Thread: Hell: Why not just have a siren go off? "FAT-so, FAT-so, FAT-so!" Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000611

Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :
 
I heard this article on the BBC news this morning.

Basically, some think-tank or another (I'm not 100% sure if it's the Government or another organisation) has decided that it would be a really good idea for people to be handed advice about tacking obesity every time they shop in, say, Evans, or another so-called 'plus size' shop.

Fucking, fucking hell. And as if this idea wasn't patronising and degrading enough, they want "health checks, including waist and weight measurements, for all school leavers".

I dread to think what sort of an effect this would have had on me when I left secondary school, and I am sure that I am by no means alone in thinking that this is a Seriously Unhelpful idea.

All the charts, measurements etc are seriously screwed up anyway, though. According to my BMI I'm 'severely obese' (which is the random category they've chucked in between 'obese' and 'morbidly obese', seemingly just to make people feel like crap). Now, I know I'm not the universe's thinnest woman (18-20 on the top, 16-18 on the bottom) but I don't think I'm that big, all things considered.

It's almost as though they're trying to perpetrate a culture of low body image, poor self esteem, eating disorders and crash dieting.

Arrrrrrrrgh.

[EDIT-Preview Post is even more my friend when I'm this riled. Honest.]

[ 04. April 2007, 12:57: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :
 
I think you just have [Biased]
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
Problem is that 'experts say' is a little bit like 'some people say' which could be anybody - speaking officially or unofficially - it's hard to glean from the article exactly who said that. This may be one of those media-magnified stories which is mostly hot air.

Unfortunately it's of a piece with a lot of stigmatising grumbling about fat people not being given access to services etc. There is a mean streak out there. No question.

I'm so upset I'm gonna have to have at least three chocolates.

RR

[ 15. December 2006, 13:34: Message edited by: Raspberry Rabbit ]
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
If George Alberti's involved, you can be sure this is driven by the government. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I can really see shops wanting to rush up to their fat customers more or less saying 'hey, you don't want to wear that, do you? Here's a way for you to wear normal clothes like real people.' That'll work.

The apologist on the tv news yesterday was quite sure that no-one would find it insulting, but that customers so approached would be grateful to know that there are approved ways of losing weight and so would not be tempted to follow faddish and potentially harmful diets, being fat and therefore unusually vulnerable to stupid scams.

Naturally it will not have occurred to seriously fat people that there are ways to lose weight, and naturally they will be too stupid - being fat - to know where to seek these methods without the help of the 'experts'.

I think it was the recommendation of a university department, so with the usual weight (haha!) that the government gives to educationally generated advice I suspect we'll hear nothing more about this.
 
Posted by Benny Gee (# 5204) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
I'm so upset I'm gonna have to have at least three chocolates.

They'd better have "dial 0800-FLABBY today, lardarse" etched into them somewhere. Who's going to phone a helpline found on clothes labels anyway?
 
Posted by PeaceFeet (# 11001) on :
 
ISTM that SOME of the proposals laid out in the article would benefit everyone, such as:
Not very hellworthy, but those things sound good to me.

The point "Health checks, including waist and weight measurements, for all school leavers" sounds a bit odd. What are they going to do, fail their A Levels for them because they're too big?

[ 15. December 2006, 13:55: Message edited by: PeaceFeet ]
 
Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :
 
Wow. I shop at plus size stores because I'm a sturdy built gal. Anyone who came up to me at said store and told me I was fat, here's a pamphlet, would EAT the pamphlet. And possibly gag a little on my elbow.

Maybe there should be a counter-programme for those whom we can visually identify as having an underweight BMI? Like, chasing after anorexic girls with cupcakes in the mall?
 
Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
Maybe there should be a counter-programme for those whom we can visually identify as having an underweight BMI? Like, chasing after anorexic girls with cupcakes in the mall?

Yes, yes, YES. I'm going down to my local shopping centre right now to stand outside all those shops you can't shop in if you have curves and throw blocks of lard at skinny people [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Can I join you?

Gill H, a regular shopper at the Hefty Hideaway.
 
Posted by Izzybee (# 10931) on :
 
Ugh!

I've haad to shop at "those" stores before, and it's not exactly a picnic walking in there to start with. Especially the first time you have to do it (personally after that I came to terms with the fat and decided to own it rather than pretend it wasn't there). How about they tell you just a bit more about how fat you are after you've plucked up the courage to go in there to start with?

Like Spiffy, I'm headed down to my local "1.3.5" right now to pass out cupcakes. And I don't want any of those "I'm just naturally like that" excuses. If you're just natually like that, then you won't mind the cupcake, just the same as if I'm just natually like that, I won't mind the condescending diet-guide-for-stupid-people. Yeah.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
Maybe there should be a counter-programme for those whom we can visually identify as having an underweight BMI? Like, chasing after anorexic girls with cupcakes in the mall?

This BMI 21 Busy Baker would like to sign up for such a program. Some of those gals just need a cookie. (It brings out the Italian/Jewish momma in me - "eat, eat!")

(Of course when I was a teen, I weighed 125 - I'm five-nine and biggish boned, so that's kinda skinny - and ate about everything in sight. I just had a wacky metabolism, thass all. Believe me, I would have scarfed that cupcake in nothing flat.)

What are the studiers smoking? What Fat Chick in the western world hasn't heard just about every sort of advice on how to lose weight?

Charlotte
 
Posted by Otter (# 12020) on :
 
I might even brave the local mega-mall to do my part on this side of the pond!

Or maybe we should set up a series of fat-transplants from us that have it to those walking-skeletal "waifs" that don't? Be healthier for both sides...
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
Like Peacefeet, I quite like the sound of the cycle paths and green spaces stuff. That's the sort of measure that might actually do some good, or at least make life pleasanter, which is no mean thing in itself.

quote:
Originally posted by Persephone Hazard:
Fucking, fucking hell. And as if this idea wasn't patronising and degrading enough, they want "health checks, including waist and weight measurements, for all school leavers".

Yes, very necessary. Because so many teenagers get through school without noticing that they're not Kate Moss! [Killing me] How different my life might have been if someone had only told me I was a fat git. Oh wait. They did. Even when I wasn't.
 
Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
quote:
From the article:
"So we need to think out of the box, nothing that has been looked at so far seem to have worked."

That is incorrect. There was a trial done at a GP surgery where the doctors were given the ability to prescribe exercise and treatment at a local gym. This proved to be a less costly way of reducing stress and weight than the standard treatments offered.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
You know, I am tempted to come to the UK, go into one of those shops and just go off on somebody who dared to do that to me.

BTW, I am a size 18 USA, a little bigger than you, eyeliner (too lazy to write your new name).

Here, nobody says much about me being fat...and I am in California! I think it is because they can tell their words would fall on deaf ears...I honestly have been around too many sister-girls who have given me lectures on not accepting myself the way I am. They have brainwashed me, all those ladeez from EPA & Oaktown, & also my bestest friend, that I am beautiful just the way I am.

So even in California, land of the slim, I have built up a defensive wall to this kind of thinking.

Anyway, at work...so this post will be screwed up since too many people around...argh.

[edited to say BBWs rule the universe.]

[ 15. December 2006, 15:19: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
I assume this is not the proper thread in which to insert the terribly unkind 'roll her in flour' comment.

Boys can be so cruel.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I assume this is not the proper thread in which to insert the terribly unkind 'roll her in flour' comment.

Boys can be so cruel.

Yes, you can be, obviously.
 
Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
So Dmitri meets his Vassily at the Russian Bookstore - "Vassily, vot is?" he asks "Your eye it is all bleck and Blue"
"Got bleck eye in choorch"
"No! How come you is gettink bleck eye in choorch"?
"Well, is like this" says Vassily, "Em in choorch and meenister he says 'all you now stendink with me to sing please now the hym-na'. We all stendink to sing the hym-na and is enormous fet woman standink in front of me and I see that dress is all pinch-ed in creck of ess so for being helpful I pool out. She turn around and ponch me in eye which you see now is bleck"

Next week Dmitri and Vassily meet again at the Russian bookstore.

"Vassily, vot is? Now is two eyes all bleck. You get bleck eye in choorch again"

"Da. This time I am in choorch with friend Yuri. Meenister says please stendink with me to sing now the hym-na and again is still enormous fet woman stendink in front of us and dress still is pinch-ed between two hefs beckside. My friend Yuri reach forward and pool out for her but I remember problems of lest week so I poot back in."

RR
 
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
Where can I buy one of these sirens?

Neil
 
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
Wow. I shop at plus size stores because I'm a sturdy built gal.

It starts early Spiffy, our kids were sturdy built from day one, big boned and big muscled for whatever age they were. So, any time I took them to the clinic when they were babies/toddlers and had them weighed the people there would look at the graph and see them in that shaded area that says OVERWEIGHT CHILD OVERWEIGHT CHILD SIRENS BELLS KLAXONS and I'd say no, I don't feed them too much, just what they want, they're big kids, my nephew is 15 and six foot two, it's in the genes, will you FUCKING LEAVE IT! But no, we'd be referred, and of course if you don't go with that you're an unco-operative parent with all that implies, but as soon as we got to the level where people know what they're talking about they'd say no, you just have big children, no problem, take them away. So I'd take them away and the cycle would start all over again.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Dmitri and Vassily, is outrage you are going to Church of England church where people are noticing who is fat and who is thin and who has wedgie!

In Orthodox Church if woman is fat she is good cook and has large family with plenty farmland. If woman is skinny she is either sick or starving and is not nice to make remarks about size of woman anyway. Why do you look at women? You should be looking at icons. For shame.

Come home to Orthodox Church where nobody notices things like that (and keep your hands to yourselves--you know better than that!).

Stand aright, stand with fear: Wisdom!

Masha
President
St. Dmitri's Babushka Brigade

[ 15. December 2006, 16:02: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Dmitri and Vassily, is outrage you are going to Church of England church where people are noticing who is fat and who is thin and who has wedgie!

In Orthodox Church if woman is fat she is good cook and has large family with plenty farmland. If woman is skinny she is either sick or starving and is not nice to make remarks about size of woman anyway. Why do you look at women? You should be looking at icons. For shame.

Come home to Orthodox Church where nobody notices things like that (and keep your hands to yourselves--you know better than that!).

Stand aright, stand with fear: Wisdom!

Masha
President
St. Dmitri's Babushka Brigade

Zdrastivitcha, Masha. It is refreshment for us all, that you post this. it was very good for us to hear your giftedness, I had hard time containing not to yell out loud, what I yell, I do not know but glory! Rejoice in your Salutations, I mean Salvation! - duchessnova, in-training for Russian Orthodoxy World Domination

[insert Russian Orthodoxy Icon here.] [Overused]

[ 15. December 2006, 16:20: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
Have you ever noticed there always seem to be more big people than tall people in 'The Big and Tall Shop'? And I wonder how the tall people feel about being lumped in with the big people. Perhaps they would prefer their own separate shop.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Tovarichina Duchessa, in my parish we are having three skinny women. One is on strict anti-cholesterol diet to keep her from dropping dead in middle of liturgy. Two others are cancer survivors.


I hope their old babusha beats Vassily and Dmitri with stick.

Masha
of St. Dmitri's Babushka Brigade
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
My mum's tall (well, comparatively, this is Scotland), very large breasted, and even when not overweight often had to buy stuff in Evans.

I can just imagine her reaction if some officious twit had started to lecture her about healthy eating when she was already pissed off at having trekked round the shops looking for something she could fit. They'd have been lucky to live.

So there.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Marsha, Is outrage! Vsyo pad kontrolem*.

duchessnova, in-training for Russian Orthodoxy World Domination

*Everything is under control

[ [Angel] ]

[ 15. December 2006, 16:33: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Duchessnova, if you are calling me Marsha one more time I am beating you with stick.

MAsha.
Furious Babushka Brigade of St. Dmitri who is riding on bay as opposed to St. Georgi who is on Lippizaner.
 
Posted by The Atheist (# 12067) on :
 
What the fuck's with this? Which underfed, underbrained shithead started all this obesity shit.

"People are Getting Fatter!" Well surprise, fucking surprise!

