpower to learn about it.
I know exactly how you think: Malden Capell’s simply a spoiled brat who’s making excuses and should just move his fat arse. And maybe you’re right. But that doesn’t mean these arguments are simply ones I can just kick out of my brain. They are there and I have struggled to shift them for a long, long time.
My job’s very sedentary as well, but I do try to walk every day to and from work which is about 45 minutes one way.
My wife is very thin and a nutrition/exercise advocate, and she’s tried patiently for three years to help me with it. I love her very much for putting up with my shit!
Many here are scoffing or downplaying the notion of genetics / physiology coming into play but I think that is the direction much of the recent science has been going – what with the improvement of factors such as lipokines as well as the many studies where some members of a cohort, initially at similar weight levels, put on and/or lose weight far easier than others.
Sure, if you eat less than X calories you’ll lose weight. But it’s also true that appetite levels vary widely, as well as the balance of how much excess calories are stored as fat, and how soon the body burns fat instead of sugar during exercise. Much of the data is implying that if everyone ate to the same level of satiation, some of us would be a lot bigger than others.
So I would put it down to the large availability of cheap, unhealthy food.
NB: I have no axe to grind here; I’ve always been slim. And while I’m very active, I credit it mostly with having manageable appetite levels. I’ve never needed to starve myself.
I don’t read it that way.
The genetics have not changed much in several centuries of time but obesity has. The question is why.
More calories in than out, sure, but again, why so much more so in recent decades.
One set of answers clearly is what the scientists call our current obesigenic environment and how that interacts with at-risk genomes. Those factors are what most here have focused on:
The built environment: more driving and more sitting, less activity involved in daily living.
The constant availability of lots of cheap food, not necessarilly nutritious food, and high calorie beverages.
That food often being the product of the food-industrial complex, designed to induce over-consumption, sweet, salty, and fatty. Mainstays of what gets labeled as the standard American diet.
Another set of answers may lie in changes in physiology however - those foods causing in brain centers from early in in childhood, even prenatally. Possible epigenetic changes. The possible impact of changes in our gut microbiomes. Low grade inflammation from environmental factors. All this work is very preliminary however and somewhat speculative.
Read Salt Sugar Fat. Or The China Study. Forks over Knives. Any of Pollan’s books or any of many others. Beter yet, read several of them.
It is not just how much we are eating, but what we are eating. As I’ve greatly increased the amount of fresh/frozen plant in my diet, I have a hard time imagining how much I would have to eat in order to gain weight.
And yeah - sedentary lifestyle. You don’t need to join a gym. Just walk, ride your bike, and occasionaly drop to the floor for some cals and stretching. Hell, you can even do that while watching TV.
But a good percentage of people tend towards the lazy and stupid.
[ul]
[li]Too much binging, not enough purging.[/li][li]High price of Cocaine.[/li][li]Acceptance of pajama pants worn in public.[/li][/ul]
Studies that have compared lifestyles and diets between decades past and currently suggest that reduced activity is barely a factor, and that the increased caloric intake is enough to explain our obesity levels.
This strikes me as probably true - you have to go back further than a few decades to reach a point where most men - and we’re mostly talking about men - had very physically demanding jobs. What constitutes a normal portion size, though, has increased at a rate greater than our exercise load has decreased. And the amount of empty calories we load our cheap food with has increased. America has become all about the most quantity at the lowest cost. Walmart and our guts reflect this.
Anecdotally, this rings true. It’s way easier to avoid eating an extra 500 calories a day than it is to increase your exercise load to burn off 500 extra calories. Also, try doing nothing for a month but making home cooked meals out of vegetables and lean meats. See how much you eat. Then go back to your previous diet. Go out to a restaurant, get a big meal that you’d be able to eat in one sitting before. You’ll think it’s disgustingly huge now, and break it up into 2-3 meals. It’s easy to get acclimated to what we’re expected to eat when a huge portion size is presented at normal, and the portion is formulated exactly to hit our food reward centers.
You know, exercising alone doesn’t result in much weight loss, but it is fan-fucking-tastic at keeping weight off, which is really what this thread was asking. People aren’t fatter today because they forgot how to lose weight, they are fatter because they’ve gained so much.
I think 350 calories in half an hour is pretty generous: machines always overestimate, because it makes people feel good. But it would be hard to burn less than 200 in a 45-minute walk.
Having an extra 200 calories a day/1400 a week that you can eat without gaining weight will change your life. Yes, that’s just half a frappuccino–so fuck, you can have a frappuccino every other day and not gain weight! That’s huge. Or you can have cream in your coffee every morning and a glass of wine every night. Or, you eat moderately the rest of the week, but on Friday night have a Nice Meal.
I frequently walk the mile and a half to the local ice cream joint, have a cone, and walk back. I am not all “Oh no, I undid the walk!”. It’s much more “Whoo-hoo! Calorie neutral ice cream”.
A 200 calorie surplus will cause a gain of 20 pounds in a year–just from a latte in the morning and a glass of wine in the evening. A walk lets you have those little luxuries.
We don’t have any more knowledge about how to control over-eating now than we did in the 1970’s.
Back in the 1970’s we had lots of fad diets that didn’t work. Nowadays we have lots of fad diets that don’t work. Back in the 1970’s, most obese people who went on diets didn’t stick with it, and most of those who stuck with it and lost weight gained the weight back. Nowadays, most obese people who go on diets don’t stick with it, most of those who stick with it and lose weight gain the weight back.
We are more sedentary now, as Lynn Bodoni says, which makes the fact that we have no reliable way to control over-eating worse. People go on Facebook instead of visiting the neighbors. Kids play on their iphones instead of baseball. People eat out in restaurants more.
Physics hasn’t changed - anyone who takes in fewer calories than they burn off will lose weight. There are no exceptions. Unfortunately, neither has human nature changed. We are uncomfortable taking in fewer calories than we burn off, or fewer than we are used to.
So we are fat, and getting fatter.
Regards,
Shodan
Portion size, food quality, and lack of activity.
Last night at dinner, g/f said “This is so good…why aren’t we fat??”
Well, for one we were having green beans, grilled chicken breast and grilled Brussels sprouts. When you eat those things, you get to eat a lot of them…even so, we didn’t eat a large quantity.
And, we both work out/run a couple-three-four times a week.
In my case: Eating while watching TV.
I’ve thought a great deal on the subject of why people are so much fatter than ever before. And have concluded the root cause is due to the following (at least in the U.S.):
-
Food is cheaper than ever before. In other words, we spend less on food now (as a percentage of income) than at any other time in the history of our country. For a lot of people, it’s free.
-
Food is more available than ever before.
It’s simply supply and demand. The supply of food has increased, which has resulted in a greater quantity of food consumed.
If you put food in front of a dog or cat 24 hours a day, it ***will ***get fat.
If you want to reverse the trend, make food much more expensive and more scarce.
I’m pretty sure that it’s fat.
Fat on human bodies, yes, of course, but that’s not necessarily due to fatty foods. Calories are Calories, whether they come from fat, carbs, or proteins. Eat too much of anything, and you’ll get fat.