Posted on 05/08/2012 7:02:05 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Those fit-and-able farmboys of a century ago won two world wars and set us up for the pampered lives this generation has enjoyed.
My Dad and his brothers were among them.
Yes, this. Taking a walk does nothing unless it is a 5 mile cross country power walk. A casual walk around the neighborhood isn’t going to induce weigh loss. Running 20 miles per week will not induce weigh gain, no matter what you eat. You can eat more (cake, doritos soda, red meat, pasta, bread, cheese) and the only result is you get faster. I know from experience. I actually had to cut back my training and start racing half marathons instead of marathons because I was losing too much weight and looking emaciated. I usually manage to put on about 10 pounds in the winter, but it disappears by the end of May by doing nothing different other than sweating in the heat.
>>The “obesity gene” was nowhere to be found two generations ago, but all of a sudden it’s prevalent throughout society? <<
Here it is.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67666.php
http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/d130.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100419162308.htm
Now, not to say that a healthy diet and strength training cannot help out, but really, it’s more like telling my 5’8” daughter that she can work to be short. Starting from childhood I may have been able to feed her a diet that stunted her growth. AND I can teach my kids to eat right and exercise, but they will not be skinny. EVER.
Off to Planet Fitness with my girls!
>>I follow a fairly rigorous physical training regimen focusing on weight training.<<
>You got it.
>Also, you’re a man. Men are simply able to metabolize better.
>God built you to run, God built us to squat over a field and breed.
Don’t be blaming God for your fat butt, there’s walking, swimming and exercises to keep it up tight and trim.
Exactly!
Thermodynamics? It's a government plot!!!
I did some checking up on this and found out they are using the old, 1960s MET Life standards for height and weight. The US Army tried using those in the 1980s, and quickly discovered that those tables were based on people who never exercised and had lots of other bad habits. So much of the Army appeared to be overweight.
That is, if you are physically fit, the tables will indicate that you are overweight, simply because muscle weighs more than fat.
To get around this problem, first the Army tried to use immersion tanks full of water to determine soldier’s fat, in that fat is more buoyant than muscle, based on how much they weighed on dry land vs. how much they weighed in water.
This was both expensive and ineffective as well. So they tried using pinch calipers to measure belly fat and other rolls of fat. And that was really inaccurate.
The bottom line was quietly adopted by the US Army that, if you look fat, you probably are fat. If you don’t, you probably aren’t. Admittedly, there are problems with this as well because many people who are thin and trim have very little strength or endurance; and many people who look pudgy can bench press a Volkswagen and run half marathons in good time.
>>Don’t be blaming God for your fat butt, there’s walking, swimming and exercises to keep it up tight and trim.<<
God made a difference between men and women.
Haven’t you noticed?
Maybe you should read what I wrote about strength training before you make such a silly statement and talk about a “fat butt” when you have no clue what the person you are speaking to, looks like.
Two years ago, my wife suggesting that we take up square-dancing, having met two ladies at morning water aerobics who were members of a local club. Now, two years later, she's lost 49 pounds and four inches around her waist and I've lost 56 pounds and six inches around my waist. Research has supposedly shown that square-dancing for two to two-and-a-half hours is equivalent to fast walking five miles. Whether that's true or not, it has certainly strengthened my legs and increased my aerobic stamina.
I also accompany her to night water aerobics to build up my upper body and arm strength. I am by no means trim .. (having played the catcher position for 40+ years, I've the appearance of a mobile fireplug) .. but I certainly feel better than I did.
My company did that with a "wellness" program. The down side is that you have to submit to a long list of measurements that are entered into your personnel record as a starting point. No thanks. My employer doesn't need that information. The "payback" is a $75 annual reduction in the healthcare premium (currently running $300 every two weeks). Big deal. It's a fart in a hurricane.
I control my calories in a very narrow range daily. My weight stays +/- 0.5 lbs from day to day. I can drive it down by adding a fixed amount of exercise daily. I don't need government or employer "intervention" in my life.
If so, then you'll believe just about anything -- like there's a gay gene. Excuses are made by people who will not take responsibility for their condition/lives. Same as it ever was.....
>>Thermodynamics? It’s a government plot!!! <<
The problem is the body is a bit different from your fireplace. It doesn’t “burn” if it doesn’t have the muscle to do the burning. It’s like Oxygen in a fire. You need it to make heat. Without the muscle to burn the calories, they are stored.
The problem with “calorie in/calorie out” is that young people think that all they have to do is stop eating and they lose weight, but don’t know what weight they are losing. It’s muscle, because they aren’t getting enough protein so the body burns it’s own. Why do you think anorexics die of heart attacks?
A young person stops eating. They lose 20 pounds. (don’t think it doesn’t happen) Now they go back to eating 2000 calories. The body comes off starvation mode and stores what it can. There is less muscle to burn it. They gain more weight.