Human metabolism has for our entire existence been geared toward preserving energy because food has never been plentiful enough - or fatty enough - to let large numbers of our populace turn into tubbies; until about 100 years ago. Now that food and fatty food is freely available, some people are going to get fat!

And if they're happy with being a bit tubby (and if they're women, they ought to be, because BBW are what women should look like, not some stick-figure with a heroin needle up her arse.) then who's to say otherwise?

It's one area where old prejudices are allowed to rule.

I'm a recruiter and recently had a customer turn a candidate down because she was "too fat"! While flabberagsted and disgusted, there was nothing I could do about it without slitting my own throat, so I had to let it pass, but it's a disgrace!

The government, the press, the bigoted filth in the boardrooms can all go fuck themselves! Let people be what they are happy being.

I possibly wouldn't be so cynical or disgusted about this business if there weren't a multi-billion dollar business out there which has as its only agenda to make people want to try to lose weight - the "slimming" industry. Possibly the second-least honest business in the world - after astrology.

BMIs? Joke. The entire All Blacks front row are classed, by BMI, as "morbidy obese"! Not bad for three blokes at the supreme peak of fitness.

As my avatar bloke once said - lies, damned lies and statistics...

The only stat here which matters is self-esteem. Hold it, keep it, cherish it. And be thankful that no poor sod's going to get cut by your bony body. Just remember to go for tall blokes. Tall blokes are usually the least slim-centric people - based upon my own experience as a tall bloke with lots of tall mates; it's those weedy little short-arse pricks who want to sleep with skeletons, big blokes need lots of woman!
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Persephone Hazard:
All the charts, measurements etc are seriously screwed up anyway, though. According to my BMI I'm 'severely obese' (which is the random category they've chucked in between 'obese' and 'morbidly obese', seemingly just to make people feel like crap). Now, I know I'm not the universe's thinnest woman (18-20 on the top, 16-18 on the bottom) but I don't think I'm that big, all things considered.

Yeah, you're that big. So am I (or so was I -- slam the diet industry all you want, The Atheist, but make an exception for Weight Watchers). I sympathize with the feeling of "I'm not that big," but it's called denial. It's right behind the fatso siren in the list of things that aren't helpful in dealing with the problem of being fat.

quote:
Originally posted by PeaceFeet:
ISTM that SOME of the proposals laid out in the article would benefit everyone, such as:
Not very hellworthy, but those things sound good to me.
I agree. But I think they should just get hydrogenated oils and high-fructose corn syrup out of the food industry entirely. We lived just fine without them for a long time, and they should simply be eliminated.
 
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeaceFeet:
ISTM that SOME of the proposals laid out in the article would benefit everyone, such as:
Not very hellworthy, but those things sound good to me.

The point "Health checks, including waist and weight measurements, for all school leavers" sounds a bit odd. What are they going to do, fail their A Levels for them because they're too big?

Yes, but this would require forward planning from the government and action to tackle Big Business. Let's be honest, if I were the Government, I'd be thinking how much easier it would be just to hand out a few leaflets pointing out to everyone that it's their fault.
 
Posted by Flower Girl (# 5111) on :
 
Hmmm....

Isn't it a little foot-shooting for Plus Size stores to advise people on losing weight?

FG
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Yes, but this would require forward planning from the government and action to tackle Big Business. Let's be honest, if I were the Government, I'd be thinking how much easier it would be just to hand out a few leaflets pointing out to everyone that it's their fault.

O ye of little faith! New York City is going to ban trans fats from restaurants. Government taking on big business is not an impossibility. And consumers could boycott the crap food the food industry is pushing on us, if they weren't all such sheep.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
I can really see shops wanting to rush up to their fat customers more or less saying 'hey, you don't want to wear that, do you? Here's a way for you to wear normal clothes like real people.' That'll work.
Great Fast Show sketch though: "So, sir, have we found it too difficult to say no to Mr Doughnut? Not so much a six pack as a barrel is it sir? Bit more salad and a few less Maccy D's for you sir, yes sir, no sir, suit you sir!"
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Dorogaya Masha, Please don't beat me with that stick. Whooo, just gives me chills thinking about it. [Hot and Hormonal]
-duchessnova, in-training for Russian Orthodoxy World Domination

[eta: head hangs in heavy shame.]

[ 15. December 2006, 17:24: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Is all right this time, Duchessnova. But watchit.

Babushka Masha
 
Posted by Pax Romana (# 4653) on :
 
[Mad]

I am a genuine fat woman (US Size 22-24). Almost everyone in my immediate family has (or has had) a weight problem. So yes, it is at least partly genetic. My family would have survived very well in the Stone Age, and we would have passed our genes along to future generations of humans -- which is probably what happened to us.

If anyone came up to me in one of my favorite plus-size stores shoving literature at me, telling me I am too fat and suggesting ways to lose weight, said nuisance would shortly be fishing said literature out of a place where the sun doesn't shine.

So listen up, world --

So there! [Razz]

Pax Romana

[ 15. December 2006, 17:36: Message edited by: Pax Romana ]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Ruth, yes some people are definitely that big and in denial but I'd say that the problem is that our society tells them to hate themselves for it. If person X didn't think that being fat meant being horrible then maybe he or she could accept that they're fat and live with it or work on it.
 
Posted by Mostly Noble Pixels (# 8783) on :
 
Actually, according to what I have - ummm - been told, been with a woman who is blessed with an enormous ass can be a real advantage while using leather sheets because it lifts one high enough to avoid chafing to the top of one's thighs during libidinous moments.
But of course, that is based only on what I have been told.
Is anyone able to clarify that a bit?
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Ruth, yes some people are definitely that big and in denial but I'd say that the problem is that our society tells them to hate themselves for it. If person X didn't think that being fat meant being horrible then maybe he or she could accept that they're fat and live with it or work on it.

The psychological factor in not being able to lose weight is that overeating and/or being fat is in some way doing something for the person -- what they need to face and accept are the feelings they're stuffing down beneath the food. They're only listening to society when it tells them to hate themselves because they already do think there's something wrong with them, one way or another. Getting all defensive about how fat people are picked on is just a good way to avoid the real issues.
 
Posted by Pânts (# 999) on :
 
You'll all be welcome at 'Short Fat Siân' when the shop opens (the alternative to 'Long Tall Sally') and we won't tell you how fat you are.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
You know, I personally don't care about whether any particular person is fat - it doesn't fundamentally change them as a person. But as soon as you wind up with a retribution of "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS", kindly do the rest of us the favour of not using any public health services for any ailments primarily contributed by your obesity. Ever.

You're people. Fine. But you're also people that consume more resources, literally, and create an additional element of burden on society. So it is clearly in society's favour to try to find a means to reduce unhealthy obesity. And, you know what you reactionary fatsos? It might even be good for you too.

Now, pardon me while I fend off the urge to play a violin whilst holding it behind myself; it's awkward and uncomfortable.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
RooK, I don't dissagree with you and I think RuthW is really speaking for me here, but...
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
But you're also people that consume more resources, literally, and create an additional element of burden on society.

I think if we were to really measure all things out, this is a red herring.

yes to be overweight and maintain it you need to comsume more actual calories (though in my family, it's the skinny buggers who eat more, so I'm willing to be shouted down by science on this) and there is an arguement that, perhaps, more cloth is required for clothing...?

but I have heard of no correlation, for example, between overweight and SUV's or something. or more paper products? House heating fuel?

I'd bet solid money that if you could put together real statistics, there would be only negligible differences in resources.

Now medical costs - yes! I'll grant you that overweight costs medical resources. but remember, so does drinking alcohol and yet regular drinkers are not normally bad mouthed by strangers in the grocery store.

I think the only real answer here, as in an answer that will actually work, is a combination of banning HFCS and Transfats, building more bike paths and creating incestivies for those who get to work under their own power - making Phys Ed cumpulsory for all years in public school, taking the freaking soda pop out of the schools!

just some ideas.

for the record, I am medium sized with temporary medication induced fatness. it's been a huge education for me. lets remember that overweight does not necessarily equal lazy, out of shape, stupid, ugly, or depressed. or in need of publicly funded medicine.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
ooooooh the typoes.

mea culpa.

you may begin beating me with sticks now.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
And I wonder how the tall people feel about being lumped in with the big people. Perhaps they would prefer their own separate shop.

We hate it. The only thing that fits tall-but-not-so-big people worse than the clothing in regular stores is the clothing in big and tall shops.

I've spent years eating little but doughnuts, cheeseburgers, and deep-fried food of all sorts in a futile attempt to conform to the body image forced on me by society. I really wish people would just mind their own business and accept me as I am. Shame on you all.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Phys ed certainly won't help if it's like it was at my school. That was just where the jocks used to go to taunt everyone else. No one got excercise there at all. It was miserable for everyone, so no one tried.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Gwai - then that's not the helpful kind of phys ed, is it? it needs to actually teach people how to keep their bodies fit and healthy, and why that is necessary. My high school phys ed classes were pretty horrendous also. they were never taught by phys ed teachers, for one thing, and were usually just organized kickball games.

pointless.

but that doesn't negate the need to teach our children the importance of fitness to their overall well being. at the age they're in school, the little bastards are bulletproof - tell them those cheeseburgers will come back to haunt them and they laugh in your face.

There needs to be a curriculum with solid science so that when they're 30 and starting to notice a gut, they can go, "hey, I remember my teacher Mrs. Gwai telling me about kcals and aerobic heart rates. time to get running."

[ 15. December 2006, 19:24: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
You're people. Fine. But you're also people that consume more resources, literally, and create an additional element of burden on society. So it is clearly in society's favour to try to find a means to reduce unhealthy obesity. And, you know what you reactionary fatsos? It might even be good for you too.

It would be good for us, if it were something that actually worked. Picking on people doesn't work when you're trying to change their behavior. It's a shame for both of us, Rook -- like you, I love picking on people -- but there it is. If you were truly concerned about the burden on society, you'd be advocating things that really help people lose weight instead of calling us names. But I don't think you're as interested in the burden on society as you are in holding fat people in contempt because it makes you feel good about your thin, fit self. Such a shame you can't feel good about your thin, fit self -- and it's certainly something to feel good about and proud of -- in a way that's really good.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
I am not beating with sticks the intelligent Comet who is not staring at other people in church and pulling out wedgies.

I am thinking that removing the trans fats will solve many problems. What we want is to prevent heart attacks and strokes (very expensive for medical bills because of delicate surgery, extended hospital stays and long convalescences away from work) caused by clogged arteries, not just to make people look like Nicole Ritchie who is busted for driving wrong way on freeway, having overindulged when her booze capacity was lessened due to weighing only 85 lb.

Memo to bartenders: Do not sell so much booze to deliberately emaciated, self-absorbed starlets.

Memo to Orthodoxen: please mention to church authorities that it should be pig grease and not olive oil to be fasted away from. Olive oil very good for everybody. Pig fat not.

Masha
Babushka, etc.

[ 15. December 2006, 19:35: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
One of RooK's most endearing traits is his ability to see differences instead of similarities. Rather isolating for him one might suppose, but endearing nonetheless.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
And since I've already wasted too much worktime..

***comet climbs on personal favorite soapbox***

furthermore:

I challenge all parents everywhere to bring your kids into the kitchen. buy foods in their raw state. make your own bread. create your own spaghetti sauce. it doesn't have to be gourmet, but it's time for you to rediscover and therefore introduce your kids to where their calories come from.

brownies from the store are so easy. make some. from scratch! (burn that box of scarey brown powder!) first, you put the effort in, second, you and your children see what elements make those brownies. or the spaghetti. or that apple fritter.

Ask your kids to do a math assignment - you're making a pot of stew. to the stew, you are adding a cup of cooked chicken (at X calories) a pound of potatoes (at Y cals) and 2 pounds of carrots (at Z calories) how many calories in the completed stew? how many per serving? how many for dad if he uses the big mixing bowl for his serving?

how many to have ice cream for dessert?

