 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Why not just have a siren go off? "FAT-so, FAT-so, FAT-so!"
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
With all respect, I don't buy that time or money actually get in the way of health eating. I think it's mainly education which is unfortunately also correlated with money. I can cook quite well but only because my mother took the time to teach me. I have heard "Oh, that smells wonderful. I have to go out to eat to get food like that." They weren't actually talking about food I'd cooked, but it seems to make the point. If you don't know how to cook well enough that it makes eating fun you're going to eat more pre-cooked food!
Also, I'm okay off at the moment (not saving tons but saving a little. However, I have lived below the poverty line significantly. I worked 50 hours a week when you count transportation (which wears you out and keeps you from home) at a hard, stressful job that I hated. I was poor enough to qualify for food stamps. But didn't get them. Why? Because without them I could still put money in the bank. I lost weight that year too. Least healthy thing I ate was a lot of ramen noodles-every day for lunch for a year. Didn't go out to eat. Couldn't afford to. Didn't eat much meat. Couldn't afford to. Ate a lot of beans--like them now even less than I did. But I ate moderately healthily, didn't have to starve and put bits of money in the bank. One of my co-workers (same salary) who also didn't have any children had to quit (despite a sizable bonus for those who finished the year) because she couldn't afford to stay. The difference? I'd been taught how to live poor and she hadn't. I wasn't born knowing but my mother had the time and energy to teach me all my grandmother's depression habits.
Solution in my opinion? Stop making kids who aren't going to college learn pre-calculus and instead teach everyone how to save money, practice discipline and balance a budget. The ones who never get taught are the ones who desparately need to know.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
trebuchet
Shipmate
# 11970
|
Posted
Re corn subsidies: We can get rid of these without hurting the farmers - corn is what American biodiesels are made from.
Posts: 60 | From: Concord, NH, USA | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
It might be a hard choice, but dying of a heart attack, or having toes amputated from diabetes-related gangrene is tough too.
The trouble is that pretty much everything is a choice on some level. A homelessness, alcoholism, staying with a violent partner, all involve choice of some sort. The interesting question is why people make choices that are destructive.
My feeling is that people who allow themselves to become fat to the point of serious disability are probably suffering from an illness just as much as those people who choose to starve themselves to death are - and should be treated medically and psychiatrically just the same.
Below that level, there are as many reasons why people are overweight as there are people. Choices are rarely simple.
Mr Nui's currently in a blue study because since the baby was born he's gained a stone. This is largely because he'd rather come straight home from work and spend some time with his new baby than go to the gym and not get home until after the baby's asleep. Obviously he needs to find some middle ground. But does that choice really make him a less worthy of medical care than someone who'd rather spend his evenings in the gym honing his pecs and only sees the wee one on weekends? Perhaps dogbotherer thinks so.
[ 19. December 2006, 22:10: Message edited by: Iole Nui ]
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
And finally... I think a fat tax is highly unlikely to work. OK, so $40 dollars for a plate of chips might make you think twice, but there's no way the food industry would realistically allow such a high tax.
And we already have punitively high taxes on cigarettes (around £5.10 for a pack of 20, thats, what, over $10?). And on alcohol (it's cheaper to buy Scotch whisky almost anywhere in the world than Scotland). And on petrol. Yet people keep on smoking and drinking and car use just keeps on rising.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, I hope you don't take offense at this but I fail to see why others should pay for Mr. Nui's having fun with his child.
Well, no offense, but our social priorities are going to place exercise-duty over family life, no wonder the country's full of unhappy, dysfunctional children.
Besides, that argument applies to anything - why should I pay for a rugby player's injuries?
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Whenever I read threads about this it always seems like everybody thinks they have the answer. It's either all about home cooking or the key is more exercise or someone comes out of the wood work to tell us that if we only had to pay money to have our feet amputated then it would be a different story. Maybe it's just me, but I'd far rather spend every penny I had than lose my feet.
As long as 98% of dieters regain their lost weight I don't think any of us have the answer. It's all just speculation because I'll bet no one on this thread has lost a large amount of weight and kept it off for more than five years.
On New Years day 2005 I resolved to walk 45 minutes per day, every day but Sunday and give up all sweets -- that's every last thing that contains sugar, honey, or corn syrup. I have stuck to this without fail for two years. No birthday cake, no taste of jam or applesauce, nothing. I did my workout even when I had the flu.
From 2005 to 2006 I consistently lost weight until I was down 60 pounds at this time last year. During the second year, I regained 30 of those pounds while doing exactly what I did the year before. I do all the things recommended on this thread. I eat lots of fresh fruit and vegetables, I cook wholesome, meals of grilled fish and skinless chicken breasts with brown rice and steamed brocooli.
People always talk a good game while they're losing and most people think they regain because they "go off the diet." That does happen for many people because dieting is restrictive and boring and hunger is unpleasant: but the truth is that even if we don't go off the diet, our bodies adjust to almost anything and we will regain even if we stick to the plan. People who have had gastric bypass surgery regain.
