Ship of Fools: Weight loss, obesity, fat shaming, health, size etc ...

Thread: Weight loss, obesity, fat shaming, health, size etc ... Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020240

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Let's talk about obesity on this thread to save the 'Who is responsible' thread from tangents.

This article is interesting, as are the comments. Is sugar really the 'enemy'?

This one too - should sugar be treated like cigarettes?

Are there conditions which make it impossible to lose weight? My Dad always, very bluntly, said 'no one came out of Belsen fat'.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I can't resist boasting about being fat shamed on a New York bus. It was priceless. Sadly, my pleasure at being insulted in public so discombobulated my would-be tormentor that she gave up and got off at the next stop. [Yipee]

I don't really care about being fat, nor do I give a stuff about why people are fat.

I recognise that carrying excess fat will probably shorten my lifespan, but I could get run over by a bus tomorrow, or blown up by a psycho next Saturday when I go to the footy.

Time for the Alfred E. Newman motto: What, me worry?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Are there conditions which make it impossible to lose weight? My Dad always, very bluntly, said 'no one came out of Belsen fat'.

I'm going to guess that he wasn't fat. And I say that as someone who, through good gut bacteria or body chemistry or whatever, only gains weight if I start drinking four beers a day. We don't realize that not everyone has an easy time. Or the small ways that fat shaming happens.

It's a complicated issue. For some people, food issues are a matter of poverty, or a manifestation of deeper mental health issues. We should do better about making good food available to all, and helping people cut back on alcohol and sugary drinks and treats. But we should be careful to remember that this is one of those areas where it is way too easy to assume that your or my experience is the norm for all humans, when it really isn't.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Shame on her who insulted you - for all she knew, you could have had some chronic medical condition that makes (and keeps) you fat....

OTOH, if it's possible for you to lose some excess weight, go for it. At the very least, spare a thought for the poor sods like me, who, when working as an ambulanceperson, had to carry heavy people up and down stairs, and in and out of ambulances, hospitals etc. There are now a lot of gadgets and gizmos to help with this work, but even so...

The heaviest person I ever had to deal with (not on my own, I hasten to add - my crewmate and I summoned assistance) weighed 42 stone (588lbs), and another patient, heavy enough as it was, told me he'd weighed over 50 stone (700 lbs) before being admitted to hospital with heart failure(now there's a surprise!).

[Help]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Sigh.

Yes, I admit it, if you were to throw me in a jail cell and keep me there without a single calorie to eat, eventually I would lose weight. There's no getting past the second law of thermodynamics.

But I'd damned well do it about three or four times later than normal people, and far more slowly than normal people, and if you gave me thin vegetable soup and nothing else I'd probably maintain my overweight. Because that's the way I'm built.

When I say "I can't lose weight," what I mean is "I can't do it without going to extremes that would make most people's heads shred right off." For example, the weight loss surgeries I had during the past decade, the last of which resulted in my guts ripping through my diaphragm (sorry for disgusting image), crowding my lungs and nearly killing me.

I'm not doing surgery again.

But if I'd risk my life (and I did this knowing I was likely to have a bad outcome), how the hell can anyone say I'm not serious about losing weight?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

And yes, I live with the shame of it every freaking day--every time my weight makes things more difficult for another human being (why do men insist on holding the door open in such a way that they are standing in the opening and fat people are forced to say "I'm sorry, I'm too fat to squeeze past you, would you please move"? And then they get mad.

I hate airplanes because there's always someone (again, usually a guy, usually young and fit looking) who will be disgusted at having to sit next to me.

I avoid pictures. Worse than that, I have a sneaking suspicion that my workmates arrange matters in such a way that I am never allowed/forced to be photographed to accompany the material I write (though other authors are). And I can't figure out whether to be grateful or angry or both. And then I wonder if I'm just being paranoid and I hate myself for it.

To top things off, I have an inherited connective tissue disorder that makes it near impossible to exercise without getting injured, AND chronic pain and loose joints that means I have to use the elevator and a cane occasionally. At which point everybody looks knowingly at me, because of course it's the proper payback I deserve for giving myself arthritic knees via gluttony all these years. Except my knee joints are in very good shape, thank you, and the real problem is invisible and unknown. But everybody THINKS they know. And occasionally give me advice.

This is really stupid, but it wears me down. Sometimes I think this is my version of Paul's "thorn in the flesh," because it prevents any amount of sin--hard to become prideful and arrogant when even little children make rude remarks about me on the street.

It sucks.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

((LC))

Just the sort of condition I was referring to earlier, though there are other reasons for excess weight.

I come from a very tall, thin, family (and we all have similarly Knobbly Knees and Bony Ankles), but, of late (and probably due to medication), I've acquired a noticeable paunch. Once or twice, people I haven't seen for a while comment on my weight gain - not unkindly - but I still find even this embarrassing.

I eat fairly well, exercise (gently) every day, and don't consume too much ALE (or CAKE), but, so far, with no difference to my girth.

[Disappointed]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

We are routinely told that my province is the most obese in the country. We are also told about sugar drinks, sugary packaged foods and related. Yes, it is probably a factor. Then I see urban design. Where it is difficult to go to school, work, shop for groceries, for a walk in the park, recreationally bicycle etc without driving somewhere. People drive to dog parks where they let the dogs off lead and watch, sitting on benches. They drive to places with bike rack on their cars. So children start life without ideas of doing things under human power. Adults are confined by what is possible for the duration of life.

So I implicate bad design of towns, cities and all the related things as a cause. Eating is the easy factor to blame. Blame also the urban planners. Blame the planners who drive everywhere themeselves. They design curvy crescents roadways, cul de sacs, and only terribly roundabout ways designed for cars. They put car parks in front of stores, making it dangerous to walk through. And the stores are distant from homes. Some places don't even have sidewalks/ped pavements. And it is dangerous to travel but by car.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Are there conditions which make it impossible to lose weight? My Dad always, very bluntly, said 'no one came out of Belsen fat'.

Well, yeah, but that's not really a very helpful comparison.

There are certainly medical conditions, and drugs used to treat other medical conditions, that make weight gain very easy, and weight loss very hard.
Lamb Chopped has spoken about this.

I don't have any of those issues. I'm not fat, but I could certainly stand to lose a stone. My waistband is 4" longer now than it was when I was a beanpole of a student, and I'd be happy to drop 2".

But I don't care enough to put any serious effort into losing weight, because I like good food, and I like good beer. I have no desire to trade in steak and butter for grilled chicken and a salad. So I'm sitting at an equilibrium between my vague interest in losing weight (which would be good both for my health and my aesthetics) and my disinclination to deny myself tasty food.

I don't drink much soda. Obviously, I should drink none, but sometimes it's the easiest thing to drink at work. If I could manage to reliably keep milk at work, I'd make tea and drink no soda at all, but my schedule isn't reliable enough - sometimes it takes most of the work day before I actually make it to my office.

I should also take more exercise, which would be good for both my weight and my general health. It's not something I'm opposed to in general, but I find that I have too many other things I'd prefer to spend my time on.

In the UK, I used to cycle to work, which provided a convenient daily exercise. Here, the weather is too uncooperative (too hot in the summer - I'd die. Too snowy in the winter. So once you eliminate all the days on which I would die if I tries to cycle to work, there aren't enough left to build up a reliable habit of always cycling.)

That was exercise for a purpose - it accomplished necessary transportation. I could, of course, decide to join a gym, or plod around the grounds for an hour at lunchtime or something, but that wouldn't accomplish anything, and I know that I would basically always blow it off because I'm "too busy" or "just need to finish this". The great thing about cycling to work as exercise is that I never decided that I was just going to stay at work because I didn't have time to go home.

(And, on London, cycling home was about the most time-efficient method as well.)

As you can see, I'm well supplied with excuses...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Copying over my response on t'other thread:

The main reason obesity is a problem is that humans did not evolve to sit on our arses as much as modern life dictates. A main secondary issue is that easy and cheap meals tend towards higher caloric content.

There are conditions which some have which make it difficult to lose weight no matter the diet and exercise, but for most of us it is a simple calorie intake v burn calculation.

However, there are a lot of other factors that can make it difficult. Poverty being a big one.

The stereotype of fat people eating loads of food is, for the most part, an inaccurate one. It is more about the types of food than the amount. And levels of activity. It isn't just going to the gym, but moving throughout the day.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Some sobering posts for anyone rushing to judgement on this matter.

I notice younger people today who appear too well covered when compared to footage of just 30 or 40 years ago. If reduced activity levels are part of the problem then this is going to become ever more exasperated, especially with technology giving us cosy and sedentary lifestyles like never before.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Congressman Steve King (Republican, of course, from Iowa) is calling for using federal funding for Planned Parenthood and food stamps to help pay for Trump’s border wall. King added that food stamps were created to fight malnutrition but that the people who benefit from these programs are now overweight.

"Now we have a problem of obesity," he said. "And when you match up the [Electronics Benefits Transfer] card with what the scales say on some of the folks, I think it's worth looking at."

It doesn’t seem to occur to him that chips, ramen noodles, etc. fill stomachs for a lot less money than fresh vegetables, fruit, lean meat and fish, etc. And in many poorer neighborhoods, stores with fresh food are few and far between, so the only place within walking distance is a convenience store full of cheap, filling junk food.

And -- surprise, surprise -- House Republicans want to dismantle the National School Lunch Program and the improved nutritional standards that first lady Michelle Obama advocated.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Another aspect of this is eating disorder. Also deeply troubling. One of one of kids' friends died of heart failure related to. I still think, though the suffering is individual, that our cities and societies are major factors in causing. Blaming people for their suffering is a terrible trope.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:

OTOH, if it's possible for you to lose some excess weight, go for it. At the very least, spare a thought for the poor sods like me, who, when working as an ambulanceperson, had to carry heavy people up and down stairs, and in and out of ambulances, hospitals etc. There are now a lot of gadgets and gizmos to help with this work, but even so...
IJ

This week my niece has had to give up the job she loved as a paramedic for this very reason. Her back has packed in.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Very much an occupational hazard, no matter how careful you are, or how many lifting/handling aids you may have. I'm one of the lucky ones, having escaped unscathed apart from the odd twinge of lower back pain now and then...