And have them plan meals. they need to have their protiens, their veggies, their starches. what goes together? what tastes good? and compare a spaghetti dinner to a chicken salad, caloric, fat content, protein. make them think about it rather than considering a bowl a cheerios and a beer dinner when they go off to college!

and this isn't just for fat kids and fat families - it's for everyone. I have skinny kids and a skinny husband. skinny people have heart attacks too.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Oh my [Hot and Hormonal] , I am now reading the article instead of listening to news reports and I see that it was Vicodin and pot, not booze, that caused the starlet to drive crazy.

However, at 85 lb., alcohol would be a danger too and could be dangerous both to overindulger and others just like any other drug.

Looking at the picture, I am also wondering what happened to one side of her nose....

M
 
Posted by Pânts (# 999) on :
 
That assumes that parents are at home to do all of that Comet.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Not really Pants - until I got sick I worked 60+ hours a week, and i'm down to 40. and i'm single-parenting.

and I'm far from perfect. but it doesn't have to be a super duper roast each night. soup is dead easy and quick. make bread on the weekends, or start smaller with the brownies. salads are also dead easy, so is stir-fry. it's a matter of educating yourself (as a parent) and then getting the kids in the room, TV etc off, to watch you do it. let them asks questions. explain things. give them jobs.

I know it sounds like a huge thing, but it isn't. and, for me and my family, it is worth it to see my kids making their own lunches and making sure to remember a protien source and at least two servings of fruits, etc.

(ETA: yes, I know there's a lot of parents who are absentee and determined not to do stuff like this. but I am very uncomfortable with it being all on the school's shoulders, or the doctors, or that poor kid when they're 30 or 40 and somehow they missed the idea that, say, graham crackers are as bad as a cookie/biscuit. so yes, I'm dreaming. but it starts one parent at a time.)

[ 15. December 2006, 20:22: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
I think that handing out pamphlets to fat people when they buy clothes to point out to them that they are fat is an excellent idea.


I do hope that the education process will be extended to others who put themselves and the economy at risk, such as people who purchase alcohol more than once a fortnight (Stop! Your Liver is Dying! The Health System Can't Afford You!), cigarettes (Stop! You Stink and Will Die Soon! Don't Expect Our Health System to Give You New Lungs!), ridiculously fast cars (Stop! You Will Die Soon and Kill Others in the Effort! Our Health System Can't Be Expected To Sew Your Guts Back In!), houses they can't afford (Stop! You Will Go Broke and Your Children Will Be Homeless! Don't Expect Public Housing From Us!) and those who have sex with the wrong people or the right people for the wrong reasons (Stop! You Will Die! We Can't Keep Giving You Drugs for the Clap, You Know!).

Terrific System.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Gwai - then that's not the helpful kind of phys ed, is it? it needs to actually teach people how to keep their bodies fit and healthy, and why that is necessary.

I don't believe it exists. The only PE I was ever exposed to was the bad kind, and I've heard a lot of horror stories from a lot of people to the same effect.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Chasee#1 is in a school with a great phys ed program, I've even guest taught and the kids' knowledge is impressive. on the other hand, #1's school (a HS, of course) just blows. it's where all the dumb jocks jog around grinning and everyone else feels wretched and the teacher is rarely in the room.

so yes - massive reform is necessary, but I think it's possible.

[ 15. December 2006, 21:01: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
massive reform is necessary

Boy, that ought to be tattooed somewhere. Everywhere.

(Although it sort of makes me think of ‘Animal Farm’ too, come to think of it.)
 
Posted by Agent Smith (# 3299) on :
 
Another large person checking in.

If the larget clothing shop had given me "helpful advice" when purchasing clothes, I would have avoided shopping there. I have started to lose weight as I want to have a BMI of 35 (which according to the figures is still obsese, but fit enough to get into a public service!)

Re: the sport in schools thing, we were talking about itat work yesterday, and my colleague (who is stick thin - but thinks she needs to lose weight?) said that she hated sport at school, it was only until she was doing it for herself that it made a difference. When I joined the gym, I had huge issues about running, etc (the post is somewhere else on the board) however I go to the gym for ME! and because I want to enjoy better health.

I know what is healthy, and things should be eaten or drunk in moderation. This begins in education both at home and at school, by teaching kids how to run a home (ie eating properly,) not designing sodding cereal packets! [Mad] .
 
Posted by marmot (# 479) on :
 
quote:
comet said: taking the freaking soda pop out of the schools!

Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes. And "sports drinks", which are also candy in a bottle.

I have long been tempted to print up some sticky labels and paste them on every soda machine in the school that says "If you drink one can of soda a day, in addition to your regular meals, you will gain 15 pounds this year."

That's based on a 12 oz. can. Many kids drink the 20 oz. bottles.
 
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Tovarichina Duchessa, in my parish we are having three skinny women. One is on strict anti-cholesterol diet to keep her from dropping dead in middle of liturgy.

Perhaps if your liturgies weren't four hours long, she might have more chance of living?
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
You know, even if it (ie. fizzy drinks) were taken out of schools, I'd say that kids who drink it by the gallon, would still drink it by the gallon at home.

I am constantly amazed at the numbers of people who take out trolleys full of Coke in 2 litre bottles from the supermarket every time there is a 20 cent discount on that line. They must live on the stuff.

And it is true that these people are not of greyhound stature. Mind you, to lug home 50 bottles of sugared brown stuff, you'd need a bit of bulk.

[X-post]

[ 15. December 2006, 21:38: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
 
Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :
 
I spend a decade as a competitive dancer (colorguard, which is basically spear and swordfighting camoflauged with sequins and silk). During competition season, I rehearsed for 15-40 hours a week to perform three different 8 to 15 minute non-stop routines (on top of a full school load on top of a part-time job).

Every time I went to the doctor, I got lectured for being too fat, since I was 5'4" tall and weighed 240 pounds (1.62 meters and 108 kilos).

I'm no longer in fighting trim, mostly because after many years of telling my doctors "My joints hurt" and they retorting, "eat less and exercise more", I finally found a doctor who knew his ass from a hole in the ground and diagnosed me with a genetic condition that is characterized by rapid deterioration of cartilage in all joints of the body. Which, oddly enough, was accelerated by the decade of martial arts, competitive and regular dance, soccer, and tennis that my previous doctors had all but demanded I perform.

So, me and my size 26 butt trust doctors and 'experts' about as far as they can throw me.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Having that degenerative condition doesn't mean you're not fat, Spiffy. And I doubt very much that you did all that sporting activity just because a doctor told you to.
 
Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :
 
And I sincerely doubt, RuthW, that you are half as stupid as you sound.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
It is hard when doctors give you the green light and encourage you to continue doing actions that harm your body without looking into things on a deeper level to discover what is really going on. Plain and simple. I hear what Spiffy is saying and have my own version of her story albeit slightly different.

I am older and more jaded than she* is, I already have accepted it that this is sort of a dead horse that has more emotional impact than can be expressed in a computer letter generated median.

Spiffy, consider it part of your thorn in the side, like Paul, that some will refuse to understand. The sooner, the better.

*Spiffy
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
RuthW and comet, you're right. Merely insulting people is a stupid approach for the purposes of affecting anybody's behaviour. And I really don't mean to offer any support for the specific idea of tranquilizing people by the entrance to the shower-curtains-with-sleeves shops and sticking tags at the backs of their necks (where they can't reach) touting their obesity. Or whatever the original plan was.

However, I do find myself at the opposite end of the argument if the fat bastards expect "mind your own business" or "I have a particular excuse" as sufficient reason to drop the entire argument.

Let's take this delightful bit of myopic irony:

quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I do hope that the education process will be extended to others who put themselves and the economy at risk, such as people who purchase alcohol more than once a fortnight (Stop! Your Liver is Dying! The Health System Can't Afford You!), cigarettes (Stop! You Stink and Will Die Soon! Don't Expect Our Health System to Give You New Lungs!), ridiculously fast cars (Stop! You Will Die Soon and Kill Others in the Effort! Our Health System Can't Be Expected To Sew Your Guts Back In!), houses they can't afford (Stop! You Will Go Broke and Your Children Will Be Homeless! Don't Expect Public Housing From Us!) and those who have sex with the wrong people or the right people for the wrong reasons (Stop! You Will Die! We Can't Keep Giving You Drugs for the Clap, You Know!).

It seems to me that alcohol and cigarettes are specifically labelled with warnings, there are government warnings about how "speed kills", and there are publicly-funded awareness campaigns promoting sexual abstinence. Moreover, I think that there also certain well-understood stigmas that go with each of these. Well, except for the housing one, but maybe there should be.

So, fundamentally, there's a lot of precedent for society in general trying to influence ourselves in a manner intended to promote aspects that are thought to be of some worth. And I think it makes sense that we should try to be self-improving. Why should public health, specifically the alarming rate of obesity, be the one aspect that's a no-no to even discuss?

Because some fat people are fucking touchy?

I'm sorry. Life's rough. I don't think it's wrong to consider some validly applied adjectives.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Moreover, I think that there also certain well-understood stigmas that go with each of these. Well, except for the housing one, but maybe there should be.

one of my goals in life is to convince the world what a Bad Idea the McMansions movement really is.

if I can move it in the right direction by heaping scorn on people who buy homes beyond their means, I shall do so. [Biased]

the rats drive up the housing market for the rest of us, so soon you have to make really obscene amounts to buy a sleazy one-room fixer upper.

it's the credit system, I tell ya. I could make a whole other long hell thread on that.

RooK - I think we're saying the same thing from different sides. the problem is people take it as black and white. to tell someone that they are overweight and need to do something to help themselves is not attacking them or being bigotted - but you have to understand that people with a lifetime of obesity have been taking it in the neck from every insecure bully yahoo to come along.

even stupid people pick on fat people. it's the bottom of the pecking order.

We do need to be able to have the discussion (as a society) but we need to approach the table knowing there is a huge iceburg of pain out there, and that pain is very real, and more importantly, no beaurocrat or teacher or health care professional will be listened to at all if they do not acknowlege and make allowances for some very real pain.

When you've spent your life hearing the siren FAT-so! FAT-so! echoing in your head from the voices all around you, and someone comes along and says, "we need to talk about your obesity," the first thing you're going to do is react as if you've been hit.

it's human nature.

I truly believe the answer is positive support, period - and chastising or pointing out what people know already is only making the problem worse. You think there is a single overweight person over the age of 2 who doesn't know it? Who wouldn't change it if they could?

(not attacking you, RooK, it's a rhetorical question)

I think the answer is in education, paving the way to lifestyle change, and to stop supporting the problem i.e. soda in the schools and burgers on the federally funded lunch programs.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I can find no flaw with your post or your points, comet.

Except one.
Stupid people are worth less than fat people. That stupid people are picking on their superiors is merely a symptom of their stupidity.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Free Jack quipped:

quote:
Perhaps if your liturgies weren't four hours long....
The lower the animal fat and trans-fat in the diet, the longer one can stand without being tired. It's a paradox. If you don't eat before you go to church, you feel even better. Maybe it has something to do with the digestive system.

M
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Stupid people are worth less than fat people. That stupid people are picking on their superiors is merely a symptom of their stupidity.

A-men.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

Let's take this delightful bit of myopic irony:

quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I do hope that the education process will be extended to others who put themselves and the economy at risk, such as people who purchase alcohol more than once a fortnight (Stop! Your Liver is Dying! The Health System Can't Afford You!), cigarettes (Stop! You Stink and Will Die Soon! Don't Expect Our Health System to Give You New Lungs!), ridiculously fast cars (Stop! You Will Die Soon and Kill Others in the Effort! Our Health System Can't Be Expected To Sew Your Guts Back In!), houses they can't afford (Stop! You Will Go Broke and Your Children Will Be Homeless! Don't Expect Public Housing From Us!) and those who have sex with the wrong people or the right people for the wrong reasons (Stop! You Will Die! We Can't Keep Giving You Drugs for the Clap, You Know!).

It seems to me that alcohol and cigarettes are specifically labelled with warnings, there are government warnings about how "speed kills", and there are publicly-funded awareness campaigns promoting sexual abstinence. Moreover, I think that there also certain well-understood stigmas that go with each of these. Well, except for the housing one, but maybe there should be.

So, fundamentally, there's a lot of precedent for society in general trying to influence ourselves in a manner intended to promote aspects that are thought to be of some worth. And I think it makes sense that we should try to be self-improving. Why should public health, specifically the alarming rate of obesity, be the one aspect that's a no-no to even discuss?