98% is a big figure. It means something and it doesn't mean that we're all lazy and weak willed. When people like Dogwonderer come along and insult everyone here who has weight problems and blame our "choices' and suggest that we don't deserve medical care while people who ride motorcycles while drunk do deserve care, it rankles a bit. When people who work in the medical field can come up with some answers for us beyond that same pamphlet I've seen in the doctors' offices for the past fifty years with the "eat less fried food" "switch to skimmed milk" advice, then they can come over all judgemental and smug, but so far they have given us nothing our great grandparents didn't know.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, I hope you don't take offense at this but I fail to see why others should pay for Mr. Nui's having fun with his child.
Because it is not a zero-sum game.
The impression I sometimes get reading the views of those who oppose the welfare state in principle, or who think the welfare state has gone too far*, is that there is one group of people who bear all the costs and another, seperate, group who garner all the benfits. In Nozick's terms, the rich are "harnessed" for the benefit of the indolent. It is all very Eloi and Morlocks and I just don't think that the welfare state is like that or that life is like that. The interplay is far more complex and human beings do not live in bubbles, utterly seperate from everyone around them. At least, not if they are healthy.
*Not saying that you fit into either category, Gwai, but just a general comment.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
As long as 98% of dieters regain their lost weight I don't think any of us have the answer. It's all just speculation because I'll bet no one on this thread has lost a large amount of weight and kept it off for more than five years.
Bollocks and rubbish. Diets don't work because they are acknowledged as temporary. Many people in this thread have stated that sustained weight loss takes life style changes. Not a fucking fad diet you can do to get down to your "perfect weight".
And a few people in this thread have talked about their long term weight loss. Which you would know if you had read the fucking thread.
It isn't exactly fucking rocket science. You burn more then you consume and you lose weight. You consume more then you burn and you gain weight. That's how it works for people who don't have medical problems. When I eat less food I lose weight. It is that fucking simple. Motivating people to stick with the life style change is the problem, not the details of said change.
The problem with diets is that people think they can get around this little fact with fuck all exercise, while eating fad food of the month.
If you have major weight changes while continuing the same regimen, then either your memory is faulty (which is common, never trust an eye witness), or you have hormone or other medical problems.
[ 19. December 2006, 23:04: Message edited by: the_raptor ]
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
The problem is - how do we decide which procedures are needed? The NHS, NICE (National Institute of Clinical Excellence) and so on already have people working on that one who are more likely to know what is needed, and what is affordable, and what is achievable, then you or I.
I know it is possible to argue that a reduction in the tax burden would be good for the poor, but as I think you implied, to do that by removing vital services which they cannot afford to pay for privately may well not be a net gain.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
And finally... I think a fat tax is highly unlikely to work.
honestly I agree, and for the same reasons you cited - I remember here when cigs went up to $5 a pack, I swore, that was it, the final straw, I was quitting.
I quit about 5 years later. it's not so easy, and financial constraints don't necessarily stop addictions.
However, I think it is valuable in this instance to note that food is a particular addiction - "cold turkey" can't work. you need to eat.
this isn't a matter of all food will soon be massively priced out of sight, forcing us to pay more to feed our "addiction" (in this case, the addiction becomes life) it would be, to makes an extreme example - $40 for fries and $1.20 for carrots.
for me that's an easy choice.
however, all that being said - I agree! as I've said on this thread enough to make me dizzy, penalizing is not the solution to obesity. I think it needs to be a game of education and incentives and community-wide changes, fat or no fat.
Twilight - I'm seriously sorry about your struggles, I can relate so much. when I quit smoking, I gained 20. (no big surprise) I worked HARD and lost that, only to start a new medication that helped me gain 40. it's beyond frustrating.
But Raptor is right - diets, and cutting whole groups of things out of your diet, isn't necessarily the cure. I can cut all sugar and still eat 20 bags of chips a day.
personally, I think the solution for me is all in my head. I need to control emotional eating. I'm working on it. but no presribed diet plan is going to fix the problem until I can stop the emotional eating, so I feel I need to just cut to the chase and fix the problem, not beat the symptom to death.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Bollocks and rubbish. Diets don't work because they are acknowledged as temporary. Many people in this thread have stated that sustained weight loss takes life style changes. Not a fucking fad diet you can do to get down to your "perfect weight".
And a few people in this thread have talked about their long term weight loss. Which you would know if you had read the fucking thread.
It isn't exactly fucking rocket science. You burn more then you consume and you lose weight. You consume more then you burn and you gain weight. That's how it works for people who don't have medical problems.
Boy, clueless AND arrogant. What a combination.
Hello. Earth to raptor. Read what Twilight said, fucking fucking fuckedy fuck fuck. When you lower your caloric intake over a long period of time, YOUR BODY ADJUSTS and starts burning less. To maintain the same weight you have to lower it more. If you're unlucky enough to have the wrong kind of metabolism, eventually you're starving yourself and still gaining weight. Our bodies are designed to gain weight when calories are available. Trying to short-circuit this leads to problems. Here's a pound sterling. Go buy a clue.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
trebuchet
Shipmate
# 11970
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I know it is possible to argue that a reduction in the tax burden would be good for the poor, but as I think you implied, to do that by removing vital services which they cannot afford to pay for privately may well not be a net gain.
Seconding this. I've been a member of the working poor in Canada and in the U.S., and I preferred Canada, despite paying about twice as much in taxes, for just that reason.