We need to educate. Restrict the RIGHT calories and stop telling people that they can take a walk or do 30 minutes of aerobics three times a week and they miraculously lose weight. It ain’t happening. At least not as the panacea they make it out to be.
Husband and I were watching our 8 and 5 year old grandsons playing the no score version of baseball. We got to talking how the boys didn’t know how to play ‘work-up’ or ‘500’. No bats allowed at school recess and no playing anything but parent organized sports after school.
Our son (about 25 years ago) never went hardly anywhere without a basketball to be shooting and dribbling. That is until we bought him an atari game system for Christmas. He quickly changed into a chubby little boy. And still fights weight gain. His dad and I have never been good examples either-sadly we eat too much for all the wrong reasons and watch way too much tv instead of exercising.
It's not all that different.
It doesn’t “burn” if it doesn’t have the muscle to do the burning.
You bet. If two people each eat 1800 calories and one burns 1600 calories while the other burns 2000, the first will gain while the second will lose weight.
Like I said, thermodynamics.
The problem with “calorie in/calorie out” is that young people think that all they have to do is stop eating and they lose weight
It's true, a lot of stupid people believe a lot of stupid things.
stop telling people that they can take a walk or do 30 minutes of aerobics three times a week and they miraculously lose weight.
Nothing miraculous, thermodynamics.
“The whole point of this country is if you wanna eat garbage, balloon up to 600 pounds and die of a heart attack at 43, you can! You are free to do so! To me, that’s beautiful.” - Ron Swanson
How do all of you who say exercise and reduce intake respond to tht fact that I am 6’2” and 155lb at age 55, with no exercise and always made fun of because I am always eating? That is lots of fats also.
Yes, in general for the whole population it is best to avoid starch and sugar, exercise regularly. But there is more to it when it comes to individuals.
Your metabolism sounds like that of my friend Larry, ate all the wanted all his life, lots of it, and stayed skinny anyway.
We buried him last week. His heart. He didn’t make it to 70.
Don’t take anything for granted.
EVERY female that I have ever known has at one time or another thought her butt was to big and needed reshaping. That includes standing there naked or in jean or with a nice tight skirt on.
One of my daughters is a professional model and she tells her mom of the benefits behind each exercise. Want to lift it, climb up the stairs and take the elevator down or walk a treadmill that is angled. Want to tighten it, swim. Then there’s the various leg exercises that will reshape it. These ladies know all the tricks to resizing and reshaping.
As I said, the shape of your butt is YOUR choice.
No oxygen, no fire.
Simple as that.
>>Just a few generations ago obesity was almost nonexistent.<<
Just a few generations ago, people worked a lot in the summer and sat on their butts all winter long, starving.
Read the Little House books. They went an entire winter with little to nothing to eat. The ‘obesity gene’ WAS a survival gene for times when there was no food. How did anyone survive the Death Camps? Some of them just had a gene that let them “power down” when they had little to eat.
Oh, and obesity was far from non-existant. Check out pictures of the Eskimos and Eastern Europeans. People naturally bulked up. They had to.
I would agree that the grossly obese are new to the scene, but to say that no one was obese is silly.
>>As I said, the shape of your butt is YOUR choice.<<
No actually, this is what you said.
“Don’t be blaming God for your fat butt”
You have no clue about my butt.
>>Yes, in general for the whole population it is best to avoid starch and sugar, exercise regularly. But there is more to it when it comes to individuals.<<
Amen!
See my post about the Fat gene. You didn’t get it. (lucky you)
Yes, eat more than you burn, gain weight.
>>Yes, eat more than you burn, gain weight.<<
And taking away the muscle that burns, along with the body shifting into “starvation mode” because of lack of calories, and nothing burns.
You’ve never worked with overweight patients, have you?
You bet. Slow down the rate of burn and it's harder to lose, easier to gain, assuming the same intake.
You’ve never worked with overweight patients, have you?
Thermodynamics doesn't work for them? Please explain further.
Your idea of simple Thermodynamics? No, it doesn’t.
Because you are thinking one food is the same as any other food. Like a fire from pine will burn the same as a fire from maple. They will both burn, both will burn to nothing, but how long does it take? And when the maple logs are still around the next day, they pile up. That is food in your body.
Here is an easy experiment for you. Live for two weeks on Karo Syrup and a OneaDay vitamin. Forty TBSP (2.5 cups) will give you 2400 calories. By your theory, you should gain weight.
Come on back and tell me if that works. Then we’ll continue the discussion.
Exercise IS NOT the only thing....too many carbs and calories for energy expended for many...my ancestors (in the pictures I mentioned) are German and English...but, yes, building and using MUSCLES helps minimize weight gain...which may be why I weigh near where I weighed in Sr year of high school...altho I am still more than I should be (and have been in the past). Actually I think we are conditioned culturally to eat MORE than we need.
You have an overweight patient who eats 3000 calories/day but only burns 2000. He'll gain weight.