IJ

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
no one came out of Belsen fat

I would gladly submit myself to imprisonment where my food intake was strictly regulated, no ifs, ands or buts, PROVIDED that I could, on demand, indulge in any of several other (non-fattening) activities that give me great pleasure; AND FURTHER PROVIDED that once I reached my goal weight, the imprisonment would end.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

No reason that such incentive schemes couldn't be made to work. Often it is culture that causes epidemics, and culture can be employed to end them.
Which brings me back on to smoking.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Culture IS being deployed to end obesity. Just not effectively or justly. The chosen method is fat shaming, with a hearty side helping of fat penalizing. Ask any fatshamer. They'll tell you they're doing it for your own good.

Which has the added benefit of allowing them to do evil while feeling righteous.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Congressman Steve King (Republican, of course, from Iowa) is calling for using federal funding for Planned Parenthood and food stamps to help pay for Trump’s border wall. King added that food stamps were created to fight malnutrition but that the people who benefit from these programs are now overweight.

"Now we have a problem of obesity," he said. "And when you match up the [Electronics Benefits Transfer] card with what the scales say on some of the folks, I think it's worth looking at."

It doesn’t seem to occur to him that chips, ramen noodles, etc. fill stomachs for a lot less money than fresh vegetables, fruit, lean meat and fish, etc. And in many poorer neighborhoods, stores with fresh food are few and far between, so the only place within walking distance is a convenience store full of cheap, filling junk food.

Or that as a result, many poor children are both obese AND malnourished. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Congressman Steve King (Republican, of course, from Iowa) is calling for using federal funding for Planned Parenthood and food stamps to help pay for Trump’s border wall. King added that food stamps were created to fight malnutrition but that the people who benefit from these programs are now overweight.

"Now we have a problem of obesity," he said. "And when you match up the [Electronics Benefits Transfer] card with what the scales say on some of the folks, I think it's worth looking at."

It doesn’t seem to occur to him that chips, ramen noodles, etc. fill stomachs for a lot less money than fresh vegetables, fruit, lean meat and fish, etc. And in many poorer neighborhoods, stores with fresh food are few and far between, so the only place within walking distance is a convenience store full of cheap, filling junk food.
Or that as a result, many poor children are both obese AND malnourished. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Exactly. They fill up on cheap food with minimal nutritional value. But tell that to Congressman King and his pals.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I'm sorry, but where is the acknowledgement of humanity in this discussion? We're dealing with human beings, and food is far more than fuel; it's identity, it's pleasure, it's comfort, it's control. If you no control over your life, can't afford other pleasures and are otherwise unable to define yourself against the run of crap life is throwing at you, even consciously perverse food choices start sounding reasonable.

Thus far, all the discussion has been about manipulating and controlling people. How about liberating them to the point where they are able to look after themselves?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Indeed. I imagine it is easier to keep to a diet if you feel good about yourself already.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Indeed. I imagine it is easier to keep to a diet if you feel good about yourself already.

It's not just about that; it's about being able to meet the other needs in different ways. To be able to treat yourself by other means than a packet of ridiculously cheap doughnuts, for example. Poverty also breeds isolation, another set of losses and discomforts for which food then provides temporary and costly comfort.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Culture is being deployed to end obesity. Just not effectively or justly. The chosen method is fat shaming, with a hearty side helping of fat penalizing. Ask any fatshamer. They'll tell you they're doing it for your own good.

The think-tank logic no doubt being that if it's working for smokers then it might work for eaters.

However impossible it can seem for some folk, the fact is heavy smokers have been known to quit overnight and never light another cigarette. Likewise obese folk have made dramatic weight loss by eating significantly less for however long it takes to achieve the desired result.
OK, this is easy for someone like me to say, and accepting the comparison isn't watertight because a food addict cannot quit food overnight and never touch it again. There is also the factor of cheap fattening food but as one columnist wryly put it "a carrot is still cheaper than a mars bar".

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There is also the factor of cheap fattening food but as one columnist wryly put it "a carrot is still cheaper than a mars bar".

Well, OK, but if you're feeling a bit hungry, a carrot doesn't keep you going for another hour or two. And good luck finding a vending machine that will sell you a nice carrot.

Plus, as much as I like carrots (and I do), mars bars taste better. (They're a bit odd with gravy next to the Sunday roast, though.)

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
And in many poorer neighborhoods, stores with fresh food are few and far between, so the only place within walking distance is a convenience store full of cheap, filling junk food.

Why does this happen?

I wouldn't have thought fresh food was significantly more expensive in the US than the UK, given that you produce a lot more of your own food than we do. If so - and this may be horribly judgemental - wouldn't that suggest that the reason such shops don't exist is because there isn't a demand for them?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

I am fat, as anyone who has seen me or my picture is already aware. I used to let that fact lead me into a good deal of shame and self hatred. (Along with other things.) And yes, it is likely I will never be thin.

After a whole lot of work I am at a point where I genreally recognize that who I am as a person is not defined by my weight, but by my actions and the fact that God loves me just as I am.

If someone judges me on the basis of my weight it seems to me that it it is their problem and not mine. If I judge someone on the basis of their weight I am merely acting the fool.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is always more costly to offer fresh veg in a shop -- there's more wastage (not every head of lettuce gets bought, the old ones have to be tossed) and you have to refrigerate, ship in with a refrigerated truck etc. Compare with cans or packaged foods, which simply have to be trucked in and set on a shelf.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There is also the factor of cheap fattening food but as one columnist wryly put it "a carrot is still cheaper than a mars bar".

Not always. And certainly not if you live in a food desert where your only food supply is the local AM/PM.

[ 15. July 2017, 22:05: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There is also the factor of cheap fattening food but as one columnist wryly put it "a carrot is still cheaper than a mars bar".

But a carrot has no fat, and so doesn't make you feel full. Indeed it has a lot fewer calories. Generally when comparing foods et by poor people you have to look not as cost simpliciter, but cost per calorie. Also a calorie is not a calorie. In short, this is a really stupid comparison.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
And in many poorer neighborhoods, stores with fresh food are few and far between, so the only place within walking distance is a convenience store full of cheap, filling junk food.
Why does this happen?

I wouldn't have thought fresh food was significantly more expensive in the US than the UK, given that you produce a lot more of your own food than we do. If so - and this may be horribly judgemental - wouldn't that suggest that the reason such shops don't exist is because there isn't a demand for them?

As noted, there are several inter-related factors. One that hasn't yet been mentioned is farm subsidies-- which you would think would mean lots of cheap veggies, but no, due to particular political factors the really big money is in corn. So much so that corn syrup is practically free. So high-fructose corn syrup gets pumped into just about everything.

Time is a factor. If you're a single parent working two minimum wage jobs and have a couple of kids you aren't going to have time to make a lovely nutritious soup-- you'll need something you can throw into a microwave and get on the table in 5 min. so you can get your kids in bed before you get up tomorrow to do it all over again.

Housing is a factor. If you're homeless, you don't have any place to make a meal and no fridge to keep veggies fresh. You eat processed fast food 24/7 because that's all that's available to you. Even those who are housed are often living in a converted garage or other unsuitable housing (I've seen people living in chicken coops) without kitchen access.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The main reason obesity is a problem is that humans did not evolve to sit on our arses as much as modern life dictates.

Yet...obesity has been increasing even as people have become more active. The "it's because we sit on our arses" crowd usually compares today's activity rate with our farming ancestors. When we compare today's young people who belong to gyms and believe in "working-out' daily with the families of the 1950's you'll see most of the 50's families were thin and very few of them got out of their cars and walked anywhere. (I'm talking about Americans). My mother and her friends considered anything more vigorous than a few toe touches as unladylike. They were all slim. My high school graduation class of 1964 contained one overweight person out of 200. That unfortunate girl would be considered slim in todays high school.

I've read more articles and books on this problem than I care to admit and the person who makes the most sense to me is Gary Taubes, mentioned in the OP. His TED Talk is a must watch for anyone looking for the science behind the problem.

Why we get fat. He also has talks on sugar on You-tube.

As for the cigarette connection, yes there is something called addiction transfer. People who lose weight through gastric by-pass surgery have a very high incident of becoming addicted to gambling. I went form 110lbs all my life to 190lbs in six months when I quit smoking at age 45. I've been fighting it ever since.

While it's true no one ever came out of the concentration camps fat, it's also true their regain, once food was available, was astonishingly fast.

I've managed to lose all my excess smoking weight by sticking to a strict 1200 calories for about a year. I've done it four or five times. At about the one year point I start to regain without increasing my calories.

No, don't go there. I do not start slipping up. The meals are exactly the same each week and many of them are patented fast food meals (Arby's classic roast beef for lunch every Tuesday, etc.) At home my family sees me weigh and measure out my portion every evening. I don't suddenly start snacking after a year. My body just determines to get that weight back, I start to regain and after a few weeks I give up and go back to eating what I want, so that accelerates the regain even more. I don't hate myself when I give up. A year is a long time to go to bed hungry every night.

I gave up all effort about a year ago. Life is short, eat donuts.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is always more costly to offer fresh veg in a shop -- there's more wastage (not every head of lettuce gets bought, the old ones have to be tossed) and you have to refrigerate, ship in with a refrigerated truck etc. Compare with cans or packaged foods, which simply have to be trucked in and set on a shelf.

Also cans take care of themselves, by and large, whereas produce has to be handled and worked by an additional employee.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Produce also often requires cooking, which is time consuming, requires facilities and equipment, and is a skill many families have lost (other than heating things up in a microwave). Give most teens a potato and they'll have no idea what to do with it. Many of their parents are likely to have no idea what to do with it...

The time-consuming thing is a problem for my family, as by the time I return home my son is ravenous. I'm dealing with this by having him start dinner himself (yes, I taught him to cook), but see paragraph one for why that doesn't work for everybody. Plus after-school activities, jobs, ...

[ 15. July 2017, 22:30: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Frozen vegies, cooked in the microwave with a little fat added, are much more nutritious than fresh* vegetables. Cooking breaks down the molecular structure and makes the vitamins more soluble, the fat helps with this process. That raw carrot not only has very few calories for the hungry poor, it doesn't have much absorbable nutrition either.

*"Fresh" isn't even always that fresh either. If it's been traveling by truck for days it probably has already lost more vitamins than the same veg, yanked out of the ground at the factory farm, and thrown immediately into the freezing process. within hours.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

And now for something slightly different.