Besides which, it's cheaper for everybody if we pool our money in the form of taxes - government waste is about balanced out by enjoying the benefits of economy of scale, plus we don't have to pay for the profits a private system demands.
Posts: 60 | From: Concord, NH, USA | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
When you lower your caloric intake over a long period of time, YOUR BODY ADJUSTS and starts burning less.
Could somebody dredge up something to clarify how this works, exactly? Because my understanding is that this effect is a matter of conditioning, and the body becoming good at what you train it to do. The sticking part being that, given less fuel whilst training in a dedicated manner to sit very very still, the human body will adapt to optimize itself for the current situation.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
within reason, the law of diinishing returns applies. you cannot eat less and less and less to where you are eventually gaining weight while eating nothing. Also - if you are balanced properly and moving properly, you can keep the gear "high".
further, "plateaus" which are often when people say the diet is never working were explained to me by a doc as the body essentially readjusing itselfto the new weight, and they are necessary to the weight loss to last. the AVERAGE over time is supposed to be 1-2 lbs a week. but most will loose, say, 4, then 2, then have two weeks of no weight loss, then lose 1 lb, etc.
again, as explained to me. I have yet to master this art form.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
Why RooK, I for one am glad to explain. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
If a 150-pound woman who has a body fat composition range of 22% body fat...she will have approximately 33 pounds of fat, 86 pounds of weight composed primarily of water, 20 pounds of muscle and other lean tissue, and 11 pounds of bone and mineral weight. This total then makes up her total weight of 150 lbs.
Now take the example of another woman who weights 150 pounds, but has 30% fat on her body. She would have 45 pounds of fat on her body, 79 pounds of water, 17 pounds of muscle, and 9 pounds of bone and minerals .
Both women weight 150lbs. and are about the same height, but one looks much FATTER while one looks much LEANER.
click
If you get more body fat, your BMR goes DOWN and you get fatter eating the same calories. This could happen because you do not vary the exercise you do and your muscles get used to that particular exercise...and it is too easy for you.
So you have to spice things up in effect to keep losing with the same amount of exercise if you happen to gain some more body fat.
But if you somehow also get more muscle, you may burn up some more calories and that is very nice.
If you ask again, I might talk about PCOS. Be warned. It is Christmas and I am feeling generous, so I won't explain PCOS to you and why it affects my weight doing the same exact work outs and eating the same things. Fortunately I am not stranded like Jack Sparrow on a desert island with only some bottles of gin to suddenly be forced to lose weight and have finally a skinny ass.
Thanks. Appreciate it.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
[having trouble with code & stuff. argh.]
[ 20. December 2006, 02:00: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
within reason, the law of diinishing returns applies. you cannot eat less and less and less to where you are eventually gaining weight while eating nothing.
True but you can eat less and less to where you are not getting enough essential nutrients, but still are taking in too many calories to lose weight.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rugasaw
Shipmate
# 7315
|
Posted
Twilight, I think you over estimated the amount of people who regain. I found this article that says " as many as 85 percent of dieters put the weight back on within
two years after weight loss." This is an old article so the information may not be accurate.
--------------------
Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents. It was loaned to you by your children. -Unknown
Posts: 2716 | From: Houston | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
You know why the put weight back on? Because they stop dieting.
No one can live on "a diet" if by "a diet" you mean so low in calories that you are intended to lose weight. You just can't live like that. So people diet and get down to a certain size and then ease up a bit. And then a bit more. And then a lot. And start to put weight on. And on. And on. Because they only diet to lose weight and then go back to how it was before.
It's been said before, but it's worth saying again. The only way to get and stay thin, if you are not, is to make permanent changes to what you eat and what you do.
As Laura said, you can regard this as depressing, or you can be happy with how much better you feel.
I like nothing more than stuffing my face. I love to get really, really, really full. I'd do it every meal of every day, if it didn't mean that I put on weight. I would drink and eat until I could barely lift myself from the table to my bed to have a nice long sleep.
But, alas, I cannot.
I know this, because from just three weeks holidays in September, in which the Altar family had a ritual morning tea each and every day, I put on 2kgs. And this, despite walking long distances each day.
And so now, I am back on the proper food thing, and still walking long, long distances (actually, that's a bit of a lie, because I've been sitting around on my backside, mostly, but the last couple of days .... walk, walk, walk). So no cake unless it's a birthday party, no dessert unless it's a dinner party and lots of bloody walking.
But goddamnit, I'll fit into my clothes.
[ 20. December 2006, 05:41: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Persephone Hazard
Ship's Wench
# 4648
|
Posted
As I think I said in my OP, I fall into the 'severely obese' category. I'm a UK size 16-18 (ish), I've always had problems with my weight, and I have a BMI somewhere in the mid-thirties. It doesn't help that I'm short (5'2"), which makes even small weight gain show. I also have a sluggishly slow metabolism, and lose weight very slowly no matter what I do.
I'm losing weight at the moment. About a pound a week. What am I doing? Surprise surprise, I'm eating less and exercising more. I'm not on a detox or Atikins or the Cabbage Soup Diet or the Three-Day Strawberry Plan or whatever the fuck else the cool kids are doing nowadays.