Well, it was intended to be a tad ironic. Failed miserably.

I agree with what you say about warnings that are out there. When you buy a packet of fags, you get a warning that it will kill you. You don't give a toss. I've never seen anyone buying cigarettes change his or her mind when they see the warning.

Fat people generally don't enjoy buying clothes. It's a demoralising experience. Reminding them that they're fat by putting a phone number on the label will do diddly-squat though. The quickest and easiest way to deal with the issue will be to cut the tag off and bin it, straight away.

Heck, I agree with your points, RooK and comet. I'm all for thinning down society. I go out of my way to ensure that my kids are trim and stay that way. Ditto me. Ditto my husband. We are thin. We may be miserable, but none of us is going to die of any obesity-related disease.

I'm a food nazi. If I were Health Minister, Australians would all be living on bean sprouts and cottage cheese. However, thus far, I'm limited to my own family project.

I have been known to be a little zealous in spreading the word. I've got up quite a few noses here.

However, no matter that the "help line" might be very helpful, if you were to actually ring it, hardly anyone would. Warnings and suggestions on packets and labels do bugger all.

[ 16. December 2006, 04:21: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Duchess intoned:

quote:
duchessnova, in-training for Russian Orthodoxy World Domination

(Soothing voice.)

Duchess, come on back to the Light side of the Force. You know you want to. Pssst...we just got a shipment of state-of-the-art light sabers! You will get TWO of your very own, plus a combo mini-saber/bookmark for your steel-plated Bible, if you'll just come back!
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Masha and duchess, stop your crusading about Orthodoxy. If you wish to discuss it any further, use PMs, or start a thread in Purg. If you just wish to give eachother high fives for knowing the in jokes of Orthodoxy, start a thread in AS.

Sarkycow, hellhost
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
As for the fatsos moaning that people now want to stigmatize your for being fat - HAH. That's justice.

Where were you bastards when people were victimizing the smokers? Standing with the smokers? I don't think so. You* were all too busy telling smokers that they were a drain on the NHS and they harmed other people, and so should either give up smoking or kill themselves.

So now I mock you. You should have to go outside to eat, and all your clothes need to be labelled: "WARNING, BEING FAT KILLS. INCREASED RISK OF HEART DISEASE." And people should feel free to lecture you every time they see you even looking at any food other than salad - "Shouldn't be eating fatty foods."

[Razz]

Sarkycow

*Apart from the fatsos who smoke: you're excluded from this rant [Smile]
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
As for the fatsos moaning that people now want to stigmatize your for being fat - Where were you bastards when people were victimizing the smokers? . . . You should have to go outside to eat, and all your clothes need to be labelled: "WARNING, BEING FAT KILLS. INCREASED RISK OF HEART DISEASE."

Not the same thing, and you know it. Fat people don't spew cancerous lipids into the lungs of innocent bystanders. And there's no conclusive evidence that being fat (except for being grossly obese) kills or increases risk of heart disease. You smokers should be familiar with that line of arguing.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Sorry, Sarkycow.

Mary
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The idea of encouraging cycling is a wonderful idea to improve the "Health of the Nation", but having had the biggest fattest year 9 (13-14 year olds) boys* jeer at me locking up my bike this week people are going to need re-educating: the car is king around here and anyone who doesn't drive is a loser.

* They have been dealt with, my evidence added to the allegations of bullying has had one excluded for 3 days, and the other is supposed to be reintegrating from the Behaviour Unit and is now coming back very, very slowly.

"Health of the Nation" was the Government plan to improve the UK health in the 1990s. Most of the targets have been missed.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Sorry, Sarkycow.

Mary

Me too. -dutch
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
*Apart from the fatsos who smoke: you're excluded from this rant [Smile]

Why ty Sarky.

chive (who is a fat arsed bitch because she likes to eat bad foods and is too lazy to exercise and would find health warnings on clothes just as easy to ignore as those on fags.)
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
As for the fatsos moaning that people now want to stigmatize your for being fat - Where were you bastards when people were victimizing the smokers? . . . You should have to go outside to eat, and all your clothes need to be labelled: "WARNING, BEING FAT KILLS. INCREASED RISK OF HEART DISEASE."

Not the same thing, and you know it. Fat people don't spew cancerous lipids into the lungs of innocent bystanders.
No, much more importantly you are influencing children - showing them that eating trashy foods is cool.

The amount of smokers is decreasing; the amount of overweight people is increasing. Smokers are probably as dangerous to other people as fat people are, if you factor in the influence on kids. [Razz]

Sarkycow
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
The amount of smokers is decreasing; the amount of overweight people is increasing.

I don't know about where you live, but where I live the reasons for this are that there have been educational campaigns for decades, there is a high tax on tobacco, and smoking has been made illegal in more and more places. If the government wanted to develop similarly effective things to deal with obesity, I'd be all for them. Do you think putting a helpline phone number in clothes sold to fat people would constitute an effective educational campaign?

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
And I sincerely doubt, RuthW, that you are half as stupid as you sound.

You're running out of substantive things to say, I see.
 
Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
...there's no conclusive evidence that being fat (except for being grossly obese) kills or increases risk of heart disease. You smokers should be familiar with that line of arguing.

Sorry, 'cos I don't normally get into these spews Shipside, but this is beyond the pale...

I smoke, but I'm a skinny git. I am pissed off if anyone tells me I shouldn't smoke, because it's none of their damned business. Therefore, I wouldn't dream of telling someone else that they shouldn't be fat. Apart from being hideously rude, it's none of my damned business.

Then Miss Amanda posted the bile above and I thought to myself, "WTF is that all about?"

There's "no conclusive evidence that being fat (except for being grossly obese) kills or increases risk of heart disease"????

HELLO???? Miss Amanda????? You Home???? Planet Earth calling!

Have you missed all the stuff about blocked arteries? Why does smoking kill? Lung cancer? Relatively, hardly ever. Mostly - Heart disease because smoking causes fatty deposits that block arteries. Now, let's pause and consider- what else might cause fatty deposits in arteries... erm... being fat maybe?

Why are people fat? Because they're storing too much fat. Now, let's guess where they're storing most of the fat that does the damage. On their bellies? No. On their hips? No. On their thighs? No. Ooh, fancy - it's IN THEIR ARTERIES!!!! Why do fat people get heart disease? For exactly the same reason as skinny people - their arteries are clogged with fat, so their hearts can't work properly, so they die. Get used to it.

Being fat doesn't kill? Yes, it does.

Moreover, I'm awfully sorry, but, even though you don't smoke and you're not "grossly obese", the chances are that you will die from a heart attack caused by fat-clogged arteries.

'Though, naturally, I will be very sorry whether you die otherwise or if you prove me correct, I'm still content to put money on your dying as only smokers can and fat people can't, and good wholesome exercising people wouldn't.

Corpus
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
The amount of smokers is decreasing; the amount of overweight people is increasing...

There you have it. The increasing numbers of overweight people are all ex-smokers with the munchies!
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
...Why are people fat? Because they're storing too much fat. Now, let's guess where they're storing most of the fat that does the damage. On their bellies? No. On their hips? No. On their thighs? No. Ooh, fancy - it's IN THEIR ARTERIES!!!!

I've got some mighty fat arteries around my belly, yes indeedy.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
The amount of smokers is decreasing; the amount of overweight people is increasing...

There you have it. The increasing numbers of overweight people are all ex-smokers with the munchies!
It's "spare-hand syndrome". If you haven't a smoke in your hand you hold something else; biscuits, a bag of crisps, chocolate..... maybe even a drink, which is another evil, oh yes.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
As for the fatsos moaning that people now want to stigmatize your for being fat - Where were you bastards when people were victimizing the smokers? . . . You should have to go outside to eat, and all your clothes need to be labelled: "WARNING, BEING FAT KILLS. INCREASED RISK OF HEART DISEASE."

Not the same thing, and you know it. Fat people don't spew cancerous lipids into the lungs of innocent bystanders.
No, much more importantly you are influencing children - showing them that eating trashy foods is cool.


Hey now that's just not true! Us Fatties hive off into unlit cupboards, or under the duvets, with our Sainsbury bags full of lard and chocolate to slob our relish in dark, miserable, isolation, feeding our low self-esteem as we feed our faces [Big Grin] .

Once upon a time you'd find fag-ends dropped surrepticiously out of a bedroom window or round the back of the bike-sheds. These days it's Wagon-Wheel wrappers and Mr Kipling boxes..... [Help]

Maybe the shame game does work after all. Every time I order dessert when I go out for a special meal with friends and family, I feel as if I should have a note from my doctor [Frown] .
 
Posted by trebuchet (# 11970) on :
 
I'm fat - probably about 50 lbs overweight - and it is a health risk, and I should be lectured by my doctor every time I see him. I support efforts to make it easier for me to lose weight (if doctors could prescribe a gym so my health insurance covered the membership fees, for instance; if the government outlawed high fructose corn syrup or gave subsidies to lower the prices of healthy foods) and to provide tools whereby I can learn more about nutrition, if I want to seek out that information. And to teach this stuff better in schools so people have a solid foundation (no pun intended).

I should not be lectured by store clerks when buying clothes. That's dumb. Not only is it offensive, of course, but it's counterproductive. If you want people to lose weight, the worst thing you can do is try to shame them into doing it. Shame and guilt make most people - especially fat people - eat more. Because eating is comfort. Shaming fat people doesn't make there be fewer fat people. That so many fat people try to lose weight and fail means there's a problem not just with their willpower or whatever, but with how society's structured, or else we wouldn't have so many more fat people than we did 100 years ago. People didn't magically become weaker-willed.

To get people to lose weight, we need to remove the economic barriers to thinness.

Where I live, a head of lettuce ($2.16) costs more than twice as much as a fast food burger ($0.99). It's almost impossible to find convenience foods - foods that if you made them at home, you would not put sugar into - that do not contain sucrose, dextrose or, worse, high fructose corn sugar (and let's face it, not everybody is going to have time to cook for themselves). Not to mention the fat content. And gym memberships are about $50/month, which is a lot of money for a lot of people, myself included, and most cities are structured such that it's really hard to get around without using a car or, if you're lucky enough to have it, public transit. (I really miss living in a place where I could walk to work.)

Ultimately, I attribute my weight gain to poverty. Yes, I made some bad choices, and I am not saying that to deny my own culpability. But the fact remains that being poor narrows your healthy options down considerably. Now that I am not poor anymore, I have many more options - I can buy healthier foods and I can afford a gym membership (or actually, a Nintendo Wii and fitness software).
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by PeaceFeet:
ISTM that SOME of the proposals laid out in the article would benefit everyone, such as:
  • Stricter planning regulations to only allow new housing complexes if they have sports facilities and green parks nearby
  • Tax processed food high in sugar and salt
  • Only allow new urban roads if they have cycle lanes
Not very hellworthy, but those things sound good to me.
I agree. But I think they should just get hydrogenated oils and high-fructose corn syrup out of the food industry entirely. We lived just fine without them for a long time, and they should simply be eliminated.
Right on, Ruth. HFCS is the work of the debbil. It's insane how much stuff it's in (momma taught me to read labels).

(those cupcakes I was mentioning ... made with real butter and real sugar. not "health food" beyond being good for the morale but at least it's proper scratch baking [Biased] .)

Charlotte
 
Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
And I sincerely doubt, RuthW, that you are half as stupid as you sound.

You're running out of substantive things to say, I see.
Actually, I didn't have time to come up with anything else, my fat ass had a hot date last night, and I'm just now getting home.

How'd you spend your Friday evening? Sitting on the Inernet?

[ 16. December 2006, 18:22: Message edited by: Spiffy da WonderSheep ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I had dinner with friends. How is it relevant?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Well, perhaps because there turns out to be a significant population of "chubby chasers" in Portland?
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by trebuchet:
... Where I live, a head of lettuce ($2.16) costs more than twice as much as a fast food burger ($0.99).