I finally managed to get in to an obesity specialist--not a "I have one solution and I use it for everybody" man, but a guy who's multidisciplinary and basically a Mad Scientist.™ He's treating (successfully!) several of my coworkers, which is how I came to hear of him. And we're not all doing the same thing.

In my case, he threw me straight back onto a very low carb eating pattern, which is working. I intend to keep on it. But (and this is a big "but") I can HEAR the biological scream going on in my body, begging for starches. It is unsettling--sort of like living with a ghost that keeps following you around and wailing at you. It is never far from my consciousness, and throwing meat and veggies at it only shuts it up for about half an hour. Then it starts screaming again--even though my stomach feels full and would object to, say, a potato or roll being added.

I have no idea what the scientific reality is behind this "scream", except that it probably has something to do with blood sugar. Which is not low--it's not that simple a problem--but I think something in the system is desperately trying to bring back the old regime. It sucks, and it's rather hard to concentrate.

(This diet is very expensive, too, and very inconvenient for eating at work or away from home. But if it gets the job done, I'll live with it. The bio-scream is really getting on my nerves, though.)

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

One of my sons suffered from anorexia when he was in his early twenties. We actually had to send him to treatment twice. The first time he really did not get into recovery and relapsed while he was studying abroad in India. He was immediately flown back to the US and re-entered another program. On the second day he was there, his heart stopped. Fortunately, they were able to revive him. Even then, he resisted treatment, to the point where we were prepared to involuntarily admit him to still another, much more intensive treatment. We were literally at the point of submitting the papers for commitment when he finally relented. This is still considered a hidden disease. Please encourage your friends to see To the Bone Please do not tag anyone though, because that unfairly singles out some people, and leaves other sufferers in the dark. May I add, my son has continued to be in full recovery. He is married to a professional chef who continually monitors how he is doing. They now have a beautiful son themselves.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There was a brief terrifying moment when I was diagnosed with diabetes. (They did another blood test and it was a false positive, whew.) I cannot give up carbs. It's ethnically inappropriate, for me to not eat rice. The word in Chinese even means 'food'; if you ask in Chinese whether someone has eaten to day it means 'eaten rice'. All other comestibles are add-ons.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But (and this is a big "but") I can HEAR the biological scream going on in my body, begging for starches. It is unsettling--sort of like living with a ghost that keeps following you around and wailing at you. It is never far from my consciousness, and throwing meat and veggies at it only shuts it up for about half an hour. Then it starts screaming again--even though my stomach feels full and would object to, say, a potato or roll being added.

I have no idea what the scientific reality is behind this "scream", except that it probably has something to do with blood sugar. Which is not low--it's not that simple a problem--but I think something in the system is desperately trying to bring back the old regime. It sucks, and it's rather hard to concentrate.

I know exactly what you're talking about, and Brenda's rice thing, too. It's a frantic, edge of panic, feeling that demands to be listened to. Give us this day our daily bread.

While visiting Youtube to get the Gary Taubes link, I ran into some Lindy West videos. She is great when it comes to responses to fat shaming. There's a moment in one where a young women in her audience tells her that fat acceptance is all well and good but "I worry about your health." Lindy tells her, "I don't owe you health." I love that.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

There does eventually come a point where you have to respect the fact that someone is an adult and responsible for their own choices, wrong-headed as you may think them. That includes the health thingy. And it's an added bonus if you (general you) can learn to think humbly, "Maybe there's more to the story than what I imagine based on appearances."

We've had a couple of references to heavy people destroying other people's backs. This is a real concern, and IMHO the powers-that-be ought to deal with it by a) making full use of any gizmos that exist to help, and b) seeing to it that nobody does this kind of thing career long. People cope with moving furniture, sick or disabled large animals, etc. already. IMHO it is just wrong to expect medical and emergency staff to cope without full-scale help of the sort these workers have. Expecting rather for the human race to shrink itself for the sake of such caregivers is pie-in-the-sky. We didn't get fat with the intention of hurting people's backs, we are mortified at the possibility, and if we could only figure out an effective and do-able way to shrink ourselves, we'd have done it already, for our own selfish reasons.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
And in many poorer neighborhoods, stores with fresh food are few and far between, so the only place within walking distance is a convenience store full of cheap, filling junk food.
Why does this happen?

I wouldn't have thought fresh food was significantly more expensive in the US than the UK, given that you produce a lot more of your own food than we do. If so - and this may be horribly judgemental - wouldn't that suggest that the reason such shops don't exist is because there isn't a demand for them?
As noted, there are several inter-related factors. One that hasn't yet been mentioned is farm subsidies-- which you would think would mean lots of cheap veggies, but no, due to particular political factors the really big money is in corn. So much so that corn syrup is practically free. So high-fructose corn syrup gets pumped into just about everything.

Time is a factor. If you're a single parent working two minimum wage jobs and have a couple of kids you aren't going to have time to make a lovely nutritious soup-- you'll need something you can throw into a microwave and get on the table in 5 min. so you can get your kids in bed before you get up tomorrow to do it all over again.

Housing is a factor. If you're homeless, you don't have any place to make a meal and no fridge to keep veggies fresh. You eat processed fast food 24/7 because that's all that's available to you. Even those who are housed are often living in a converted garage or other unsuitable housing (I've seen people living in chicken coops) without kitchen access.

Add to these reasons that grocery chains—which are in the position to provide fresh food at lower costs—often tend to avoid certain urban neighborhoods deemed "unsafe." (Use your imagination to guess what the racial composition of these neighborhoods might be.). Ditto many rural areas where they don't think they can make money.

There's also the lack in many places of good public transportation, making it difficult for many people to get to a decent grocery store.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

((lamb chopped))

[Votive]

I stopped reading after your very powerful post. I'll come back later and finish.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I've come to the conclusion that I'm addicted to sugar and carbs. They are not the enemy but I have to keep a close eye on them or they quickly become so, for me.

I was brought up in a household of six - all slim and healthy people. I now have a husband and two sons, all super fit keen cyclists, who think nothing of cycling across continents. One does cross-fit and can never eat enough.

So I've always felt pretty inadequate weight and fitness wise. None of my family do fat shaming, but they don't need to, I just look at their food and fitness choices and know I could do much better.

I am on a low-ish carb diet and only allow myself wine and a bar of chocolate once a week. I go to the gym every other day and walk my dog for an hour a day, I keep trying to walk quickly but my natural speed is s l o w. I'm now - after two years - just seven pounds short of my ideal weight.

It's a daily struggle as the crisps and bread shout at me. But the less of them I eat of them and the more fish, veg and fruit I eat - the smaller the craving, so that helps.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

All this talk of too many electronic games and not enough time to cook and food deserts in the city skim over the fact that 97% of all successful dieters regain the weight within 3 years. That includes motivated young people, movie stars, athletes, the winners of Biggest Loser, rich people, OCD calorie counters like me and Oprah who has a personal trainer and cook and she still regains.

Fat cells, once grown, never go away, diets only deflate them and they long to go back to their rounded glory. They think a famine happened and they can't wait for a chance to recover and prepare for the next famine.

Everyone points to the people they know who lost a bunch, or themselves who are doing great on the diet du jour, but only the three year report counts, and it's almost all failure. The three percent who retain their loss, talk about having to go down to about 700 calories per day and work-out for five hours a day. Many of them have quit their regular jobs and started working at the gym.

Exercise is helpful but considering you have to walk a half hour to work off the calories in a large apple, it just doesn't make a lot of difference in most people's lives.

The wonderful, well meaning Michelle Obama spent her time as First Lady going around to schools talking to the student assembly about better food choices and being more active. Those are fine things to do but they have been proven to make little to no difference in children's weight. I fear that her visits just encouraged stigma against the obese children, implying it was their own fault.

About twenty years ago, West Virginia, the fattest state, tried some things in several schools. They added a daily recess exercise program, classes in food choices and nutrition, and better school lunches. They removed all the vending machines. After a year none of the children had lost weight. Another study tracked what the children ate at home and the chubby ones didn't eat any more chips and cookies than the thin ones.

There's something going on here that science hasn't quite figured out yet. The billion dollar diet industry doesn't want us to know that all the Weight Watchers meals and gym memberships in the world aren't working and all their plans have a 97% failure rate.

It's no good having the doctors and teachers rant at us about how unhealthy it is to be obese. Until they come up with a cure it's like lecturing people for having cancer.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I agree Twilight.

My intention is to keep it up, and keep up the visits to fat club indefinitely. I'll report back in five years time to let you know if I managed it.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
We've had a couple of references to heavy people destroying other people's backs. This is a real concern, and IMHO the powers-that-be ought to deal with it by a) making full use of any gizmos that exist to help, and b) seeing to it that nobody does this kind of thing career long. People cope with moving furniture, sick or disabled large animals, etc. already. IMHO it is just wrong to expect medical and emergency staff to cope without full-scale help of the sort these workers have. Expecting rather for the human race to shrink itself for the sake of such caregivers is pie-in-the-sky.

The problem isn't just overweight people; it's helpless people. Near the end of her life, my mother weighed eighty-five pounds. The woman who took care of her injured her back trying to raise my mother in bed.

Anyone who takes care of a helpless person needs specially-designed lifting equipment.

Moo

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I agree Twilight.

My intention is to keep it up, and keep up the visits to fat club indefinitely. I'll report back in five years time to let you know if I managed it.

I'm glad I didn't discourage you, Boogie. I'll await your five year, or even one year, results and use them for some much needed inspiration.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Twilight:

quote:
There's something going on here that science hasn't quite figured out yet. The billion dollar diet industry doesn't want us to know that all the Weight Watchers meals and gym memberships in the world aren't working and all their plans have a 97% failure rate.

I think it's both very simple and very complicated.

The simple part: our bodies are designed to survive frequent famines. Those fat stores that everyone keeps going on about are your emergency calorie supply for when the food gives out. The body will hang onto them for as long as possible, and if it does have to use them it will start restocking the larder the minute you go back to a 'normal' diet.