It's boring and it's depressing but it's the truth. Diets don't work. And I should know, I've tried them all. From Weight Watchers to the Juice Fast, I've jumped on with every fad going. And all I did for years was get fatter.
--------------------
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it's a lot easier to make up a thousand words than one decent picture. - ken.
Posts: 1645 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Persephone Hazard
Ship's Wench
# 4648
|
Posted
And yes, I'm double posting, but another rant has occured to me.
I can't stand all this 'don't make us pay for you to be treated on the NHS' bullshit. How far are you going to take this?
Obviously I'm not saying that all or even most obese people suffer from binge eating/compulsive overeating disorder. Because, you know, that would be ridiculous. But some do, and I in fact have been one of them.
Would you say that a bulimic couldn't get dentistry on the NHS if they'd rotted away all their tooth enamel? Would you say that an anorexic should go private for their sailene drip if they were so thin they could no longer walk? By that logic, why should someone with COE have to pay for their own treatment?
--------------------
A picture is worth a thousand words, but it's a lot easier to make up a thousand words than one decent picture. - ken.
Posts: 1645 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
I agree. If we are going to deny obese people treatment because they do things to themselves that cause harm, we have to deny smokers, drinkers, drug-addicts, althletes, drivers, people who have sex, etc etc. the same treatment.
Only Methodists will get treatment. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
I need to backpedal a little bit here, because I think I've inadvertantly misrepresented my feelings on a side issue: health coverage.
when I said I agreed with dogwonderer, this is the portion of his post that I agree with:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
The problem of increasing obesity is complex, but the implications are quite simple. If the current trend continues, the tax-funded NHS will not be able to afford treatment of obesity-related illness. This is simple fact. There is good epidemiological research to show this. So, we do have a problem.
Fat people get fat because they eat too much and don’t burn it off enough. (The numbers of people with metabolic-illness-caused obesity is really truly tiny). Obesity is not inevitable- it is a function of the choices we make with our lifestyles. Note the word choices.
It is morally doubtful that we should have the right to be obese if the resultant illness places an unsustainable burden on society.
I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that people have the "right" to something that then becomes a burden on society. However, I am a strong proponent of people, all people, being able to go to hell in their own special way. so, following that line of logic, if they want to eat themselves to death, I'm fine with that so long as they're not putting any undue burden on the rest of us. this burden could be in NHS taxes, insurance premiums, or legislation that requires that every business have their doors widened or something. For something where the majority of people are making a choice -and I strongly believe this, as it's a choice I make over and over every day - it's not fair to change the world to reflect this particular choice. And yes, I am bothered by the cost to the health system by drug use, drunk drivers, stupid drivers, etc.
however, I do differ from dogwhatever wen he says this:
quote:
My own feeling is that, if you choose the right to be obese, then you should pay for the costs of the burden you place on society with your illness and premature death. You should do this by Fat Tax, and private healthcare.
not because I think everyone should pay the cost, but because I just dont know enough about a public heathcare system to make any judgements one way or another. I pay for all my health care - whether its for something self-inflicted or not. I do not begrudge the state picking up the slack for someone in crisis who may have made bad choices, but I expect them in general to then step up to the plate themselves and deal with their problems. whatever those problems are.
dogwalker further goes on to outline a system of penalties for obesity that I think I've only said a few (hundred) times that I don't think will work.
I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
It’s dogwonderer, BTW. As in, ‘He lay awake all night wondering of there’s a dog’. Although I rather liked 'godwaterer'...
I am amazed that my comments have stirred such reaction, but I guess this is an emotive subject. (Congrats on a brilliant website, BTW; I think I’m hooked already). Statistically, most of you lot are probably overweight (especially you Yanks), so I guess I should have moderated my health fascism somewhat in order not to offend your guilt-inflamed sensibilities. Humble apologies for any offense caused. Oh, and as for trolling- sorry I couldn’t get back and join the affray sooner, but I had people to cure and calories to burn- you know how it is.
I know that obesity is a complicated problem on a personal level, but the really scary thing, for doctors, is the cost implications of the predicted increase in obesity on a general (population) level. It doesn’t look good, children. The way things are going, this thing will become a plague of truly biblical proportions.
Drastic problems need drastic solutions. Whatever we know about obesity at present, and whatever we’re doing about it, it ain’t working. If you educate fat people about nutrition and exercise, they still get fatter and fatter. There is no effective medical treatment for obesity except VBG (gastric stapling). That’s all we can do. Period (for our US friends). Full stop (for my UK compatriots). Pills don’t work- sorry about that.
You cannot make this fat horse drink, folks. The only way that society can deal with this problem is to hit people financially; everything else is ignored. Although it is clearly fascism (and sadly unrealistic), if ‘bad food’ were taxed out of our reach, we would have to eat ‘good food’. This is already happening with tobacco (except that everyone gets their mates to pick up a couple of zillion cheap ciggies for them when they go to Spain). Fags here are getting so expensive people are obliged to cut down- I know this for certain.
The truth is that it is the lower socioeconomic groups which suffer the highest rates of obesity, because cheaper food is crap. Generally speaking, healthier options are relatively more expensive (and less convenient). I think this is all wrong, and it should be the other way round.