Until you can make that head of lettuce taste like a hot, steaming Burger King Double Whopper dripping with grease and cheese, price will be no object. I didn't spend 500,000 years climbing the food chain to start eating rabbit food.
quote:
... Now that I am not poor anymore, I have many more options - I can buy healthier foods and I can afford a gym membership (or actually, a Nintendo Wii and fitness software).
That's the ticket! You, too, can reach total fitness by waving a game controller in the air!

[leaves the other hand free for a bag of chips]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
Actually, I didn't have time to come up with anything else, my fat ass had a hot date last night, and I'm just now getting home.

Yes, but that begs the question: Did you get any hot exercise? Inquiring minds, and all that...
 
Posted by the coiled spring (# 2872) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep:
Actually, I didn't have time to come up with anything else, my fat ass had a hot date last night, and I'm just now getting home.

Strange end to put a hot vindaloo or chilli, is this normal practice among wonder sheep?
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
There are far healthier things you can eat than lettuce. And yes, what Gort said. Additionally:

You can get about a pound of broccoli for 90c or so (at least here when it's on sale), and chicken tends to go for 40-80c per lb. If you look around, it's not that costly to eat simple, relatively cheap meals that provide basic nutrition without having to depend on things like McDonald's and Burger King. I would almost bet that I could make myself a simple hamburger that contained more beef than one of those cardboard patties for less than it costs to buy one at a fast food joint.

Personally, I think, if you're willing to make the time to cook your own food instead of wasting your hard earned money on prepackaged crap, you can eat pretty well for cheap, IMO.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
...there's no conclusive evidence that being fat (except for being grossly obese) kills or increases risk of heart disease. You smokers should be familiar with that line of arguing.

HELLO???? Miss Amanda????? You Home???? Planet Earth calling!

Have you missed all the stuff about blocked arteries? . . . Moreover, I'm awfully sorry, but, even though you don't smoke and you're not "grossly obese", the chances are that you will die from a heart attack caused by fat-clogged arteries.

Corpus

Yes, Miss Amanda knows all that. She was merely making a point. Up until very recently (and perhaps even still) the tobacco industry swore on a stack of Bibles that smoking was not in the least injurious to health. In fact, she remembers when advertisements touted smoking as actually conducive to health!

And yes, Miss Amanda doesn't smoke, and she's flattered that you think she's not grossly obese (although, truth be told, she's no Skinny Minnie either). She knows she will probably die of heart disease, as it runs in her family. Although she'd love to drop 40 pounds or so, it won't be the end of the world if she doesn't.

And as far as exercise goes, whenever anyone asks Miss Amanda if she exercises, she replies, "I get all the exercise I need attending funerals of people who exercised."
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I'm picturing mourners on treadmills.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
... Personally, I think, if you're willing to make the time to cook your own food instead of wasting your hard earned money on prepackaged crap, you can eat pretty well for cheap, IMO.

Truth be told, my standard fare is frozen stir-fry veggies with chicken, shrimp or fish tossed in... fifteen minutes, stove to table. Yeah, I know the veggies are dead when frozen but at least I'm getting some roughage. A trip to a burger joint takes longer and besides, who wants to wake up with this plastic-headed knob in bed with them?
 
Posted by Duck (# 10181) on :
 
On the resource use front - i'm an ultramarathon runner and Ironman triathlete, and the sort of shape you get by running 70 miles per week for a few years. i reckon that with daily running, a physical job in a bike shop, and the odd bit of cycling or swimming too, i probably double my calorie requirements compared to a sedentary person most days. I also cost the NHS money for occasional physio for injuries, and I've had a few friends get squashed by cars, break limbs, sprain ankles, or otherwise consume NHS resources whilst selfishly pursuing recreational activites. I'd guess that someone who lives to a ripe old age whilst sustaining occasional injuries through sport probably costs the NHS lots. I'm not particularly interested in being healthy for its own sake - doing double-marathons for fun doesn't do your body a whole lot of good, but it's like deciding to put up with the hangover for the sake of a really good night out.

the clothes phone line is a daft idea. i'm a UK size 12 even with a low % body fat, 'cos i come from a long line of Welsh Prop Forwards and I'm fairly tall with size 10 feet (have to go in tall people's shops for them). On the other hand, if it means there will be queues of people lining up to feed me cake outside shops, I'm all for it - yes to phone lines in clothes! yes to cake! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
How far would you go to satisfy your hunger?
 
Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Well, perhaps because there turns out to be a significant population of "chubby chasers" in Portland?

'Course there is. Cuddling up to a skinny arsed whiner won't keep you warm in the current weather.
 
Posted by trebuchet (# 11970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Personally, I think, if you're willing to make the time to cook your own food instead of wasting your hard earned money on prepackaged crap, you can eat pretty well for cheap, IMO.

Well, of course, but then you run into the other resource people don't have enough of besides money: time. This is why I think obesity is largely an economic issue. It's kind of pointless to tell people who have to work two jobs just to make the rent that they should make time to cook healthful meals. Time is a luxury.

By the way, broccoli where I live is $1.49/lb. I don't the price of chicken per pound, but four reasonable-sized (about the size of my palm) breasts is about $2.50 I think. To get the equivalent of the filling-ness of a value-menu fast food meal you need to spend about twice as much and have time to cook it. I can do that (now), but a lot of people can't.

If we're trying to craft a governmental policy to fix the obesity issue, then the solutions have to depend on more than shame and individual effort. I think encouraging the food industry to stop producing foods that are full of things we either don't digest or shouldn't be eating would be a good first step. Attack the problem at its source instead of trying to guilt people into behaving the way we'd like.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by trebuchet:
If we're trying to craft a governmental policy to fix the obesity issue, then the solutions have to depend on more than shame and individual effort.

If we're trying to craft a governmental policy to address the obesity issue (and I don't think we are), then the solutions are going to have to depend on recognizing all the salient aspects of the issue - including the levels of obesity in individuals. So unless all the individual fat bastards are completely OK with being unsafe near Inuit reservations, there's going to potentially be elements of shame. And so long as we live in an approximately free society, individual effort is also going to be required.

So, feel free to suggest what else might help. Just don't expect to have the conversation with the assumption that is possible to be shame-free and effortless.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
I don't the price of chicken per pound, but four reasonable-sized (about the size of my palm) breasts is about $2.50 I think.
Oh, when I said "Chicken", I meant chicken quarters. That's basically a thigh & drumstick with a bit of the pelvis attached. Not as much white meat, perhaps a bit more tricky to cook, certainly more bones to work around, but a lot cheaper to buy pound for pound. Plus you get some dark meat, and the bones make for good soup fixins.

Even assuming that...four meals' worth of chicken for $2.50 = 63 cents a meal. And I bet that chicken has more useful caloric intake than your typical McDonald's burger.

And I'll grant you that it is partly a class thing. It's also an education thing and a geography thing. I remember being startled to hear that there are neighborhoods here in beloved Chi-town that haven't had a grocery store since the 60's (apparently the crime rates scare people off). People were thrilled when Wal-Mart finally moved in because at least they had something.

I just don't think that it's necessarily helpful to just assume that it's a fact that if you're poor you must be unable to afford to eat right.

[ 17. December 2006, 03:25: Message edited by: mirrizin ]
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
When the income is limited, you may not have a refrigerator, you may not have a stove, you may not have a microwave, you may not have a safe place to use charcoal or propane outside.

Or even if you carefully plot and plan and manage to get all those things, when they unexpectedly malfunction it takes a while to put together the funds to replace them.

You may not have all that you need as far as utensils, pots, pans, crockery. You may not have what you need to store extra food once it's cooked, or to store items you found on sale or in bulk and thus affordable at one time.

You may not be able to afford much in the way of spices with which to liven up that weeks-long diet of sale-priced leg quarters and the institutional-sized bags of carrots.

There are many reasons why a diet of Ramen noodles or fatburgers is easy to fall into.

It would be good if there'd be wide-spread banning of transfats and corn syrups, etc., in fast food at least.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
re: food prices.

sissies.

chicken is almost $4 a pound, and broccoli is $2.20. I dont know lettuce as I never eat it winters.

the coveted box of mandarin oranges cost $12.00.

(just did my big shopping today)

here endeth the tangent, before Sarky/RooK/Marvin beat me with sticks.

[ 17. December 2006, 04:01: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Why, I think your comments are quite pertinent, comet. While people are blithely assuming it's cheaper to eat fresh, they are not considering the unique needs of those folk who live up in the Great White Where-the-hell-am-I?, who can't get said fresh veggies/ fruit.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Janine [Overused]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
So there I was, standing in the checkout queue in the hospital centeen the other day, and I overhear two doctors just behind me having an earnest conversation in geek-speak about "obesogenic" foods and the like. (I think that was the word. It was something like that, anyway, and it was what made me think "geek".) Eventually I turned round, to see two ridiculously skinny, miserable-looking men with what looked like something you'd give a rabbit on a diet on their trays.

"That's all very well," I said, "But do you actually like that stuff?" (Nodding towards the rabbit food.)

Awkward pause, accompanied by guilty looks from the thin people. Then one of them says, "No, it's horrible. My wife makes me do this."

I like scoring points against miserable skinny folk.
 
Posted by Flausa (# 3466) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
When the income is limited . . . You may not be able to afford [refrigerater, stove, pots, pans, spices, fresh veg, etc]

This is not, however, the problem with your average obese American, and it's highly unlikely that it's the lot in life of obese shipmates. I'd suspect that your poverty-stricken urban poor aren't as obese as your middle classers (not that I've got any statistics to support this, but then we all know 64% of statistics are made up anyway). And it's unlikely that the truly poor are able to afford Mickey D's all the time with it's lovely trans fats.

But then as an obese gal myself, I've always been amused when I see other obese people in denial of the reasons they are soft in the middle. Frankly, rather than having tags on clothing, they ought to have sirens go off in the junk food, processed food, and cheese (mmmmmmmmm ... cheese) aisles in grocery stores when a lard ass like myself decides to go for a stroll down them.

Oh, and RuthW, on this thread, you have reminded me again why you are my hero.
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Why, I think your comments are quite pertinent, comet. While people are blithely assuming it's cheaper to eat fresh, they are not considering the unique needs of those folk who live up in the Great White Where-the-hell-am-I?, who can't get said fresh veggies/ fruit.

They don't even have to live in Outer Bugfuck, The True North Strong And Free. Even here in Berkeley, where we have truly wonderful produce available in our farmer's markets and most of our supermarkets, someone without a car in the southwest part of town (= "the hood") is pretty much SOL as far as produce is concerned. They've only got mom-n-pop shops (with little or no fresh produce) within walking distance - all the big markets, and almost all of the midsized ethnic markets, are in better neighborhoods.

(As Flausa has noted, it's not most shipmate's problem, but it's a factor in the larger equation.)

Charlotte
 
Posted by trebuchet (# 11970) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by trebuchet:
If we're trying to craft a governmental policy to fix the obesity issue, then the solutions have to depend on more than shame and individual effort.

If we're trying to craft a governmental policy to address the obesity issue (and I don't think we are), then the solutions are going to have to depend on recognizing all the salient aspects of the issue - including the levels of obesity in individuals. So unless all the individual fat bastards are completely OK with being unsafe near Inuit reservations, there's going to potentially be elements of shame.
I don't see this. Why does, "We have to change the way we live, because it's killing us" have to translate into, "and that means you, you disgusting porker"?

I don't think I'm fundamentally a different person at 50 lbs overweight than I was when I was skinny. Why does this have to be treated as a moral issue? It's a health issue. You don't see the government trying to shame people with allergies into giving up activities that expose them to the things they're allergic to. I'm allergic to my pets, and I take antihistimines to control my symptoms so I can enjoy their company, and I have never gotten flak about this from anybody, not even my doctor, when it's a much more clear and present danger to my health than being a little overweight is.

quote:
Originally posted by Flausa:
I'd suspect that your poverty-stricken urban poor aren't as obese as your middle classers

You'd be wrong, at least if we're talking about first world countries. Poor people are much more likely to be obese, even though they're undernourished. (If you do a google search on poverty and obesity you'll find loads of corroborating articles.)


Janine, thanks for your post. Very very true.
 