The complicated part: modern life is designed to stop you burning calories. Houses are heated or cooled to comfortable temperatures so you don't have to waste too much energy maintaining your core temperature. Most people (in the UK at least) work in sedentary jobs. The processed food industry is worth billions of pounds a year and the kind of food they like to sell us (because it has a high profit margin) is high in fat or sugar or both.

And you don't get any points for trying to lose the excess baggage until/unless you manage to get down to your target weight. Smokers can get their brownie points by throwing their last pack of cigarettes in the bin, having a shower and changing into clean clothes. Dieters can be on nothing but grapefruit for weeks, hungry enough to gnaw off their own arms, and they still get fat-shamed in the street because *they haven't lost enough weight to look thin yet.* It's discouraging.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
When we compare today's young people who belong to gyms and believe in "working-out' daily with the families of the 1950's you'll see most of the 50's families were thin and very few of them got out of their cars and walked anywhere.

It is more about constant activity. Even office jobs in the 50's required more movement. Fewer telephones, no email, no desktop computers, etc. One had to get up and walk to do things. In the home, food preparation took more time and activity. Even in America, most people had one car for the whole family. This necessitated more walking.
Modern people like to go to the gym and workout, but if that 30 min to an hour every few days is all the exercise one gets, it isn't enough.
Modern packaged food has too much sugar (especially American) and too much fat. This is also a contributing factor.

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

The simple part: our bodies are designed to survive frequent famines. Those fat stores that everyone keeps going on about are your emergency calorie supply for when the food gives out. The body will hang onto them for as long as possible, and if it does have to use them it will start restocking the larder the minute you go back to a 'normal' diet.

This is why modifying your diet instead of dieting and reverting is a better tactic. It isn't that the body wants to remain at its fattest, but to remain at whatever has been normalised.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

There's something in the way a woman on the radio the other month was complaining about how bad the traffic was that it could take half an hour to drive the half mile to her gym. Just let that sink in.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

And the problem with modifying your diet permanently is it means being hungry and eating food you don't like much for ever. Sure, I can swap my chips for a salad at the restaurant, but if I do that I'll feel sick with hunger and sit there seething because other people have chips. I like chips.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Perhaps if you had salad and chips?

Either way, sitting there feeling sick with hunger, and seething with jealousy, is likely to do you far more harm than eating chips!

IJ

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And the problem with modifying your diet permanently is it means being hungry and eating food you don't like much for ever. Sure, I can swap my chips for a salad at the restaurant, but if I do that I'll feel sick with hunger and sit there seething because other people have chips. I like chips.

You don't have to give up any particular food. You just don't eat it every meal. The problem is that people think they must eat rabbit food instead of "real" food. There are more foods in Heaven and Earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
It is about finding foods that fill and comfort and aren't high in calories. And splurging From time to time.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Except that some of us can't do that (find a livable diet from the choices that will, er, allow us to stay alive [Biased]

). Carbs seem to have an addictive property for me, rather like alcohol for an alcoholic. Moderation does not appear to be possible (saith 30 years of experience) and a splurge is likely to mean derailing permanently.

Or so it seems. I'm hoping you'll turn out to be right. But I've got that bio-scream going in my ears right now ("Give me C-A-R-R-R-R-R-Bs!") and it's making me cranky.

And I just ate a good-sized lunch!

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I like chips.

This. I like chips too, and more to the point, I reliably like chips. I can order steak and chips in a restaurant, and I know I will like it. Salads are far more of a mixed bag. I make and eat salads from time to time, but I will never order one in a restaurant in preference to chips or potatoes, because there are reasonable odds that someone will put something I don't much care for in it.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

And ain't that the truth. As I'm rediscovering. Is there much more disgusting than a Caesar salad with cold grilled chicken strips way past their prime?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And the problem with modifying your diet permanently is it means being hungry and eating food you don't like much for ever. Sure, I can swap my chips for a salad at the restaurant, but if I do that I'll feel sick with hunger and sit there seething because other people have chips. I like chips.
You don't have to give up any particular food. You just don't eat it every meal. The problem is that people think they must eat rabbit food instead of "real" food. There are more foods in Heaven and Earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
It is about finding foods that fill and comfort and aren't high in calories. And splurging From time to time.

This is exactly what I do.

I never eat salad but have many recipes for high protein, low carb food - all cooked meals. I eat huge cooked lunches with (e.g.) bacon and chicken. With my evening meal I will have a few chips or a baked potato. Last night we had trout, chips, broccoli and mange tout. The chips were home made and oven baked and I didn't have a huge pile. Pudding was quark and raspberries, if you keep the raspberries frozen and stir then in it's really tasty and like I've cream.

This doesn't stop the carb cravings but it does mean I'm never hungry. That's the problem with sugar/carb addiction, you will eat it long after you are full. In fact your 'full' signs are eventually switched off. I just have to remind my body that these feelings are sugar cravings not hunger.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Ice cream [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

lilbuddha:

quote:
This is why modifying your diet instead of dieting and reverting is a better tactic. It isn't that the body wants to remain at its fattest, but to remain at whatever has been normalised.

Yes, modifying your diet permanently works for most people under 40. However that still leaves all the people with underlying conditions that make it hard for them to lose weight, post-menopausal women, people who can't afford to live on salad and lean meat or fish...

And if you've been overweight or on yo-yo diets for most of your adult life, then as far as your body's concerned being fat IS normal. Better not to put the weight on to begin with, but that's not a helpful thing to say to someone who's trying to lose weight because it is TOO LATE FOR THEM to take advantage of that particular piece of advice. Even if it does give you [generic you] a nice self-righteous glow when you say it. "I thank you, God, that I am not like that woman over there..."

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Ice cream

Perfect response to the OP.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I like chips.
This. I like chips too, and more to the point, I reliably like chips. I can order steak and chips in a restaurant, and I know I will like it. Salads are far more of a mixed bag. I make and eat salads from time to time, but I will never order one in a restaurant in preference to chips or potatoes, because there are reasonable odds that someone will put something I don't much care for in it.

For me, it's more like I'm going to be hungry if I have the salad, and therefore likely to raid the cheese box when I get home. So I'll end up in the same place.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And the problem with modifying your diet permanently is it means being hungry and eating food you don't like much for ever. Sure, I can swap my chips for a salad at the restaurant, but if I do that I'll feel sick with hunger and sit there seething because other people have chips. I like chips.
You don't have to give up any particular food. You just don't eat it every meal. The problem is that people think they must eat rabbit food instead of "real" food. There are more foods in Heaven and Earth, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
It is about finding foods that fill and comfort and aren't high in calories. And splurging From time to time.

As it happens, there's plenty of stuff I like that's low in calories. I'm not a salad dodger, I can eat piles of it. And that's the problem. I can eat piles of it, yes, it's nice, enjoyed that, but I'm hungry. It doesn't fill.

Now, if someone can invent some things that can "fill and comfort and aren't high in calories", I'd be very interested, because I've struggled to find them.

I'm not badly overweight - most people struggle to believe I'm overweight at all - but I have a spare stone or two.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Diet definition: a special course of food to which one restricts oneself, either to lose weight or for medical reasons.

If you're modifying your diet permanently, or making a lifestyle change, or cutting out sugar or doing the three week Hollywood Persimmon Juice Cleanse -- you're still dieting. It's all the same.

For years Oprah used to literally scream at her audience that "DIETS DONT WORK!" and then proceed to tell us we should cut out white foods, don't eat after seven, never eat processed foods, watch portions, eat every four hours, cut out fat, watch carbs, eat, drink 4 ounces of wine with dinner, and any other miracle cure of the moment. That's a diet!

As far as I'm concerned, if I'm not eating whatever sounds tasty I'm on a diet and I refuse to lie to myself and call it anything else.

What works best for me is to give up sugar, partly because left unattended, I eat lots of sugar calories, and because it's a very simple diet and only has one rule, but it can still be very hard socially when everywhere you go someone has brought cake or cookies and acts all hurt feelings if you don't have "just one."

Two years in a row, I gave up sugar on New Year's Eve and stuck to it without a slip until the following Christmas when a certain woman who volunteers with my husband would give him a gigantic tin of homemade walnut fudge. Both years he brought it home, opened it, and showed it to me, with a grin. I would groan and ask him to take it to church or throw it out or something and he said, "No. I might have some." and left it on the counter, untouched, for the season until finally, after a few weeks of thinking about it constantly, I gave in and broke my year long vow. After which I'm like an alcoholic with an open fifth of rum.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I run so I can eat crap. A 10k run, in an hour, at my weight, gets through nearly a 1000 calories.

And a 1000 calories is a lot, on top of the 2500 recommended intake. So I lose fat and gain muscle, and I feel better, physically and mentally (it's the only time I stop thinking).

It's literally the only way I get to keep my weight down. What happens when my body (I'm over 50) tells me it can't do it any more is anyone's guess. I suppose I'll just get fat.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

I tried running. It caused serious problems with my neck and spine, such that I was unable to exercise properly for months. Back to square one.

Weight training and low-impact CV is the way to go for me.

NO, SWIMMING IS NOT THE ANSWER. If you have any kind of neck problem it puts too much strain on your neck. And I don't want to spend the rest of the day with hair that smells like a loo brush, thanks very much all the same.

[ 17. July 2017, 12:06: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
Two years in a row, I gave up sugar on New Year's Eve and stuck to it without a slip until the following Christmas when a certain woman who volunteers with my husband would give him a gigantic tin of homemade walnut fudge. Both years he brought it home, opened it, and showed it to me, with a grin. I would groan and ask him to take it to church or throw it out or something and he said, "No. I might have some." and left it on the counter, untouched, for the season until finally, after a few weeks of thinking about it constantly, I gave in and broke my year long vow. After which I'm like an alcoholic with an open fifth of rum.

Aye, that's me too. Sometimes I can persuade the family to hide the gear, and sometimes I can persuade myself not to go looking for it.

On the upside - there have been times where I've kicked sugar for a month (well, Lent, actually) and all that good-for-you stuff has actually started to taste of something good - you know, apples, lettuce, tomato etc - once my burned-out taste buds have re-calibrated.

OK, here goes again, 17 July. Past experience suggests I won't last a week, and I won't feel any benefit or feel like carrying on until I make 3. I'll come back here (or maybe the one in all saints) to fess up.

[ 17. July 2017, 13:23: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I run so I can eat crap. A 10k run, in an hour, at my weight, gets through nearly a 1000 calories.