As for healthcare- well, the sums speak for themselves. All the predictions show that obesity will become unaffordable- and soon. Simple as that, really. There is only so much money available for all doctors to have to share out. The moral argument seems straightforward to me, if we apply a little parsimony here: fat people should pay for the illness they inflict upon themselves by eating too much and sitting on their flab all day. (BTW, please note- the term moral argument). Otherwise we won’t have enough money to cure people with cancer which is not their fault. I know it’s unpleasant, but it is the truth.
How the hell else can we sort this out?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
The argument for artificially pricing unhealthy food out of reach doesn't hold up. You would have to increase prices of some pretty basic foodstuffs, like eggs, bread, cooking oil, potatoes, sausages, cheese, the list goes on. Bread, for many, is *the* basic foodstuff and it piles on the calories.
Even poor fat people can peel spuds and deep fry them. Eeee, there's nowt like a chip buttie!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
'Even poor fat people can peel spuds and deep fry them'...
Yes, but they don't. They buy it ready-made, Supersize, mega-fat and ultra-salty. Nobody actually makes food anymore, do they?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
As far as I'm concerned, it's education that's needed.
Not trying to educate adults - they are a lost cause. Educate kids. Teach them about health and respect for their bodies and Why Their Parents Are Wrong Wrong Wrong (kids love that). Teach them nutrition and cooking and PE so that they enjoy those topics.
And get rid of those bloody awful celebrity chefs, who make food an object of worship. Today's food is tomorrow's poo. No one should pay $30 for a plate of future poo.
And ban those bloody motor scooter things for anyone under 70 unless they have a bona fide illness of the joints or legs or spine (not just too much lard to lug around theme parks).
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, I hope you don't take offense at this but I fail to see why others should pay for Mr. Nui's having fun with his child.
I just want to mention on general principles, being currently in posession of a baby that is cutting three, count them THREE, teeth simultaneously, AND has a stinking cold, that anybody who thinks looking after a child is unalloyed fun is as mad as a tractor.
I'd rather be at the gym, and god knows how much I hate that.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
Hey, at times in life, you have to drop the ball and pay more attention to Other Stuff. Like babies.
Gym is excused for a bit. God knows, having an under-one means no sleep and not a heck of a lot of fun outside of the baby-fun.
One should not beat oneself up about such things.
If he's still slothing around when baby is five, kick him in the butt.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
As long as 98% of dieters regain their lost weight I don't think any of us have the answer. It's all just speculation because I'll bet no one on this thread has lost a large amount of weight and kept it off for more than five years.
Bollocks and rubbish. Diets don't work because they are acknowledged as temporary. Many people in this thread have stated that sustained weight loss takes life style changes. Not a fucking fad diet you can do to get down to your "perfect weight".
And a few people in this thread have talked about their long term weight loss. Which you would know if you had read the fucking thread.
It isn't exactly fucking rocket science. You burn more then you consume and you lose weight. You consume more then you burn and you gain weight. That's how it works for people who don't have medical problems. When I eat less food I lose weight. It is that fucking simple. Motivating people to stick with the life style change is the problem, not the details of said change.
The problem with diets is that people think they can get around this little fact with fuck all exercise, while eating fad food of the month.
If you have major weight changes while continuing the same regimen, then either your memory is faulty (which is common, never trust an eye witness), or you have hormone or other medical problems.
Riiight. My experience doesn't meet your theory so I must be lying. I'm not. I have witnesses.
Talk about not reading! I did read the whole thread and I didn't catch any long term major weight loss stories. I think you didn't manage to read my one post before you ranted about it.
If I had posted on this thread exactly one year ago, I would have told an inspiring story about losing sixty pounds with my life style change of forgoing sweets, exercising daily, and eating healthy dinners of vegetables and fish, etc. Now, because I've regained, you're calling it a temporary fad diet to reach my perfect weight. Bollocks indeed.
Temporary? I've stuck to my regimen for two years, how is that temporary?
All this talk about "life style change' rather than diet is just semantics. A diet is defined as an eating plan. If you decide to eat lots of fruits and vegetables and no fried foods -- you're on a diet. If what you mean by diet is the Cabbage Soup Diet you saw in a tabloid, then I've never been on a diet.
My current plan of not eating donuts and candy bars and exercising daily is exactly what people mean when they say "life style change."
Comet:
Sugar isn't a "food group." It's a man made substance that few people had tasted until about three hundred years ago. It causes hunger by flooding the blood stream with insulin and there is good evidence that it is addictive. It has zero nutritional value and it is an ideal substance for people with weight problems to give up entirely. When you call giving it up a "fad diet" it shows just how ingrained this unnatural stuff had become in our world.
I didn't substitute the sweets with bags of chips. I don't eat chips at all. If I had a chip problem I would have given them up instead.
Rugaswaw quote:
Twilight, I think you overestimated the amount of people who regain <snip> "as many as 85% put the weight back on within two years."
I said 98% in five years, so it figures that it would only be up to about 85% in two years. Another scary stat I've seen is that women who repeatedly do this lose-and-regain over 50 pounds cycle; increase their chance of heart disease by 70%.
I'm proving to myself that the regain is inevitable even if I stick to my "life style change" so I'm really pretty worried that I've damaged my heart.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
If he was off at the gym 5 nights a week like he used to, he'd definitely be getting thinner - 'cos he'd be buried under the patio.