Posted by altarbird (# 11983) on :
 
As a semi-random assortment of kids, I had this in mind and watched the nippers come in and out this morning. The choir kids, the Sunday School kids, etc. Most of them weren't even fat, much less obese. And by most, I mean well over 90%. I just don't see the sheer numbers signing up for gastric bypass surgery unless it is really called for. And more's the point, if it is called for (or the parents are just desperate for it rather than behaviour modification) they still have to get through the hurdles of the GP, the waiting lists, the specialist consultants and so on.

One of the problems with drugs, etc, is that it is much easier to say "try this". If it works for whatever reason, then great, and if it doesn't then you come off it, etc. Something like this involves greater short term use of resources, budgets, hospital beds and so on. This panic that kids will be signed up for it instead of trying to diet is just that - panic. I can't see it happening except where really needed!
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
OK, people. We can despense with all of the phony economic, moral and health arguments for losing weight. No one has mentioned it but you are all thinking it. The real motivation for losing weight is all about hot, sweaty sex. You know? The kind you clean up with a mop and bucket. All of these intellectual tangents are just camouflage for the truth. Admit it.

You simply can't pin a heavy partner up against the wall or perform acrobatics quite like you can with a lighter one. There, I've said it.

I think I'll go have another burger now.
 
Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
You simply can't pin a heavy partner up against the wall or perform acrobatics quite like you can with a lighter one. There, I've said it.

Oh, can't you now?
[smug giggle]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I dunno, the guy I've had a helpless crush on for (cough) years is a good 100+ pounds heavier than he should be, and I bet if he had any idea the mental gymnastics, acrobatics, and torrid escapades I have put him through, he'd probably have that heart attack he's been working on for a decade or so.

Chub chases chub, I guess, RooK. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by trebuchet:
Why does, "We have to change the way we live, because it's killing us" have to translate into, "and that means you, you disgusting porker"?

I'd be surprised if even the ridiculous tarpaulin-tagging plan mentioned in the OP used anything like "disgusting porker". I'm guessing that it probably only stated some objective observation about dimensions and a warning about the dangers of obesity. In much the same way that when getting pulled over for speeding, a driver is often told how much faster than the generally-accepted safe speed they were travelling.

That disgusting porkers have a great propensity for internally translating objective observations into shame is often their own damn doing. If you're expecting society to invent a way to avoid treading on your itty bitty widdle feewings, my general response will be to tell you to fuck off and die.
 
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
You simply can't pin a heavy partner up against the wall or perform acrobatics quite like you can with a lighter one. There, I've said it.

Ah but usually the heavier partner can...

As far as fat goes - I'm fat. Really. Not obese, but my thighs are plentiful, my hips wide and my breasts heroic (to quote a friend). My waist is under the recommended maximum for women, my BMI is okay (not great) and as far as health goes - I've got no cartilage in my left knee, ruling out damn near all exercise. I do what I can without crippling myself (literally).

I will have to shop in big girl shops though - my heroic rack sees to that. My hips are wide with bone, not fat. Clothing size does not necessarily connote helth or lack thereof. Particularly when you have people with heroic racks, hips and arses.
Not to mention fat stored in the lower half of the body is not nearly as deadly as the guts many men carry.
 
Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:

You simply can't pin a heavy partner up against the wall or perform acrobatics quite like you can with a lighter one. There, I've said it.

Just because you don't have the upper body strength, Gort, doesn't mean it's impossible.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
True. I can only bench-press 195lbs., so there are, unfortunately, limits to my acrobatics on the mat.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
[Killing me]
 
Posted by Spiffy da WonderSheep (# 5267) on :
 
That's scary, we bench the same amount.
 
Posted by trebuchet (# 11970) on :
 
You can't have it both ways, RooK. You can't maintain that:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
...there's going to potentially be elements of shame.

and

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
That disgusting porkers have a great propensity for internally translating objective observations into shame is often their own damn doing.

Either the policy is to shame people into losing weight, or it isn't.

You are correct to note that many people will see insult where there is only objective observation, but that wasn't what you were talking about before, or it didn't seem to be. Please do feel free to correct me in your usual sweet way if I read you wrong.

I don't expect people to pretend that fat people aren't fat. I do expect the government to pursue effective health policies, and asking shopkeepers to assume the role of doctors can't possibly meet that criteria.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Of course not.

Oral hygeine is important, too, but I bet if every time you bought a pack of gum somebody slipped you a pamphlet on how to eridicate bad mouth odor, you'd never go into those participating stores again.

Plus which-- a doctor might have some idea whether or not his/her patient is following a nutrition plan-- has their weight gone up or down in the last three months? How are the other health indicators? etc. A shopkeep has no way of knowing whether or not a person is following a healthy diet or not-- they might slip their literature to somebody who just lost 50 pounds but still is fat. Very freaking helpful.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
and another thing to consider on the "clothing label" jazz - during my pregnancies I bought my clothes from the Big Girl stores. all regularly-sized-seven of me. this is because maternity clothes tend to be ugly and uncomfortable. they make some nice stuff for heavier folks.

AND! andandand... I was fairly convinced I was fat. so even my skinny ass would have walked out of there feeling depressed.

again - I think we need to think society-wide and positive not negative.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by trebuchet:
You are correct to note that many people will see insult where there is only objective observation, but that wasn't what you were talking about before, or it didn't seem to be. Please do feel free to correct me in your usual sweet way if I read you wrong.

You read me wrong. The potential shame I spoke of earlier was precisely the individual's own realm of interpretation. In pretty much the same manner that it's potentially somewhat deflating/shaming/embarrassing to sit on the side of the road waiting waiting waiting while the police constable writes the pleasejustawarning/ticket. You sit there, imagining all the smug self-righteous people that you passed smirking and laughing and pointing (and, quite often, it's not your imagination) as they trundle by. The policy isn't about shaming the speeder - it's just a potential by-product that the speeder has to accept, like it or not.

Seriously, do you think that there could be some effective form of policy that doesn't need to even vaguely identify individual people? Are we necessarily limiting any possible policies to limiting things like hydrogenated oils, and to some sort of magical zero-effort flab-melting chemicals in the public water supply? Because it seems to me that a large proportion of obesity is about individual habits and priorities, and if those aren't addressed in some way that there probably can be nothing accomplished.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Because it seems to me that a large proportion of obesity is about individual habits and priorities, and if those aren't addressed in some way that there probably can be nothing accomplished.

This is what the CDC says about obesity trends:

quote:
During the past 20 years there has been a dramatic increase in obesity in the United States. In 1985 only a few states were participating in the CDC's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and providing obesity data. In 1991, four states had obesity prevalence rates of 15–19 percent and no states had rates at or above 20 percent.

In 1995, obesity prevalence in each of the 50 states was less than 20 percent. In 2000, 28 states had obesity prevalence rates less than 20 percent.

In 2005, only 4 states had obesity prevalence rates less than 20 percent, while 17 states had prevalence rates equal to or greater than 25 percent, with 3 of those having prevalences equal to or greater than 30 percent (Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia).

When this many people get this fat this fast, there is something systemically wrong. There is no way this trend is going to be reversed if the primary focus is on getting individuals to change their habits -- the environment in which individuals make choices needs to change.

Individuals can change their habits, sure. I've done it, and I'm down 40 pounds from this picture (I'm the one in the middle, and yes, I've got more to loose). But it's been very slow, and a hell of a lot of hard work, and I've had it relatively easy -- I have clear motivation (don't want to get heart disease or cancer, do want to go hiking), no medical conditions contributing to my being fat, no family to cook for, not too many sabotaging "friends," no huge stressors in my life, a nice climate in which to exercise, and time and money to spend on the project. I've found that when I cook my own food and thus know exactly what's in it, I do okay; as long as I stick to my list at the grocery store I'm fine. But eating out, which is the only way I get to eat with other people instead of alone, is a pain in my fat ass. It's really hard for me to go to a restaurant and be able to eat enough to not feel hungry AND eat a healthy meal AND not feel like I got totally ripped off because I paid $15 for rabbit food and a dab of dressing because everything on the menu that was actually cooked was full of fat.

That last bit is all about my personal choice, so you're going to think it proves your point. But it proves mine, because restaurants can make tasty, healthy food, but generally don't. People eat out a lot, and it makes more sense to try to get restaurants to serve healthier food than it does to try to get people to stay home and cook. I'd be happy right now, though, if restaurants were simply required to provide nutritional information about everything they serve -- make 'em put it righ there on the menu -- so that people could make informed choices.

What it comes down to is this: yes, people get fat one bite at a time. But all those individual choices are made in an environment which strongly conditions us to make poor choices. So sure, encourage people to make better choices, but change the environment so it isn't so goddamned hard to do.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
I once saw a program about a town in Japan. The residents of the town were very healthy ate non-fatty foods. Then the fatty foods of the west came to town. Bam! Instant poor health.

I know what I need to do to weigh less. Eat fewer (and better) calories and exercise more. Kudos to Subway for fast food that is relatively healthy.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What it comes down to is this: yes, people get fat one bite at a time. But all those individual choices are made in an environment which strongly conditions us to make poor choices. So sure, encourage people to make better choices, but change the environment so it isn't so goddamned hard to do.

That post illustrates why you're one of the people whose thoughts I tend to re-read carefully; it's full of good sense and insight.

Nevertheless, I fear I still have a vein of disagreement. My suspicion is that if you were to put two restaurants side by side, one of them reasonably-healthy consciencously-prepared healthy food, the other buttery piles of decadence, the clientele will have presorted themselves somewhat. Those that indulge in moderation will likely be in both pretty evenly. The freakish bone racks in the healthy restaurant wonder if anything died to make their dinner, while the freakish bone racks amongst the decadent piles will be throwing up in the bathroom. The few overweight people in the healthy restaurant will be suffering or ordering thirds, while the many gustatory overweight people in the decadent piles will be enjoying themselves immensely. And the buttery piles of decadence will make more money, by more than a slight margin.

I put it to you that we are making our environment such that it is harder to resist. And that this is a by-product of our individual choices. And, judging by the perceived affront so far, I wonder how many people would actually want to have such concerns waved in front of their face, on a menu. So I still am of the opinion that the fundamental element of this conversation is still about individuals in our society.
 
Posted by mummyfrances (# 8635) on :
 
I agree with Ruth W that high fructosecorn syrup and so on is just a load of crap that we don't want in our bodies, but on this side of the pond (which is where the OP came from , I believe), we do have less of that stuff. there is a growing culture of ready meals and so on, but as I understand it, we have less of the poor ghetto (here offence is not intended, i dont know how else to call those areas) type areas, nearly all supermarkets DO stock cheap fuit and veg and fresh ingredients, AND YET WE ARE STILL BECOMING A MORE OBESE NATION.

something else is going wrong besides that shit they pretend is edible so they can shove it in fast food.

this post isnt very hellish yet so: FUCK YOU Mr Livingstone (the mayor of London), if you would only produce decent cycle routes, I could do nearly ALL my regular journeys by bike. that might help a bit. as it is, cycle paths in this country tend to start out nice and wide, go along the side of the raod beautifully. then STOP suddenly and randomly, or turn into a big high street that you would have to have a SERIOUS desire to become an organ donor to cycle along.

I cant help thinking if we could all use our feet (possibly with the help of bikes) to get round, rather than being forced into cars or buses so as not to get squished BY thosecars and buses, we would be healthier AND the environment might be happier....
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
What it comes down to is this: yes, people get fat one bite at a time. But all those individual choices are made in an environment which strongly conditions us to make poor choices. So sure, encourage people to make better choices, but change the environment so it isn't so goddamned hard to do.

[Overused]

I would just add that a useful part of that change, as people have already mentioned, would be stopping the planning madness that is making car use all but unavoidable and other transport choices all but impossible.

Comet's comment about maternity shopping reminded of something - those of you who think special measures are needed to remind fat people that they're fat, ought to try being pregnant round here. My post-natal lunch gang were reminiscing about that just the other day, it hit the young and pretty ones the hardest of course, the ones used to being the target of public admiration rather than derision. We all agreed it was a relief to finally get to the Gigantic Obvious Bump stage, so you could eat in public again without being sneered at or hearing uncomplimentary comments about your 'weight'.
 