And a 1000 calories is a lot, on top of the 2500 recommended intake. So I lose fat and gain muscle, and I feel better, physically and mentally (it's the only time I stop thinking).

It's literally the only way I get to keep my weight down. What happens when my body (I'm over 50) tells me it can't do it any more is anyone's guess. I suppose I'll just get fat.

DH was a hard-core, serious runner for decades. He is naturally thin and didn't do it for weight loss. Because of his high metabolism and his long distance running, he thought he could eat whatever he wanted, and did--lots of meat, cheese, and other high-fat foods.

He had two stents put in in 2007 because he developed unstable angina.

In 2014 he had a hip replaced.

All this before age 60.

The two takeaways--you really can't outrun a bad diet, and running can wreak havoc with your joints. DH still exercises a lot, and even does short runs (nothing longer than 5K), but he also made some serious dietary changes.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

Sorry for the double post.

Take a look at the No S Diet . It was developed by Reinhard Engels. Reinhard is a librarian/computer programmer who realized he was packing it on and came up with this nifty plan, which got him to his goal weight pretty painlessly.

It's simple: No Snacks, No Sweets, No Seconds except for Saturday, Sunday, and Special Days. Monday through Friday you eat 3 square meals a day of *whatever you want*--it could be a burger and fries--except you can't have snacks, sweets, or seconds and it has to fit on one plate (and not one of those enormous trencher-size plates). On Saturday, Sunday, and Special Days (birthday, anniversary, Easter, etc.) you eat whatever the hell you want, however much you want.

Reinhard has kept off 40 pounds for something like 15 years following the system, and adding walking and very moderate weight training for exercise. But really, the weight loss came from his eating plan.

The No S website has all you need to get going. The No S book is good, but you don't absolutely have to have it. There is a No S forum, and what I find interesting is that the people on it are doing their damnedest to make No S into something way more complicated that it needs to be. No S is basically systematic portion control, that's all ... yet people keep wanting to complicate it, come up with exceptions, and so on.

I adopted this system years ago and it is pretty much how I eat all the time, but I tighten up on it anytime I feel weight creeping on (like after the Christmas holidays). It works really well FOR ME because this is how we ate when I was growing up in the 1960s.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

That looks excellent Hilda [Smile]

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
NO, SWIMMING IS NOT THE ANSWER. <<snip>> I don't want to spend the rest of the day with hair that smells like a loo brush, thanks very much all the same.

Lawk a'mercy! Where do you go swimming, my dear? [Eek!]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hilda of Whitby:
Because of his high metabolism and his long distance running, he thought he could eat whatever he wanted, and did--lots of meat, cheese, and other high-fat foods.

Well, he *could* eat whatever he wanted. And as eating cheese is one of (my) life's greatest pleasures, that I can run, and eat good cheese, drink good ale and decent whisky, contributes greatly to my mental well-being.

There are worse things than living to your 60s and then keeling over. Like denying myself cheese, ale and whisky. I'm not wearing a hair shirt over this.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

When people ask me if I exercise, I tell them I get all the exercise I need attending funerals of people who exercised.

All my life I have had to lose 30 pounds. Like others, I've gone through cycles of losing it and gaining it back again. Right now I have to lose it again. But at my age . . . .

I don't think that being 30 pounds overweight is going to kill me. And if it does . . . I might as well go having enjoyed my favorite foods than having deprived myself of them.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, he *could* eat whatever he wanted. And as eating cheese is one of (my) life's greatest pleasures, that I can run, and eat good cheese, drink good ale and decent whisky, contributes greatly to my mental well-being.

There are worse things than living to your 60s and then keeling over. Like denying myself cheese, ale and whisky. I'm not wearing a hair shirt over this.

Yeah, there sure are worse things. Odds are, you won't just keel over, but linger for years.

I have real strong feelings about this because both of my parents refused to make sane changes in diet and lifestyle, after hearing several doctors strongly advise them to do so. We aren't talking going vegan and taking up marathon running, either. They both got quite ill. My father's illnesses specifically were diet and lifestyle related. We kids were responsible for taking care of them. Towards the end, when it was getting really bad, my older brother and I were the last ones standing so we ended up with the brunt of it (the oldest two siblings ran for their lives, quite understandably). Perhaps fortunately, my parents were only 66 when they died; my brother was 32 and I was 28 before we could really start living our own lives.

It's one thing if someone wants to eat, drink, and smoke as they please and go against the advice of health professionals--it's their life. BUT it's quite another to drag family members down with them. Because of what I went through, I vowed I would make whatever dietary and lifestyle changes it took so as not to end up like my parents. I've been successful. I don't feel deprived because while I do like really good food, my definition of what that means has changed considerably in the past 30+ years.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

My dad died aged 83 (of cancer, having beaten the thrombosis and the flappy heart valve). My mum's still going at 81. I appear to have genetics on my side, as long as I keep reasonably active.

Obviously, my choice isn't everyone's choice, but dammit, if I've got ten years left, there's going to be cheese and beer in at least moderate quantities.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Amanda B. Reckondwythe:

quote:
Lawk a'mercy! Where do you go swimming, my dear?

Somewhere where they put lots of chlorine in the pool. Well, *I* think it smells like loo cleaner...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

We did not evolve for the lifestyle we have.
Food, especially cheap and packaged food, is higher in fat, sugar and other calories than it needs to be.
Humans evolved to crave those fats and sugars because they were more scarce and important during that evolution.

This is why people are fatter. Is it fair? If you have the financial and logistical resource to eat better and move around more, than "fair" isn't a reasonable part of the equation. Life isn't perfect: deal.

If you are poor or in a circumstance in which changing this is extremely difficult, than life is exceedingly unfair and this is yet another bus under which you have been thrown.

As to the shaming part of this: Fuck the shammers. Not their business, not their problem if it is indeed a problem.

One last: Moderation in portions and choices isn't the end of the fucking world, nor is a moderate amount of activity. That might not make one a model, but it will make a person healthier and feel better for a longer portion of whatever lifespan one has.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
When people ask me if I exercise, I tell them I get all the exercise I need attending funerals of people who exercised.

All my life I have had to lose 30 pounds. Like others, I've gone through cycles of losing it and gaining it back again. Right now I have to lose it again. But at my age . . . .

I don't think that being 30 pounds overweight is going to kill me. And if it does . . . I might as well go having enjoyed my favorite foods than having deprived myself of them.

My Dad always said 'we all need and extra half a stone in case of serious illness.'

Bless him, he had a lot of sayings. He was a very healthy man who was fit as a fiddle when he went into hospital for a minor op on his hand, contacted ecoli there and was dead within a fortnight, aged 86. Ho hum.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

OK, here goes again, 17 July. Past experience suggests I won't last a week, and I won't feel any benefit or feel like carrying on until I make 3. I'll come back here (or maybe the one in all saints) to fess up.

You go, Mark! I may join you after a doctor's visit I have coming up in a two weeks.

LilBuddha I agree with you (and Jesus) that moderation is a great thing, but for some of us, with certain substances, we have to go by, "What you cannot moderate, you must eliminate."

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

As someone said of alcohol -- it makes a good servant but a poor master.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

LilBuddha I agree with you (and Jesus) that moderation is a great thing

*tangent* when exactly did Jesus say that???

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

My Dad always, very bluntly, said 'no one came out of Belsen fat'.

What he, and everyone else, forgot to add, was, "And no-one who went in thin, came out at all."

I think we forget just how common lack and starvation have been, until just how recently. And that's me being all first-world and ignoring the parts of the globe where they're still par for the course. When you take this into account, it's eye-wateringly obvious that being of a sturdily-built nature is a very adaptive thing, thats been selected for over a long period of time, and it isn't just going to melt away now that conditions have largely been different for, what, seventy or eighty years? If anything, what's marvellous is that there are any naturally thin people still being born - and I say this as a naturally (relatively) thin person. I'm not quite sure why we haven't all been wiped out...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

LilBuddha I agree with you (and Jesus) that moderation is a great thing
*tangent* when exactly did Jesus say that???

Last week. We were talking about the Middle Path and he was like 'Righteous, lilB. That is pretty chill, I dig it.' fist pound

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I admit, there are times when I could wish to live in one of the cultures where fat women are greatly admired. There the poor naturally thin people are force fed, which is as horrible as fat-shaming is here.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

LilBuddha I agree with you (and Jesus) that moderation is a great thing
*tangent* when exactly did Jesus say that???
Last week. We were talking about the Middle Path and he was like 'Righteous, lilB. That is pretty chill, I dig it.' fist pound

epic.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

(LC)

Last week I read interviews with and extracts from Roxane Gay’s book Hunger in which (short précis) she writes about weight, body image and relationships with food. She talks about how she deliberately ate more to give herself a larger, less attractive body because she wanted men to keep away after she had been raped. I don’t think I’m ready to read the book yet but probably will at some point.

When I was adolescent and following on child abuse, I starved myself so that my breasts would not grow and I could stay a small child in appearance. It wasn’t anorexia and it wasn’t will power. It was fear that motivated me. And when I look at the emaciated images of Afrikaner women and children in the British camps in South Africa during the Anglo-Boer war and read the histories there, It wasn’t just the lack of food, it was the fear that they would not get out alive, that the husbands and brothers out fighting in the veld were dead, it was the memory of homes burned to the ground. In a similar way, starvation and terror in Holocaust death camps worked together to accelerate weight loss (Primo Levi writes about this).

Many black women from informal settlements in South Africa look bulky or overweight by Western standards. A more substantial size or build is considered attractive in black culture, but more significantly, the food available and affordable from spaza shops is a nutritional disaster: cheap processed meats, refined white sugar and white bread or maize meal. The incidence of diabetes is rising fast in disadvantaged communities in part because a diet of fresh vegetables, fish, alternatives to sugar etc, is not affordable. And every church or community hall meeting or event features bought cakes and sweets for the children, treats that are irresistible when you don’t have them at home.