[x-posted, the first sentence was in response to LATA]
I reckon that LATA is basically right about education. Why they don't teach you at school how to make soup out of cheap vegetables from Lidl is a mystery to me.
But I think the other thing that would hammer the obesity problem would be to get rid of this obsession with thinness, with one particular body configuration as the only acceptable shape. The thing about LATA's and comet's prescription of eating sensibly, occassional treats and sensible exercise is it will work (eventually). But what it will do is get you to the correct weight for you, the healthy weight your body wants you to be. What it won't do for most people, unless they have lucky genetics, is make you thin. For most people, their correct, healthy weight is just not thin enough.
And that's where the rot sets in and we get on the treadmill described by Twilight. That's why people go on starvation diets, or silly faddy diets, or cut out whole food groups their body needs to function correctly. Because they've tried eating sensibly and the like, have been the correct, healthy weight, and they're still sneered at by shop assistants, still compare themselves to skinny celebrities and find themselves wanting, are still assumed by people like Cosmo to be stuffing themselves with lard, and still can't wear the clothes that are fashionable in their peer group without looking ridiculous.
So people are trying to get thinner than they ought to be, fighting their body every step of the way, and ultimately failing. Which is how they screw up their metabolisms, screw up their relationship with food, get into a cycle of famine and binge, and inevitably in the end wind up either ill or fatter than they were when they started. Or both.
If we could just accept that people come in different shapes and sizes, and if there weren't a raft of multi-million pound industries dependent on setting unachievable goals then making people feel shit for not meeting them, then I bet obesity would all but disappear overnight.
[ 20. December 2006, 11:16: Message edited by: Iole Nui ]
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
'Even poor fat people can peel spuds and deep fry them'...
Yes, but they don't. They buy it ready-made, Supersize, mega-fat and ultra-salty. Nobody actually makes food anymore, do they?
People do make food, you ignorant oaf. If the prices go up artificially, they will make even more. Please pay attention.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fight-club for the soul
Shipmate
# 11098
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
If we could just accept that people come in different shapes and sizes, and if there weren't a raft of multi-million pound industries dependent on setting unachievable goals then making people feel shit for not meeting them, then I bet obesity would all but disappear overnight.
I bet it wouldn't. There are far more reasons for obesity than those. In contrast, I bet dieting may reduce if the above happened...
--------------------
"If I go they'll say I'm wrong, if I stay there'll be no song." - Delirious
Posts: 566 | From: 35°14'04.35" S 149°02'19.56" E | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
Indeed. We mix "beauty" (not real beauty, but that fake model look) with health. (in response to Rat)(sorry, can't stop calling you that )
We think that looking like Elle MacPherson is what we should all do. We can't and won't. The woman is a freak. A good-looking freak, but a freak, nonetheless.
Human bodies are pretty ordinary really. It's time we accepted that.
[ 20. December 2006, 11:22: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
'Even poor fat people can peel spuds and deep fry them'...
Yes, but they don't. They buy it ready-made, Supersize, mega-fat and ultra-salty. Nobody actually makes food anymore, do they?
People do make food, you ignorant oaf. If the prices go up artificially, they will make even more. Please pay attention.
A good many don't anymore. The pre-packaged food industry is booming. You can choose from umpteen different brands of pre-soaked-in-oil chips, but only about three types of spud at your local supermaket. I bet at least half of the households around the place wouldn't own a vegetable peeler.
People do not know how to cook.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
It’s dogwonderer, BTW. As in, ‘He lay awake all night wondering of there’s a dog’. Although I rather liked 'godwaterer'...
I got it in one and I think it's a very clever name. Welcome to the fray.
quote:
I am amazed that my comments have stirred such reaction, but I guess this is an emotive subject. (Congrats on a brilliant website, BTW; I think I’m hooked already). Statistically, most of you lot are probably overweight (especially you Yanks), so I guess I should have moderated my health fascism somewhat in order not to offend your guilt-inflamed sensibilities. Humble apologies for any offense caused.
That's okay, We Yanks know that you'll never catch up with us fat-wise as long as you keep smoking like chimneys.
quote:
Drastic problems need drastic solutions. Whatever we know about obesity at present, and whatever we’re doing about it, it ain’t working. If you educate fat people about nutrition and exercise, they still get fatter and fatter. There is no effective medical treatment for obesity except VBG (gastric stapling). That’s all we can do. Period (for our US friends). Full stop (for my UK compatriots). Pills don’t work- sorry about that.
So you admit that you don't have any answers for us but you're going to punish us anyway.
quote:
The only way that society can deal with this problem is to hit people financially; everything else is ignored. Although it is clearly fascism (and sadly unrealistic), if ‘bad food’ were taxed out of our reach, we would have to eat ‘good food’. This is already happening with tobacco (except that everyone gets their mates to pick up a couple of zillion cheap ciggies for them when they go to Spain). Fags here are getting so expensive people are obliged to cut down- I know this for certain.
Tobacco is a whole different thing, please don't compare them. We need food to live, we can't give it up cold turkey just because you and yours have raised the prices.