Posted by trebuchet (# 11970) on :
 
RuthW: Yes! Thank you for putting it better than I apparently can. That is exactly what I'm talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
My suspicion is that if you were to put two restaurants side by side, one of them reasonably-healthy consciencously-prepared healthy food, the other buttery piles of decadence, the clientele will have presorted themselves somewhat. ... And, judging by the perceived affront so far, I wonder how many people would actually want to have such concerns waved in front of their face, on a menu.

Certainly if you go into a White Castle and then go into a Subway, you're going to see a different clientele. Part of this is money (Subway, while still cheap, is more expensive) and part of it is cultural and part of it is individual choice, and getting people to change their individual choices is going to be hard, of course. But I'd have more sympathy with the individual choice argument (some of which I do agree with it - I don't think it's binary either) if we had the kind of food labelling at restaurants that we already have at grocery stores.

I use those food labels all the time. I read ingredients carefully and have managed to get HFCS out of my diet entirely (except for one product we eat occasionally as a treat, for which there's no substitute). I'm careful about fat content and try to eat foods that are mostly food and not mostly chemicals. And so on. When I am in restaurants that have those heart-healthy symbols next to the meals cooked in, say, olive oil instead of butter, I am thrilled and use that tool, and preferentially go to those restaurants because they give me more control over what I'm eating. I don't see those labellings as judgemental in any way. It's when individual people are targeted by non-medical people that I think we've gone off-target.

The point above about cars is a good one. I didn't gain my weight until I moved from an area where I could walk to work to an area that requires a car. And, I am off for my hour-long commute now so see you all later!
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I once saw a program about a town in Japan. The residents of the town were very healthy ate non-fatty foods. Then the fatty foods of the west came to town. Bam! Instant poor health...

I read somewhere about a trend for more height too. So, starting back before there was much of a Western diet available -- maybe as far back as WWII -- and rolling forward, it started to become obvious when people's knees would constantly thwack and bang into the next person's while they rode face-to-face bus and train seats.

So either it was Western-type diets growing the younger generations taller or Western-style perverts suddenly taking over the public transport? Hee.

And re: "the poor" around here , whether "working poor" or people who live on public incomes in public housing etc. -- all I can go by is folks I personally run into during my days -- ain't too many skinny. Once you lose the high energy of youngsters' growth spurts, and discounting chronically ill people and heavy smokers (same thing! [Razz] ), they are all fatter than average.

Or maybe they're all virtuously skinny as poor folks should be and it's the high fat content of my obese eyes making them look fat...
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Reading Ruth and RooK's posts clarifies for me that it's really two issues at stake.

Firstly, the people like me, who are fat because we 'abuse' food, and whatever reasons there may be for that, know we do and know the answer is up to us. My response to some of the media hype over obesity is please can others butt out, except for the doctors and proper health professionals who know what they're talking about. Doctors have been telling people what is healthy and not healthy for generations. Sometimes they've even been right! Okay mostly they're right.... There is a level of accountability here for one's own health but nagging and shaming will not get the job done.

But alongside that and yet a discrete issue, then, there are the generations of youngsters who are growing up in a different environment than previous generations. Up to the time I left secondary school I had five periods of games and physical education every week; walked everywhere, rode bicycles and spent as long as possible out of doors, or in group activities. Also at school dinners we ate the one menu that was offered, nothing at all resembling the fast-food outlets most schools seem to feature (we were lucky to have chips once a month!).

We didn't need our school to chuck out its chocolate vending machines or tuck shops and replace them with healthy food snacks either, because most of us got fruit at home or in our pack lunches. And buying sweets was an occasional treat, if pocket-money would allow.

The reason I'm fat now is to do with who I am now, and not with the environment I grew up in. But the reason a larger proportion of future generations of adults will be fat will be more because of the systemic failure others have mentioned to address issues of lifestyle changes, and nutritional needs, which were not an issue when some of us were younger.

As for moralizing how awful it is to spend money on people who get themselves fat and then insist on being treated for fat-related illnesses. Well,
I don't complain when workaholics, or gym-aholics, spend my tax contribs subsidizing the injuries they inflict on themselves carrying out their unhealthy lifestyles. I don't whinge when health-freaks insist on jogging, cycling, walking backwards over razor-blades on their arse-cheeks in order to stay fit, and get themselves hospitalized because of strains, fractures and heart attacks, spending my NI subs. If a person is ill, however, they're ill, I hope the system I help to pay for helps them out.

On the other hand, many very young children are growing up now not making the connection between healthy eating and healthy living and this is what needs the attention.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
First they told us our cigarettes were the "number one preventable cause of disease," so we quit smoking and gained weight.

Then they told us that dietary fat was the Worst Thing, so we cut out fat, ate vast quanities of rice and potatoes because we couldn't get satisfied, and the obesity rate spiked in the 1990's.

Then they changed the method of measuring our weight with the BMI scale, and the obesity rate increased overnight.

Then they got really shrill about the Obesity Epidemic, so more people went on diets and even more people gained even more weight, because we're all hard wired to rebound from famine conditions with an increased craving for high calorie foods.

The medical establishment played a big part in creating this problem -- I wish they'd go find a cure for cancer and leave us alone.


quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
You know, I personally don't care about whether any particular person is fat - it doesn't fundamentally change them as a person. But as soon as you wind up with a retribution of "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS", kindly do the rest of us the favour of not using any public health services for any ailments primarily contributed by your obesity. Ever.


Most insurance companies will tell you that people who drive sports cars are very likely to be "using the public health services" so perhaps they should be getting little warnings and smug head shakes from those of us who help pay their medical costs, not to mention the loss in national productivity while we wait in the traffic pile-up caused when they get their monthly speeding ticket.

When I was a smoker, I used to get the "It's my business to sneer at you because you cost me money," attitude all the time. It's bull. If we die sooner, from either smoking or obesity, we're saving the government a fortune in social security that far outweighs our final medical costs.

BTW, for most people over 90% of their lifetime medical costs are incured in their final six months. This is something that's true whether you die of "old age" at 98 years or of "obesity related causes" at 60.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Actually, the recent health revelation in the news that's yanking my chain is that 'binge' drinking can now be officially categorized as half a bottle of wine in one evening.

Now I know the world has gone mad.
 
Posted by auntie di (# 11521) on :
 
It sounds like you heard the same radio 4 programme as me, where the scientist kept trying to get the presenter to refrain from using the words "normal" and "binge" as "average" and "dangerous"- the presenter, otherwise amiable, just couldn't seem to grasp there was a difference, and I ended up hurling abuse at the radio!
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Actually, the recent health revelation in the news that's yanking my chain is that 'binge' drinking can now be officially categorized as half a bottle of wine in one evening.

Now I know the world has gone mad.

Oh, it's been going on here for years. Five drinks in a day is a binge and three is "problem drinking". It's puritanism, plain and simple.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
As for moralizing how awful it is to spend money on people who get themselves fat and then insist on being treated for fat-related illnesses. Well,
I don't complain when workaholics, or gym-aholics, spend my tax contribs subsidizing the injuries they inflict on themselves carrying out their unhealthy lifestyles. I don't whinge when health-freaks insist on jogging, cycling, walking backwards over razor-blades on their arse-cheeks in order to stay fit, and get themselves hospitalized because of strains, fractures and heart attacks, spending my NI subs. If a person is ill, however, they're ill, I hope the system I help to pay for helps them out.

Don't get me wrong - I'm a proponent of state-funded socialized health care for everybody. When I snidely asked fat bastards to avoid using public health care for blubber-related issues, it was to address the idea that society should "mind its own business". My intent was to strongly suggest that their individual obesity is indeed a matter of society's public concern, not to actually deny them health care.

Which should also shut twilight up.
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
Anselmina wrote:
quote:
But alongside that and yet a discrete issue, then, there are the generations of youngsters who are growing up in a different environment than previous generations. Up to the time I left secondary school I had five periods of games and physical education every week; walked everywhere, rode bicycles and spent as long as possible out of doors, or in group activities. Also at school dinners we ate the one menu that was offered, nothing at all resembling the fast-food outlets most schools seem to feature (we were lucky to have chips once a month!).

We didn't need our school to chuck out its chocolate vending machines or tuck shops and replace them with healthy food snacks either, because most of us got fruit at home or in our pack lunches. And buying sweets was an occasional treat, if pocket-money would allow

From a UK perspective, more is being done about healthy eating in schools, and linking what you eat to health and other issues. For example the Healthy Schools programme. As part of regular lessons in primary school issues about food are discussed and taught. Food and healthy eating as a topic are included in the national curriculum as well as initiatives like Every Child Matters.

My two boys (in primary school) are given (free) fruit every day at snack time, and also milk. Annoyingly this stops after year 2 (when they are 6 or 7), as if 8 year olds suddenly don't need fruit. This is not to say that the government should be responsible for ensuring that kids have a healthy diet (they neither could nor should) - but it is part of the overall environment that they are living in, and a) guarantees that they are used to having healthy, fresh food and b) have at least some knowledge of the issues and hopefully will pass this on to parents or carers - using pester power positively!

All I'm saying is that the situation in the UK is not doom and gloom, neither however is it wildly optimistic. There needs to be a lot more genuine joined up thinking in government ranging from travel issues (how to encourage walking/cycling instead of driving), sports (not selling off school playing fields left right and centre, closing swimming pools etc), regulating advertising (especially to children) better, regulating what additives/constituents are allowed in food, what and how to tax things and so on and so forth - rather than a whole bunch of little initiatives which are underfunded and often contradicted by other bits of government policy.

Speaking for myself, my kids get sweets as a treat very occasionally, and there is no harm whatsoever in that (I have treats occasionally myself, everyone needs them) - and they certainly get their '5 a day' fruit and veg (except, again, occasionally due to special circumstances - we make sure this isn't viewed as a treat though). We also go for walks and play games with them regularly, as well as walking/scooting to school. So far they are both very healthy, and actually like fruit and veg and often choose them for a snack. (In fact Jonahlet no 2 squeals in delight at the thought of sprouts with his meal, a most rare child).

However, obviously there are many parents who are less aware or less able to act on their knowledge, so there does need to be a climate which helps people rather than hinders them. Going back to the original post, I don't think that shops handing out random advice is an effective way of doing this - but from the govt's point of view it is relatively cheap, high profile and they can simultaneously show that they are doing 'something' to those who think 'something should be done' whilst giving the Daily Mail ammunition for its 'political correctness gone mad' column. [Biased]

Jonah
(Now I need some beer and chips!)
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by trebuchet:
Certainly if you go into a White Castle and then go into a Subway, you're going to see a different clientele. Part of this is money (Subway, while still cheap, is more expensive) and part of it is cultural and part of it is individual choice, and getting people to change their individual choices is going to be hard, of course.

Good post. I'd like to disagree with the assumption though. Yes, I dislike the prices at subway and I won't eat the crap at a white castle. So, what do I do for a good sandwich? Loaf of bread that I like is a couple bucks. Even the expensive sandwich meat is only a couple bucks and it lasts a while. I love our cheese and it's also only a couple bucks a week. Tomatos are very very cheap here at the moment but probably aren't everywhere. Still, I know that when I make a sandwich that I love it only costs 50 cents at the very max estimate. Why pay subway prices. It's not as if it takes that long to make a sandwich even if you toast it.
 
Posted by The Man With No Name (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I put it to you that we are making our environment such that it is harder to resist. And that this is a by-product of our individual choices.

I think there's some truth in this. When I was last in the USA, about twelve months ago, I was astounded at the quantity of food served in an average restaurant portion. Whether the meal was a "healthy" choice or a high fat meal, the portion was enormous - perhaps up to twice the size of what would be served in the UK. When I commented on this to locals, they expressed surprise that we British were content to accept smaller portions in the UK, and said that they would complain at being served a mean portion in a restaurant.

I should add that I would distance myself from the concept of "healthy" food choices, as I consider all things are reasonably healthy in moderation. I don't think I shall be teaching my children to calorie-count - or even to fat-count - but I will try to teach them to eat only when they are truly hungry and stop when they feel full.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Seriously. When Gwai and I eat out, we can usually get two meals out of one portion served at most restaurants.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Seriously. When Gwai and I eat out, we can usually get two meals out of one portion served at most restaurants.