When I went to university, I had no particular food preferences, I didn’t think about food at all. Once I’d stopped trying to starve myself in my teens I was mostly compliant at home and boarding school, praised because I ate what was put in front of me. I didn’t snack or crave anything between meals. My senses woke up in my early 20s and I found I liked pizza and olives and salty nuts. Then a promised bursary fell through and I found I could get by on lentils and split pea soups for a couple of year until I qualified and could get a job. The odd thing was that I came to love lentil and pulse dishes and still eat them most weeks. Since I lived in a communal house for a while, I learned to cook vegan and vegetarian food. As a Catholic convert, I undertook fasting with some reluctance but found that my unstrenuous fasts in Lent or on retreat have almost nothing to do with losing weight.

When I pop onto forum threads and post about needing to lose a little weight, this isn’t fraught for me any longer. I have a sedentary writer’s life sitting at my desk all day and a daily walk or session at gym doesn’t do enough to counter my fondness for pasta and Lindt chocolate. When I’m happy, I put on weight and don’t mind it too much.

All the same, I know that if I were to experience some major life crisis or bereavement, the struggle around food and eating would be right back again. When my food intake seems to be the only thing I can control about my life, it becomes an unhealthy issue. When I am frightened by the changes to do with ageing in my life or health problems, eating more or eating less makes me feel I can look and feel better.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Lamb Chopped:

quote:
I admit, there are times when I could wish to live in one of the cultures where fat women are greatly admired. There the poor naturally thin people are force fed, which is as horrible as fat-shaming is here.

It's one extreme or the other, isn't it... CS Lewis said (in Mere Christianity, IIRC) that if our society's relationship with food were as messed-up as our ideas about sex, it would be possible to make money out of doing shows where a tempting plate of food was slowly revealed... and then the audience went home without eating it. He thought he was joking.

Sixty-odd years later, with wall-to-wall cookery programmes on TV and gastroporn bestsellers in every bookshop, we know he's not...

[ 18. July 2017, 08:10: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is worth looking back at pictures or paintings of the great beauties of the past. Marilyn Monroe would be deemed chubby today.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Or you could compare the original version of James T. Kirk with the rebooted one... William Shatner looks decidedly flabby next to Chris Pine, but hypermasculinity was not 'in' in the sixties.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The "No S" (snacks, sweets, seconds) is a good one. I'd add salt to it, because some of us are salt responders re blood pressure.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Or you could compare the original version of James T. Kirk with the rebooted one... William Shatner looks decidedly flabby next to Chris Pine, but hypermasculinity was not 'in' in the sixties.

And do not compare Adam West to any of the later iterations of Batman.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Or you could compare the original version of James T. Kirk with the rebooted one... William Shatner looks decidedly flabby next to Chris Pine, but hypermasculinity was not 'in' in the sixties.
And do not compare Adam West to any of the later iterations of Batman.

There is only one iteration of Batman and that is Adam West. The rest are silly costume Emo farces.

OK, I so like some of those other films a bit, but AW for LIFE!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

What lilbuddha said. He couldn't act for toffee (or was that just the way he was told to play the role?) but he *was* Batman.

The others take themselves far, far too seriously.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

If you google around you can probably still find the TV advert Adam West did for AOL, or Yahoo, or one of those people, about ten years ago. It was very short; it began with AW in tight closeup, saying with fiery focus into the camera, "I use AOL to keep up on the nefarious doings of all my enemies!" And then the camera pulled back a bit, revealing AW wearing a hospital gown, and a burly ward attendant in the back saying, "Mr. West, it's time for your medication." No, he did not take himself seriously!

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

LilBuddha I agree with you (and Jesus) that moderation is a great thing
*tangent* when exactly did Jesus say that???

Never. I looked it up and found it listed in a group of, "Things people think the Bible says." But then you knew that didn't you?

In any case, I'm very glad to hear he didn't say it because I'd always felt a bit guilty over my inability to moderate things like cigarettes and sugar.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Jesus isn't particularly moderate in much of his own life. I can't imagine him recommending it as a general principle!

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
What lilbuddha said. He couldn't act for toffee (or was that just the way he was told to play the role?) but he *was* Batman.

That's exactly how executive producer William Dozier—who was responsible for the pop-camp style of the show, and who provided the voice of the narrator—wanted the role played. West got the part because he could pull it off so perfectly.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

<continuing Batman tangent> My favourite episode is the one where he goes to a dance club and someone asks him if he'd like to dance. "No thank you" he replies (in full superhero costume) "I don't want to look too conspicuous." <\end Batman tangent>

Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :

Interesting stuff here.

If it was as simple as good food in, exercise = slimness. I would be a bean pole! We are humans not machines. There is more going on than fuel in and shape out.

Years ago I was teaching all day, on my feet (running, and I mean running, up and down to the 5th floor all day long), walking to the Tube and back, attending ballet & contemporary dance classes, being very careful with my diet and yet I was still not slimline!

I was told by one of these slimming class leaders that I wasn't eating enough when she saw my food diary!!! So I followed her plan - and put on weight!!!!

I was put on medication by the GP - horrible stuff. It took me 18 months to loose a stone.Anther GP put me on a 1,000 calories a day - not healthy but it was for a limited period. Still did my exercise. In 6 months I lost just over half a stone.

My gran was huge, so maybe it's genetics!

Anyway I'll eat sensibly, exercise with my Water-exercise twice a week (a gym is too dangerous for someone with arthritis - especially with so called trainers who have no idea about physiology), do my housework, walk and my daily physio at home and stay chubby and cuddly.

I have wasted so much of my life worrying about my weight and it hasn't worked.

I hate people who are judgmental comments and "solutions" without knowing someone and what they have been through.

If you live healthily and are a wee bit overweight, what's wrong with that? Skinny isn't necessarily healthy.

People, even Christians, can be very nasty about the shape and weight of folks without knowing their background.

As to shaming......well turn round and make a rude comment to the shammer about their appearance and give them a taste of their own medicine. They are just bullies.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Well, I have arthritis in hips and knees, fingers and in one toe. It's my main motivation for working so hard on my weight and trying to build some muscle at the gym.

My knees and hips are thanking me for it.

I also find it really, really hard to lose weight on the same food that has all around me slim and fit.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wild haggis
My gran was huge, so maybe it's genetics!

One of my great-grandfathers got a medical discharge from the Confederate Army for obesity. There are seven descendants in my generation. Two of us have weight problems. I have a problem,but it's not extreme. One of my cousins has a very serious problem. She managed to lose almost a hundred pounds by running six miles every day. After awhile her knees gave out, and she ended up heavier than ever.

Moo

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I wonder why it is that people decide to run, when it has such an impact on joints? I tried it long years ago and had to stop after a week or so because of nearly damaging Achilles tendon! Since then I have walked; early so not many people about and as fast as I can. Same route. I think it must be just as good for the heart and lungs.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I've often wondered this, but then I find running simply horrible, a torment to the flesh.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Cross trainers and bikes are much kinder on the joints.

[Smile]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've often wondered this, but then I find running simply horrible, a torment to the flesh.

This is exactly why I do it. It's simply a socially acceptable cilice.

And, also: I suffered from plantar fasciitis for six months after I'd taken up running. I just ran through the pain.

Yes, I do know. This song resonates strongly.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I was able to seriously take up cycling when gasoline hit $4 a gallon. Suddenly, commuting to work by bike was saving me significant money. The appeal to parsimony was more effective than the allure of weight loss.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Rowing: preferably on water but failing that on a machine. It gives a good cardio-vascular workout and has an impact on most of the major muscles.

Plus you can do it inside, thus avoiding the rain and, if you're sensitive, the stares of younger fitter people at the oldie sweating away.

Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :

Gentle cycling, brisk walking and generally keeping busy seem to work. Modern work culture of sitting at a desk and being fed cake for team moral has bunged 15kg on me over the last three years. When I worked outdoors and only ate at mealtimes I was in much better shape.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Being fed CAKE to boost team morale? Lucky you...

[Two face]

But yes, gentle cycling, brisk walking, keeping generally busy and active, are all Good Things, and I, too, speak of What I Know.

IJ

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

It winds me up when people talk about will-power because we don't know that everyone experiences hunger in the same way, do we? It seems to be accepted now that people experience pain differently - but you don't hear people with low pain thresholds being told that they should have more will-power. (I say that, but maybe there is an element of that in the natural childbirth movement....)

So maybe we all experience hunger differently. Maybe the hunger that one person can exercise will-power over is experienced by another as a much more unpleasant sensation, that can't reasonably be controlled through the same strength of will.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Cooking all your own food from basic ingredients may help. No "convenience foods" or prepackaged meals. You don't make it, you don't eat it. Which includes things like juices and other prepared drinks.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

That, I fear, is what I'm going to have to do. Which is a huge amount of time out of my week, given the facts of my job and the quirks of the rest of the family. Oh. Yay. Can't. Wait.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Exercise was so easy for me -- when I really didn't need it. Until I was 45, I got up everyday, and jumped rope for 21 minutes then did nine minutes of fast calisthenics, all before my shower. All that jumping never hurt my joints because I only weighed 110lbs. If I jumped over a rope now all the little bones in my feet would shatter like glass.

The hunger question is a good one. I wouldn't say that I feel hunger more intensely than anyone else, but I know the feeling makes my nervous. It's the anxiety that goes with it that hurts and that anxiety used to be addressed with 40 cigarettes a day.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I solved the exercise problem by building the necessity into my life. When I was house-hunting, I insisted on a two-story house. I think I average eight trips up and down the steps every day.

I also insisted on a house close enough to downtown that I can walk to the bank and the post-office.

Moo

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm jealous.

We did have a small grocery store within half a mile so we could walk, but the man retired and it's now a fitness center--of a sort I can't use. [Waterworks]

Everything else for miles around is suburban houses and apartments. We looked in the city, but couldn't afford anything except high crime districts.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I solved the exercise problem by building the necessity into my life. When I was house-hunting, I insisted on a two-story house. I think I average eight trips up and down the steps every day.

We live in a staggered 5 level (3.5 stories) house-- I thought for sure all the trips up & down would keep me in shape, but sadly, I weigh the same now as when I moved in 10 yrs ago.
[Frown]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

We live in a staggered 5 level (3.5 stories) house-- I thought for sure all the trips up & down would keep me in shape, but sadly, I weigh the same now as when I moved in 10 yrs ago.

Perhaps your weight's the same but there are other benefits that may well have come from your climbing up and down over that range - not least of which is what would your weight have been had you not been doing it.