People in the U. S. smoke far less than in the UK. Contray to your theory, it is the upper and middle class that largely quit smoking. The lower economic group are still puffing away at those exorbitant prices.
I think poor people smoke more and eat more cookies and chips primarily because their jobs and lives are less happy and they like to comfort themselves in front of the TV of an evening.
quote:
As for healthcare- well, the sums speak for themselves. All the predictions show that obesity will become unaffordable- and soon. Simple as that, really. There is only so much money available for all doctors to have to share out. The moral argument seems straightforward to me, if we apply a little parsimony here: fat people should pay for the illness they inflict upon themselves by eating too much and sitting on their flab all day. (BTW, please note- the term moral argument). Otherwise we won’t have enough money to cure people with cancer which is not their fault. I know it’s unpleasant, but it is the truth.
How the hell else can we sort this out?
Cancer "not their fault"? Hello? Smoking.
Liver problems -- alcohol. Car fatalities -- no seat belt. Premature babies (talk about high costs)-- street drugs. Birth defects -- thalidomide... oh wait...that was doctor caused.
Really Dogwonderer, I'd like to see them try. Why should my skinny, 87 year old father-in-law pay high prices for his chocolate bars just because you've put them on your bad list.
Olive oil is high caloried but raises good cholesterol. Peanut butter is very dense calorically but it is a good source of protein for vegetarians. Eggs are bad for some people and good for others. Are you going to tax hamburger meat but not fish?
Are we all going to die of mercury poisoning?
[Code even more bolloxed than most of the opinions on this thread. And that takes some doing.]
[ 20. December 2006, 12:08: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Why should my skinny, 87 year old father-in-law pay high prices for his chocolate bars just because you've put them on your bad list.
Olive oil is high caloried but raises good cholesterol. Peanut butter is very dense calorically but it is a good source of protein for vegetarians. Eggs are bad for some people and good for others. Are you going to tax hamburger meat but not fish?
Yeah. This is why I am not Minister for Health.
Oh, and...
quote:
How the hell else can we sort this out?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
How the hell else can we sort this out?
Well, not by doing something that is a) not going to work, b) unworkable and c) not going to work.
OK, here's my brilliant 9 point plan to lower obesity:
1) As previously detailed, put the entire fashion, cosmetic and diet industry up a against a wall and shoot them, or alternatively force-feed them on Pringles and Mars Ice Creams 'till their thongs pop.
2) Basic cooking skills taught to everyone in school.
3) PE\Games at school 3 times a week, BUT with non-competitive, fun options for those of us who are shit at it.
4) Ban HFCS and hydrogenated oils. Ban the addition of extra sugar into foods that advertise themselves as low fat. In fact, as far as I'm concerned you could ban artificially low-fat products altogether - processed muck with all the goodness sucked out of it that encourages people to eat more, not fewer, calories.
5) Get rid of the 20-minute lunch hour culture - lunch should be the main meal of the day and there should be time to eat it with enjoyment AND go for a walk afterwards.
6) A decent, nationwide, subsidised public transport system, plus safe cycleways and lit footpaths. Only once this network is in place can we start charging and/or banning cars.
7) Reduce or subsidise house prices in market-bubble areas to the point where people can realistically afford to live within walking\cycling\public transport distance of their work. This would not only encourage exercise, but also facilitate people being able to get home in good time for a proper, sit-down family meal.
8) As previously noted, pilot schemes where doctors prescribe cheap or free exercise sessions to obese patients have proved effective - more of that.
9) Proper and dependable funding and support for food co-ops and other schemes bringing affordable fresh food to areas of food-poverty.
I think that about covers it. Why they don't make me Supreme Ruler of the Universe is something I'll never understand.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You forgot to mention high fructose corn sweetener, Iole Nui.
Oh wait, that's HFCS isn't it? Never mind.
[ 20. December 2006, 13:44: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I think we (not Rat) tend to compare today's lifestyle with that of a hundred years ago and say, "There's why we're fat! We aren't working on the farm for twelve physical hours a day and cooking from scratch!"
The trouble with those theories is that they skip right over the 1950's. During that time most Americans were off the farm, driving just about everywhere and only the rare, ridiculed "health nut" did any sort of exercise at all. People naturally, unconsciously ate less to account for the fact that they weren't working on the farm anymore.
Models were just as skinny as they are today (look at old Vogue covers). Audrey Hepburn would have made Kiera Knightly look fat. We ate more red meat and less vegetables and salad than we do now. We weren't eating fast food but on any typical evening, we were having meat loaf and mashed potatoes, all covered in gravy with a side of canned corn and layer cake for dessert.
Yet we didn't have an "obesity epidemic." None of my mother's friend were fat and they would have thought any sort of exercsie unladylike. They wouldn't have gotten together for a minute without coffee and cake.
I think the thing that really changed us was that doctors, magazines and teachers all started pushing us to lose weight and actually meet certain numbers on the scale. My mother's magazines in the 50's and early 60's rarely had a diet or exercise article. Once a year, in the spring was usually it. Now, no magazine would sell without a diet listed on the cover, not to mention whole magazines dedicated to the subject.
What changed is that people started going on strict diets and staying on them for long periods of time. Doing this, particularly if you are still in your teens, causes permanent changes to your fat cells, metabolism and the appetite centers in the brain.