He decides to make a change and with lots of hard work, he reduces his intake to 2500 calories/day and boosts his burn to 2500 calories a day. Great job! But he gets frustrated, because he isn't losing any weight.
He decides to go overboard and drops his intake to 1200 calories/day while keeping his burn at 2500 calories/day.
Progress! He loses about 2.5 lbs/week.
At a certain point, he starts to plateau. His metabolism begins to slow to compensate for his starvation diet. He works out just as much, but now he only burns 2000 calories a day. He's losing less than 2 lbs/week. Then his burn drops to 1500 calories/day. He's losing just over 0.5 lbs/week.
He continues to lose muscle mass and eventually his burn drops to 1200 calories.
At every point, he loses weight when he burns more than he takes in.
Now he gets off the dangerous diet and eats 2000 calories/day, which was his original burn rate. He begins to regain weight, because his new burn rate is less than his 2000 calorie intake.
At every point when he took in more than he burned, he gained weight.
Please let me know which of my scenarios is incorrect. Thanks.
Nobody pushes calories in/ out as the WHOLE solution. It’s a shorthand. Everybody that pushes it knows, and explains when necessary, that underneath all that calories in/ out is nutrition, vitamins, protein, and not reducing calories in to starving. There’s a reason why all the organizations that help people manage calories in/ out all say healthy weight loss averages 2 pounds a week, because they are pushing people AWAY from starvation level. Pretty much you’re the only one out there saying it’s simple with no other stuff, out here in reality where people actually USE IT to successfully remove and keep gone 70 pounds (me) we understand that’s the quick way to say it but there’s a lot more to it.
Come on back after the Karo syrup. We’ll talk.
Run away now.
>>Pretty much you’re the only one out there saying it’s simple with no other stuff, out here in reality where people actually USE IT to successfully remove and keep gone 70 pounds (me) we understand that’s the quick way to say it but there’s a lot more to it.<<
Read the thread, lots of people are saying the same. And others in the Health industry that don’t have big lobbying groups.
You may think, calorie in/calorie out is shorthand. Talk to anorexics and bulimics. To them it’s set in stone. Sorry, I worked Psych. Unless one is seeing a nutritionist, “calorie in/calorie out” can be dangerous. Especially for young women.
I’ll be right here on FR.
You can ping me back to the thread.
>>Exercise IS NOT the only thing<<
I never said “the only”
I said “the key”.
Great. When you can discuss the magic calories that come in, don’t leave and don’t cause weight gain, ping me.
I’ve read the thread. You’re the only one saying it. Everybody understands there’s nutrition and metabolism and all that stuff.
I KNOW calories in/ out is a shorthand. Anorexics and bulimics are insane, so yes their integration with reality is flawed, and even they aren’t all calories in/ out, their problem lies in what they’re willing to do to not be fat and they’re thinking they are fat at all. I work out of psych with sane people that are frequently trying to drop pounds, they understand it’s a shorthand.
Weight Watchers?
Prove me wrong, ball is in your court.
Until you take in all your calories in Karo Syrup, you won’t know.
See ya later!
Weight Watchers doesn’t push calorie in/ out without thought of nutrition. They’re one of the organizations that pushes for average weight loss of no more than 2 pounds a week. They’re very much about healthy smart weight loss that revolves around dietary education.
No need to worry about it. If I know anything, I know this...Americans will continue to get fatter and fatter until they waddle off this mortal coil. Nothing’s going to change that. Our food supply is what it is, tailor made for wide-bodies.
You want me to prove the laws of thermodynamics?
Until you take in all your calories in Karo Syrup, you won’t know.
Is Karo Syrup somehow magic? I can eat 2400 calories, burn 2000 calories and never gain weight? Wow!
You should write a paper. You'll be famous.
OMG, you are Weight Watchers!
I knew it.
My grandparents and great grandparents did NOT exercise...they worked....they ate headcheese, and butter...and unless something else didn’t get them, ie murder...they lived long lives....so, sorry, as much as I believe in exercise (I’m a power walker)....I think other things are involved.
One of the numerous facts that you are assuming but is not true: all the calories that enter the mouth enters the blood stream. Actually, absorption from the intestines to the blood stream is not constant from one person to another.
Yeah...didn’t have food stamps either....and look now at the average weight of a food stamp recipient.....
I’m not assuming that at all.
If you want to claim that you can eat 2400 calories, burn 2000 calories, excrete 400 calories, and not gain weight, why do you think I would disagree?
>>I think other things are involved.<<
wait, did you read the rest of the thread?
So do I.
I was talking about losing weight with the exercise comments, btw.
Genetics are very important. I also brought that up, upthread.
Back up to 77
“Here is an easy experiment for you. Live for two weeks on Karo Syrup and a OneaDay vitamin. Forty TBSP (2.5 cups) will give you 2400 calories. By your theory, you should gain weight.”
GAIN.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.