[ 20. July 2017, 07:43: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

Although not everyone is really aware of it, because nutritionists are still learning things backwards, the truth is that sugar is in fact the enemy. Well, not just "Sugar" (sucrose) but mainly Fructose

This has all happened due to a perfect storm of bad science and good marketing.

I recently watched a really great documentary on sugar by an Australian guy called "That Sugar Film".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3892434/

He explains through a real experiment using his own diet how the calorie theory is wrong and now food manufacturers have sort of scammed us in terms of how they have labeled the packaging. Film is well done and fun.

Thyroid disorder aside, it seems the issue is Calorie theory is applied too simplisticly by most dieting methods which say that every calorie is the same just as another, eat fewer and lose weight [calorie counting]. That's bad science.

The result of the bad science is that pre packaged diet foods have been formulated and advertised as LOW FAT, because fat has more calories per gram.

So in selling you their diet food, to replace the lost taste, they added sugar (sucrose/glucose/fructose), which has technically fewer calories per gram in a chemical sense.

So while glucose is lower in calories than fat, and sweeter than regular sucrose, and while fructose is lower still, and fully twice as sweet as sugar, this makes it easy to make the low calorie food taste good.

The result though is that the human body is incredibly efficient at storing fructose and converting INTO fat!

Odd as it may seem, fat in food is not as easily used, the body can eliminate excess fat in the gut, but glucose and fructose are smaller and absorb into the blood stream. The body uses free glucose directly, stacks the fructose in the form of fat.

I don't recall this being much involved in the film, but making things worse are artificial sweeteners. These stimulate the appetite and cause you to crave more "low calorie" food. As one example diet soda has been shown to be associated with metabolic syndrome in various studies (probably the people with metabolic syndrome are prone to seek diet beverages, but in any case, they simply don't work).

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

The result of the bad science is that pre packaged diet foods have been formulated and advertised as LOW FAT, because fat has more calories per gram.

It is not science that is the problem, but poor regulation of food industry labelling and lack of education.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I think you are wrong about the glucose, which I understand to be less sweet than sucrose. (Checked on line - I'm right.) Certainly when I used to use dextrose tablets they weren't as sweet. (And dextrose is glucose.) The fructose is a product of corn via corn syrup and was aggressively marketed to keep people in business. As I recall there is a sneaky name for it, but can't remember what, which disguises it in processed foods. (Possibly hydrolyzed corn starch, which is a precursor of the syrup.)
It does make problems with fruit, maple syrup and honey, agave syrup and other plant products is one wants to avoid it.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

I like this guy's anti-sugarvideo because it's short and because he talks just like me.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
It winds me up when people talk about will-power because we don't know that everyone experiences hunger in the same way, do we? It seems to be accepted now that people experience pain differently - but you don't hear people with low pain thresholds being told that they should have more will-power. (I say that, but maybe there is an element of that in the natural childbirth movement....)

So maybe we all experience hunger differently. Maybe the hunger that one person can exercise will-power over is experienced by another as a much more unpleasant sensation, that can't reasonably be controlled through the same strength of will.

I think this is true. For me, hunger is abdominal discomfort, nausea, weakness and being able to think about nothing else. Having a small portion which doesn't take the hungry feeling away is the worst of all.

Posted by cattyish (# 7829) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder why it is that people decide to run, when it has such an impact on joints? I tried it long years ago and had to stop after a week or so because of nearly damaging Achilles tendon! Since then I have walked; early so not many people about and as fast as I can. Same route. I think it must be just as good for the heart and lungs.

Running on an injury is always a mistake, but I've gone from hating running to being a regular (very slow) runner by gradually increasing my stamina with a "couch to 5k" podcast on my old MP3 player. I now want to run. The evidence is: running with an injury is bad; running if not injured and if keeping to sensible increments is not bad for joints and actually good for bone strength. Very small study. Bigger study, this one's about osteoarthritis.
Cattyish, convert to jogging after all these years.

Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
[qb]
The result of the bad science is that pre packaged diet foods have been formulated and advertised as LOW FAT, because fat has more calories per gram.

It is not science that is the problem, but poor regulation of food industry labelling and lack of education.

The scientific consensus was over the mid 20th century that since obesity is an issue of being fat, that fats were the culprit. This turns out to be wrong, so this is an example of bad science. Food companies follow what scientists says is good to do. Poor regulation is only a secondary problem.

In the documentary "In defense of food" it discusses how the scientific world had reduced food research down to food substances, partly because that is what can be more easily studied and regulated.

So as far as that goes, the science of food began drawing conclusions based on food as being made of basically 3 things. Fat, Carbs, Proteins. The food pyramid was based on it.

Anyways, the Atkins diet proved convincingly that a high fat low carb diet fundamentally works. It is renamed now because it was "controversial" in it's day because Dr Atkins was confrontational on the scientific front of things.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/nutrition/diet/goodbye-carbs-hello-high-fats-atkins-diet-back-time-called-keto/

[ 20. July 2017, 19:31: Message edited by: Aijalon ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Just because I check assertions, research into fructose in the diet - Nutrition and metabolism 2010 is actually saying that fructose is not quite the baddie those articles are suggesting:

quote:
that a positive effect of fructose on satiety was demonstrated in the 1990's. The group of Rodin et al [41, 42, 43] demonstrated that the intake of 50 g fructose alone as the sole source of carbohydrate, either in solution or in the form of puddings 2 hours 25 minutes before a meal, caused a decrease in appetite and lipid intake.

and that (2009 Journal of Nutrition)

quote:
Forshee et al. (68) have emphasized that pure fructose does not necessarily reflect real-life diets, which generally contain approximately equal amounts of fructose and glucose from fruits, vegetables, nuts, and added sugars such as sucrose, HFCS, and fruit juice concentrates. The level of dietary fructose used in many of the quoted studies is much higher than that found in typical diets. Significant changes were not observed when fructose vs. glucose sweeteners were tested. In addition, the increase in dietary fructose has not been disproportionate to the increase in energy, fat, and cereal grains between the 1970s and the present. Available data suggest that a sedentary lifestyle, an abundance of energy and fast food, smoking cessation, and diets containing excess energy, saturated fat, sucrose, and HFCS have all contributed to our current epidemic of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

and from a 2012 symposium

quote:
On closer examination, much of the accusing evidence appears based on confusion of fructose-containing sweeteners and their compositions, incorrect reporting of fructose use and intake figures, extreme experimental designs bearing little resemblance in amount or pattern to actual human use, and emphasis on statistical rather than clinical importance.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

As someone who has been overweight most of my life, though never grossly(BMI of 30) I have realised that there is a terrible load of bollocks written in the popular press on the subject. It may well be that being fat statistically shortens people's lives, but we're individuals, not statistics. My maternal grandmother was obese in later life but lived to be 96. My uncle had a real football belly and died just short of his 91st birthday. He had severe arthritis in his later years, but so do many thin people.

The comment about Belsen is correct. Our hunter gatherer ancestors probably went days without enough to eat and gorged themselves when food was available. The ability to store fat was a survival mechanism, and those with metabolisms which efficiently stored it, would have lived longer in times of scarcity. But of course a prolonged famine, whether caused by bad weather or by the SS in Belsen, would result in excessive leanness and death in many cases. Dieting, so popular in our overfed society, is just an attempt to induce some famine into one's personal life. The problem is it doesn't work.

When people have food around them, they can stand dieting only for so long. Progress gets harder week be week end eventually most people say WTF? Because, once someone has allowed excessive fat to build up, the body will always fight in every metabolic way, to regain the lost fat, whether it has been lost through diet or exercise. People should exercise because it's what the human body was designed to do. It can keep the heart healthy and fight off diabetes. But don't be surprised if you lose very little weight from it. It takes a lifelong almost super human approach, or a famine, to induce serious weight loss, and most people won't put themselves through that willingly. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Food companies follow what scientists says is good to do. Poor regulation is only a secondary problem.

Smoke whatever you choose, but don't blow it in my face. Business does what it can get away with. Regulation is what constrains them, but only when properly done.

quote:

Anyways, the Atkins diet proved convincingly that a high fat low carb diet fundamentally works. It is renamed now because it was "controversial" in it's day because Dr Atkins was confrontational on the scientific front of things.

Atkins is controversial because it is unhealthy unless carefully applied. Same with the Keto Diet you linked to. As with any specialised regimen, especially one developed to treat a specific problem, unsupervised use can be dangerous.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
but we're individuals, not statistics.

Lottery logic, that is.
An individual might be able to eat pork pies 5 meals a day whilst chain-smoking between mainlining heroin and drinking litres of vodka and manage to live to 90. Statistically, though, that individual isn't you.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Right now I figure that everybody's talking bollocks until they can rigorously prove otherwise. With repeatable and repeated double blind studies not funded by anybody with an axe to grind or money to make (heh. Heh.)

I'm trying to approach my problem like a mad scientist, then, trying various crap out to see if it works FOR ME and then adding carefully to it. So far for me the low carb thing works, but the low fat or plain old low calorie thing does not, and the data exists to support it (in my case only).

Exercise is iffy since I never approach it on its own with no diet component involved.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
An individual might be able to eat pork pies 5 meals a day whilst chain-smoking between mainlining heroin and drinking litres of vodka and manage to live to 90.

Nobody is suggesting we don't pursue as healthy a lifestyle as possible, but I don't think obsessing about how much we weigh all the time will get us very far. To paraphrase MP Ken Clarke a few years ago: Whenever I go for a checkup I get told to stop smoking, stop drinking and lose weight. That's why I don't go for many checkups.

I don't smoke and I drink very moderately, but I have love handles and a bit of a belly, none of which worries me much.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

One cause of obesity which has not been widely researched is pregnancy and childbirth. I have known people who were slender until they gave birth to one or two children. Then they put on weight and couldn't get rid of it.

When I was pregnant, I was warned that after the birth I would need to exert willpower to keep from gaining weight. Why? Has anyone researched this?

Moo

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

This article may be of interest. Basic summary: most of the calories you burn in a day are used in maintaining your BMR (basal metabolic rate), exercising won't make a big difference to the calories you need and if you exercise a lot your body gets more efficient at using energy so you burn fewer calories doing the same things.