Put a 115 pound 15 year old girl on a diet and she will probably have a weight problem for life. She will rebound with a craving for high fat foods and will probably gain up to about 130. She'll diet again, and so on. This has been shown to be true in lots of studies.
If I ruled the world we would caution young people to avoid that first diet as strongly as we caution them to avoid that first cigarette. We would never, ever, weigh children at school and for the most part we would just shut up about it and let our bodies find their natural weight.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I can't think of a Hell thread I'd less like to get caught in the middle of than this one, but I'm popping on to say one thing: Iole Nui, couldn't Mr. Nui get a jogging stroller and take up running with the baby, thus getting the exercise he used to get in a different form, while freeing up some time for you to a) go to the gym, b) get some much-needed rest, or c) get on with becoming Supreme Ruler of the Universe?
I know that ever since having children I have constantly had to re-adapt my concept of "how to get exercise" in order to adapt to their needs -- there were several years when walking with a stroller (outdoors in summer, on an indoor track in winter) was my primary form of exercise.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
'Why they don't make me Supreme Ruler of the Universe is something I'll never understand.'
Well, I'd vote for you! Great 9 point plan! Love it.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What you say is true, Twilight, but leaves some important things out.
For starters, people did exercise in the 50's and 60's, it's just that they didn't call it exercise, they called it "getting some fresh air."
Children were tossed outside (if it wasn't raining) from the time they got home until suppertime. They were expected to amuse themselves by riding bikes, playing pick-up sports games, walking in the woods (if those were available), or whatever. They didn't sit their concrete asses down in easy chairs to play video games or watch TV.
Those moms who kaffeeklatsched at every opportunity also spent all day running after toddlers and cleaning up messes and such. They had fewer "labour-saving" devices than we do today, so they did more labour, and hence burned more calories.
Everybody also ate way less food. Sure you had meatloaf and potatoes-and-gravy for dinner. But it lasted for two or three dinners. Your lunch was one sandwich and one apple and one glass of milk. If you did go out for dinner, it was for the same sort of fare, and the portions weren't enough to choke a draft horse. Far less of the food was pre-packaged and loaded with hydrogenated fats and HFCS.
I'm all for a return to the 50's, food-and-exercise-wise. But let's be realistic about what it was.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
In the UK, people were at their historical all-time 'healthiest' during rationing following the War, in the fifties.
Work that one out.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
What MT said re the 50s.
In the UK, too, general food rationing didn't end until 1948, with luxuries such as sweets still being rationed until 1953.
People didn't expect and/or couldn't afford to eat rich or sweet treats, or large portions, even as larger amounts of food gradually became more widely available after the end of the war.
And while supplies were still partially restricted, it continued to be thought patriotic, and considered part of the war effort, not to overindulge.
[cross-posted with DogWonderer]
[ 20. December 2006, 14:34: Message edited by: The Man With No Name ]
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
In the UK, people were at their historical all-time 'healthiest' during rationing following the War, in the fifties.
Work that one out.
Ah yes, the healthiest period in which, amongst other things, 4,000 died in the 1952 smog. Had they better nourished a substantial number would have survived. But they would probably have got TB, the prevalence of which concealed the extent of lung cancer.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the_raptor
Shipmate
# 10533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
What changed is that people started going on strict diets and staying on them for long periods of time. Doing this, particularly if you are still in your teens, causes permanent changes to your fat cells, metabolism and the appetite centers in the brain.
Put a 115 pound 15 year old girl on a diet and she will probably have a weight problem for life. She will rebound with a craving for high fat foods and will probably gain up to about 130. She'll diet again, and so on. This has been shown to be true in lots of studies.
I have never heard of studies showing that. I have seen ones showing that yo-yo dieting leads to long term weight gain. What you are describing could just mean that people who get obese have problems sticking to diets.
I also I dare you to provide evidence that significant numbers of young people have begun dieting at a young age. And that those numbers match the increase in obesity. I know that none of the obese kids at my school were on a diet, and there where more then would have been there in the 1950's (my school has class photos going back to the 30's).
Frankly I think you are talking out of your ass.
People naturally have a craving for high fat/sugar/salt foods. The difference was that in the 1950's they still weren't as accessible as they are today. There has been a massive increase since then in fat/sugar/salt content and various artificial sweeteners.
And even then, no one in this fucking thread has recommended fad dieting. Crash dieting is a bad idea because it is hard to stick to.
--------------------
Mal: look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?
Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir!
Mal: Ain't we just?
— Firefly
Posts: 3921 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonathan Strange
Shipmate
# 11001
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
In the UK, people were at their historical all-time 'healthiest' during rationing following the War, in the fifties.
Work that one out.
I heard somewhere that rationing and the World Wars' food shortages led people in Britain to make meals out of what they could get hold of, and this meant fatty puddings etc etc. Then, instead of reverting to the pre-war diets, those eating habits and tastes stayed in our diet. Seems plausable, but I don't have a reliable source.
--------------------
"Wrong will be right, when Aslan comes in sight,
At the sound of his roar, sorrows will be no more,
When he bears his teeth, winter meets its death,
When he shakes his mane, we shall have spring again"
Posts: 1327 | From: Wessex | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