I don't think anyone's done a study on it, but perhaps having a child resets your BMR in the same way, so that you burn calories more efficiently? For hunter-gatherers or subsistence farmers that would be a good thing (increasing the chance that you will live long enough to raise some children to adulthood), but not so good if you don't have to worry about where your next meal is coming from.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Nobody is suggesting we don't pursue as healthy a lifestyle as possible, but I don't think obsessing about how much we weigh all the time will get us very far.

Obsessing is a problem. Eat with a little thought, move around more. Even if one isn't the "perfect" weight, one will be healthier.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
One cause of obesity which has not been widely researched is pregnancy and childbirth. I have known people who were slender until they gave birth to one or two children. Then they put on weight and couldn't get rid of it.

When I was pregnant, I was warned that after the birth I would need to exert willpower to keep from gaining weight. Why? Has anyone researched this?

Moo

Yes.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

One reason women might have trouble with their weight, forever, after having a baby, may just be the diet she goes on to lose the excess she's left with.

I think dieting is a huge reason for weight gain in all people, whether it's the diet some teenage girl goes on to look like the models in the magazines or the middle aged man who wants to make his doctor happy. Dieting causes obsessive thoughts about food and convinces the body that there's a danger of famine. When we go off the diet, our fat cells and our brains want to binge and usually we don't stop overeating until we've regained the lost weight plus another ten pounds. A few months later we try again, rinse, repeat.

I didn't gain an excessive amount of weight with my pregnancy, but came home from the hospital at 125 lbs, about 15 more than my starting weight. I didn't diet, but I did breast feed and within a few months was a gaunt 103 lbs. Every pregnant woman who is worried about weight gain should try to breast feed. It isn't the whole answer for everyone, but it helps.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I didn't diet, but I did breast feed and within a few months was a gaunt 103 lbs. Every pregnant woman who is worried about weight gain should try to breast feed. It isn't the whole answer for everyone, but it helps.

Sorry-- that snort you heard was me.

Almost every woman breast-feeds these days, but I haven't noticed any decrease in the moaning about baby weight. I breast fed all 3 of my kids for 13 months each. It's been 17 years and I'm still waiting for the weight to come off...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I also nursed for 13 months, and did see some of the weight come off fairly easily--but not all of it AFAIR, and not permanently. [Waterworks]

And of course this is not a useful solution for people in general. [Big Grin]

FWIW, I did NOT diet after giving birth, not for two-three years at least. We were too caught up in dealing with a preemie-sized infant who refused to gain weight--bleah, the irony.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

And some women can't breastfeed. They're already feeling guilty enough about Not Feeding Their Baby The Best without being fat-shamed as well.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I think the biggest driver of weight gain after having children is lack of time, especially lack of time for yourself.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Yes. And several studies have shown that lack of sleep can lead to weight gain too.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I didn't diet, but I did breast feed and within a few months was a gaunt 103 lbs. Every pregnant woman who is worried about weight gain should try to breast feed. It isn't the whole answer for everyone, but it helps.
Sorry-- that snort you heard was me.

Almost every woman breast-feeds these days, but I haven't noticed any decrease in the moaning about baby weight. I breast fed all 3 of my kids for 13 months each. It's been 17 years and I'm still waiting for the weight to come off...

You snort over everything I say, Cliffdweller, I can hear it through my computer.

Didn't I just say that it isn't the whole answer but it helps? It burns an extra 500 calories a day? How can that hurt? What exercise program does that?

Yes, you and a million other women breast fed and still gained weight, but logic would suggest that you might have gained even more if you had bottle fed.
-----------------

Paulth's link has me ready to throw in the towel. Only one obese women in 200&something succeeds? Then I don't think I'm going to be that one. I walk with a cane, have no MCL or ACL, had to stop going to church because the stand-up-sit-down of it all was too athletic for me and left me in joint pain for the rest of the week. I have to cook for a vegetarian and a total carnivore, have a slow thyroid, and spend most evenings alone. Blerg. I think I'll go get some ice cream.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And some women can't breastfeed. They're already feeling guilty enough about Not Feeding Their Baby The Best without being fat-shamed as well.

So you toss out a question about the problem of weight gain after pregnancy. I mention that breast feeding was helpful to me, and new mothers might want to try ( I did say try) it, and now I'm fat-shaming and "not breast feeding shaming?" WTF? I didn't jump on people for suggesting stair climbing and tell them, "Some of us can't climb stairs! Quit cripple shaming!"

What a bunch of cry babies people are today with their shaming charges. I have never in my life told someone she should or shouldn't breast feed. That was a weight loss suggestion only.

When I had my baby in 1968, the staff told me that I was the first woman in thirty years to breast feed in that hospital. They gave me all sorts of flak about the extra trouble I was, not to mention drying pills. My doctor told me he hated breast feeding because if the baby needed any medicine he couldn't put it in the bottle. Worst was the countless dirty, snickering jokes from people including my in-laws. That was some serious shaming.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Twilight:

quote:
I have never in my life told someone she should or shouldn't breast feed. That was a weight loss suggestion only.

I am struggling to get my head around the disconnect between this and your previous post. How is extolling the virtues of breastfeeding as an aid to weight loss NOT telling someone she should breastfeed?

Oh, and nice ad hominem:

quote:
What a bunch of cry babies people are today with their shaming charges.

[ 21. July 2017, 11:57: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
How is extolling the virtues of breastfeeding as an aid to weight loss NOT telling someone she should breastfeed?

Recommending something is not equivalent to shaming people who don't do that thing.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And some women can't breastfeed. They're already feeling guilty enough about Not Feeding Their Baby The Best without being fat-shamed as well.
So you toss out a question about the problem of weight gain after pregnancy. I mention that breast feeding was helpful to me, and new mothers might want to try ( I did say try) it, and now I'm fat-shaming and "not breast feeding shaming?" WTF? I didn't jump on people for suggesting stair climbing and tell them, "Some of us can't climb stairs! Quit cripple shaming!"

What a bunch of cry babies people are today with their shaming charges. I have never in my life told someone she should or shouldn't breast feed. That was a weight loss suggestion only.

When I had my baby in 1968, the staff told me that I was the first woman in thirty years to breast feed in that hospital. They gave me all sorts of flak about the extra trouble I was, not to mention drying pills. My doctor told me he hated breast feeding because if the baby needed any medicine he couldn't put it in the bottle. Worst was the countless dirty, snickering jokes from people including my in-laws. That was some serious shaming.

FYI: 1968 was a long time ago. Most mothers today do breastfeed if they are able, and fight for the right to do so in public, rather than being relegated to dingy bathrooms as was the case when I first gave birth. Hospitals have lactation specialists to assist

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Yes, Cliffdweller I know that. I was relating my experience precisely to show how times have changed.

Just a few years ago I was talking to my then pregnant neighbor and her husband, when he asked me if I had breast fed. I said "Yes," and he gave his wife a "See there!" look. She then told me he thought she should, but she found the idea icky. I immediately jumped to her defense and said,"Then don't do it! The important thing is that you and the baby have a cozy bonding experience over feeding, and you can do that better with a bottle, if that's what makes you relaxed and happy."

Suggesting that breast feeding might help with the weight gain is a mile away from shaming someone who doesn't choose to do it.

I just realized the thing I hate about the knee jerk reaction of "They're shaming her!" whether its slut-shaming, job-shaming, drunk driving shaming, or whatever -- it's very rarely called "shaming" when it's a man. Yesterday a neighbor mentioned to my husband that the weeds under our fence were out of hand. My husband now has the choice of doing something about it (I used to do it but now I can't) or shrugging and saying, "I don't care what he thinks it helps keep the rabbits out."

What he didn't do was cry because he was yard-shamed. When someone at his bar says that the Smith boy is only 19 and already has been the baby-daddy twice. No one jumps up and says, "Quit slut shaming him!"

Most of "shaming" is gossip, as humans do, some of it used to be called peer pressure and had a place in the world. At least it kept people from mistreating their children in public, but whether gossip or good advice it was always considered that women as well as men were grown-ups and could deal with it.

I'm not advocating we been mean to people. I hate it when people think it's okay to criticize others for almost any reason other than the protection of a third party.

What I'm saying is that the whole anti-shaming thing infantilizes women and says that they, so much more than men, must be protected from criticism because they will possibly fall apart crying if someone says something unkind about them. If we keep sending that message we wont ever have a woman president.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

Suggesting that breast feeding might help with the weight gain is a mile away from shaming someone who doesn't choose to do it.

Agreed. Fortunately, no one here is making that sort of accusation. I'm skeptical of the "breast feeding aids weight loss" claim since it's contrary to my own experience and that of most moms I know, but I'm happy it worked out well for you, given that there are so many other very good reasons to choose breast-feeding.

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What I'm saying is that the whole anti-shaming thing infantilizes women and says that they, so much more than men, must be protected from criticism because they will possibly fall apart crying if someone says something unkind about them. If we keep sending that message we wont ever have a woman president.

As best I can tell, the "anti-shaming" thing has never been applied only to women (although shaming non-breastfeeding women is probably a distinctly female thing). As with all things, if taken too far, yes, it can be counter-productive, and just plain un-gracious if it's assuming the worst intentions behind benign comments, shutting down productive dialogue. That doesn't mean there aren't real incidents of fat-shaming or other forms of shaming that should be denounced.

[ 21. July 2017, 15:00: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

IMHO it is simply more common in every culture I'm aware of to use shaming against women rather than men. Men can be shamed, yes--witness the accusations of cowardice during wars when countries are trying to get people to enlist. But generally speaking, it seems more common for people to deal with men either via straight out complaint, verbal or physical aggression, or various overt forms of coercion (e.g. complaining to a supervisor or suing the guy in court).

And of course, a lot of time people just look at the guy, think of the possible repercussions of getting on his bad side, and just swallow it or bitch about him safely out of his hearing. Women on average are not nearly so intimidating to most people, and therefore come it for a lot more in the way of insults. (Few people expect to be punched or sued in response.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Men shame each other all the time. They do it in reference to masculinity, directly or indirectly. However, most cultures have a wide spectrum as to the value of men and a very narrow one as to the value of women.
For men; it can be job, character, art, masculinity, daring, intelligence, etc.
For women, it is beauty and child-rearing. The vast majority of the shaming for women originates in these values.

[ 22. July 2017, 17:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0