I actually like a man who can eat more than me. If he orders a salad and tries to pick at his food, I lose interest. When I finish my 3 people sized portion, I pat my fatness and just sigh, especially if chocolate is involved. Very satisfying.
 
Posted by Flausa (# 3466) on :
 
Thanks duchess, you just put me off my dinner.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
You know, I'm just not all that entirely convinced of the crisisness of this obesity crisis. It smacks a little of a not-enough-other-things-to-worry-about crisis.

I know there are lots of fat people, and it would probably be better for them if they weren't. And I do think that manufacturers should be prevented from putting noxious things in their products, and that state provided food, like school meals, shouldn't be grossly unhealthy (though I'm a lot more worried about low-quality, hormone-saturated meat than I am about calorie content). And that everybody, especially parents, should have access to basic nutritional information, basic cooking skills, and shops that stock affordable healthy food. And, like I said, that planning decisions should facilitate non-car travel, so that a more active life remains possible for those who want it.

But all that said... a crisis, of Something Must Be Done proportions, huge anxiety that justifies the government poking into our personal choices and recruiting shop assistants to lecture us... I'm just not convinced.

Nearly every day we hear that the biggest problem facing the country is that people are living too long, needing NHS care, pensions can't cope with the longevity, retirement age to be raised, etc. Just today, a completely random day, this morning's news reported BT being reprimanded by auditors (or some such) because their announced financial figures failed to take into account the effect of lengthening life spans on their pension plans.

Now I'm not saying that we should all live really unhealthy lives and obligingly pop our clogs early for the sake of the economy. I'm not saying that overweight individuals shouldn't receive good health advice and help to lose weight (from their doctor, not random retail staff!). But it seems fairly clear that Western civilisation is not yet expiring in a oily puddle of our own fat - we're living longer, and are probably healthier by any reasonable measure, than we've ever been in the whole history of the world. If a bit on the podgy side.

I'm really not sure that the 'obesity epidemic' justifies the kind of high anxiety and accompanying moral panic that we're seeing at the moment.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
the portion size thing in restaurants is huge. (pardon the pun).

there's a restaurant in a city here that serves up pasta dishes and each person's portion is how much pasta I would make for the entire family. There are 5 of us. and it comes with a salad, rolls, and cheesecake.

good food. the dog got most of it.

I'm trying to get my butt back to managable levels, and my biggest weapon in the arsenal so far is to take anything served to me, in a restaurant, coffee shop, whatever -and halve it. save the other half for later or split with a kid or two.

it only takes a few days of eating less bulk, IME, for your stomach to wake up from it's stupor and remember when it's full again.

Seriously, if I'm craving evil transfat french fries - I don't go order a Monster Meal or whatever. I just order a small fries. it's a crapload of calories anyway, but that's what will satisfy my craving, and the barfo-burger and gallon-o-pop are only going to be a problem. But they sell them as "deals" and we believe them.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
the portion size thing in restaurants is huge. (pardon the pun).

The portion size thing is one of those areas where the individual vs social responsibility thing comes into conflict. I'm all for eliminating high fructose corn syrup, making it easier to walk places, etc.

But I love my super-duper sized portions. I eat until I'm full, and then I take the rest home with me. I can usually get at least 2 lunches or 1 dinner out of the leftovers. And it's even better if they have a free salad bar with bread, since you can fill up on that and then eat for a week off your entree...

Start charging me the same amount for half as much food (because really, restaurants are going to lower their prices?) and I'm going to start bitching.
 
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 
I'm amazed you can take food home from restaurants...here in Oz, unless the establishment is a takeaway joint as well, it is actually against regs to take it home. Even if it's for chook food.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
What's the logic behind being disallowed from moving one's own belongings (bought food) from one place to another?
 
Posted by trebuchet (# 11970) on :
 
The portion size thing is awful. My husband was taught to clean his plate (there are starving childrfen in Ethiopia!) and he has this huge mental barrier to simply leaving food behind. It drives him crazy that I do, so I've started taking it home, and I can generally get at least two and usually three good meals out of one restaurant portion. I'm originally from Canada and this was a big cultural difference when I first started living down here, but Canada seems to be catching up - I am noticing larger and larger portion sizes when I go home.

I'd be against a law to cut portion sizes but I'd love to see them have to put the nutritional information in their menus.

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:
Originally posted by trebuchet:
Certainly if you go into a White Castle and then go into a Subway, you're going to see a different clientele. Part of this is money (Subway, while still cheap, is more expensive) and part of it is cultural and part of it is individual choice, and getting people to change their individual choices is going to be hard, of course.

I'd like to disagree with the assumption though. ... Why pay subway prices. It's not as if it takes that long to make a sandwich even if you toast it.
No assumptions involved - I was responding to RooK's acute comment about how if restaurants offer healthier choices, some people will just go to the restaurants that don't. I wasn't trying to cover all possible sandwich options.

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Five drinks in a day is a binge and three is "problem drinking".

I worked for awhile as Secretary to the Director of Addiction Services in Nova Scotia, and I just wanted to correct this even though it's not really on-topic. Three drinks isn't problem drinking. It's three drinks a day every day, and it's only when coupled with other things - the definitions for problem drinking are intentionally a bit fuzzy and are intended to give counsellors a tool to talk about lowering consumption with people who obviously have a problem but aren't full-blown alcoholics. If you have more than 12 drinks a week then they start to look at how drinking affects your life to see if you're a problem drinker. So, if you for example have two glasses of wine with your leisurely supper every day, and that's it, no lowered job performance or marital difficulties stemming from drinking or anything like that, then you're almost definitely not a problem drinker despite being over the 12/week rule-of-thumb.

Anybody who tells you you're a problem drinker because you have three drinks in one day (and on no other evidence) is talking out their arse.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
That interesting about portions being smaller in Canada, I never noticed that. In Australia they seemed to be the same size as I was used to.
 
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What's the logic behind being disallowed from moving one's own belongings (bought food) from one place to another?

Health regulations. A rash of food poisoning, replete with blame upon establishments otherwise blameless, based upon leftovers taken home was the catalyst I believe. The establishment cannot control the transport and storage of its food unless it is a takeaway joint. Most of my favourite places do this - which are the ones (I've found) that have the ridiculously huge portions. If I am dining at a fancy place, I don't mind that the steak is bigger than what I would serve for myself at home, but I certainly notice if the portions are healthy. Most of my local 'ethnic' places are takeaway as well as dine in* so we rarely run into that problem unless we're at pubs or clubs.

I have friends who eat significantly more than Nov and I - often I have kids meals (particularly from your big burger places) whereas they will have a large meal plus another burger. Part of it is what you acclimatise to, part of it is that both of them are six foot + tall and big with it, so tend towards needing more fuel than 5 and a half foot me. When we are out at fancy places, Nova and I do the four dishes rule: we order four dishes in total for the most part. Often this is two entree, two mains and I might have a coffee. Sometimes only one entree and one dessert. I am slowly weaning the both of us off dessert as expected.I'm slowly weaning myself off the 'starving children in Ethiopia' rule of eating too.

*I just realised that for the most part, I rarely eat out anywhere not ethnic. And that most takeway places are ethnic in some way.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
trebuchet said,
quote:
If you have more than 12 drinks a week then they start to look at how drinking affects your life to see if you're a problem drinker.
I wonder if your drinks are bigger than ours this side of the pond, as well as your food portions?

I would regard 12 drinks a week as pretty moderate. The recommended limits over here are (I believe) 14 for a woman and 21 for a man - and most people think those are a bit of a joke (including my doctor).

M.
 
Posted by PeaceFeet (# 11001) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
I would regard 12 drinks a week as pretty moderate. The recommended limits over here are (I believe) 14 for a woman and 21 for a man - and most people think those are a bit of a joke (including my doctor).

M.

[forgive the pedantry]
In the UK I think it is 14 units for a woman and 21 for a man, not drinks.

quote:
1 unit of alcohol=
1/2 pint beer
1 small glass wine

Source

That's about 1 1/2 pints a day
[/forgive the pedantry]

[ 19. December 2006, 09:38: Message edited by: PeaceFeet ]
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
What's the logic behind being disallowed from moving one's own belongings (bought food) from one place to another?

Hugal is a chef, and is very conscientious about not heating things up more than once if they have already been cooked, as it's very dangerous food-poisoning wise.

A restaurant meal may well have been prepared earlier and heated up to order, so if you take it home and heat it up next day, you could be giving yourself a nice plateful of nasties.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
trebuchet said,
quote:
If you have more than 12 drinks a week then they start to look at how drinking affects your life to see if you're a problem drinker.
I wonder if your drinks are bigger than ours this side of the pond, as well as your food portions?

I would regard 12 drinks a week as pretty moderate. The recommended limits over here are (I believe) 14 for a woman and 21 for a man - and most people think those are a bit of a joke (including my doctor).

M.

No, the definition of standard drink is the same both sides of the pond, but we're insane about alcohol over here. There seems to be very little sense of a moderate drinker -- someone who drinks every day but is not a problem drinker. The definition of problem drinker keeps being defined down until your Aunt Margaet is a souse because she has a sherry at lunch, a g&t before dinner and a glass of wine with dinner. That's three drinks a day, and in my mind, nothing remarkable. It's probably more actually, because a "drink" is teeny -- 5 oz. wine, one oz. spirits, 12 oz. beer, and most people pouring a glass of wine don't measure it. My wine glasses hold 6.5 oz. if you fill them to the place that it seems intuitive to fill them. So if I have three glasses of wine in an evening (not at all unusual), I've generally had nearly four standard drinks. So I'm a souse, too.

Oh, well. Be who you are, that's what I say.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I wonder if it can really be all that dangerous since it's not illegal here to reheat more than once (I was in a co-op and do know food safety codes decently well) and I don't think it's a major cause of harm to Americans.
 
Posted by C# (# 3818) on :
 
Having just read the whole way through this thread I need to unload a few thoughts.

OK, I'm clinically obese. I am also diabetic. I would like to point out to all the body fascists out there (if only my mother was reading this) that I put on the weight after I started using insulin, that is to say my diabetes was not caused by obesity but actually by pregnancy and heredity, .
I hate being overweight. It's all very well for people to say that I don't look like a size 22 (uk) but I know it. I eat healthily and not excessively, no junk food or ready meals, am not quite teetotal, and walk or bike everywhere. Exercise just turns the flab to muscle, which of course weighs more. A doctor recently told me that it is very difficult to lose weight on the amount of insulin I am currently injecting.

So, when well-meaning busybodies hand me leaflets or offer unsolicited advice on ways to lose weight they should hardly be surprised to get an earful of abuse from me. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT, YOU MORONS.

PS my cholesterol level and blood pressure are fine.
 
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by C#:
So, when well-meaning busybodies hand me leaflets or offer unsolicited advice on ways to lose weight they should hardly be surprised to get an earful of abuse from me. I AM TRYING TO LOSE WEIGHT, YOU MORONS.

PS my cholesterol level and blood pressure are fine.

Except when people hand you weight-loss leaflets, presumably? [Razz]

The trouble is that politicians (and civil servants, I accept) are always looking for quick solutions to long-term problems - it's called outcomes-based activity, apparently (focus on 'activity' rather than 'outcomes', if you ask me). It's back to the days of 'Yes, Minister' - if it's cheap, it's popular.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Atheist:
BMIs? Joke. The entire All Blacks front row are classed, by BMI, as "morbidy obese"! Not bad for three blokes at the supreme peak of fitness.

Bad example. Excessive muscle can lead to all sorts of health problems (pumping blood through all that muscle isn't easy). And most obese people are not that heavily muscled. If you do actually have above average muscle (I do) then you can probably downgrade your BMI results a bit. Personally I rank as severely obese by the BMI, but in reality I judge it as only being obese. I don't regard the BMI as particularly precise (you can have serious weight problems and have a perfect BMI) or meaningful on its own, but it shouldn't be ignored for the average person. And is a decent rule of thumb

I have heard of body builders in the military getting in trouble for having their BMI to high. Which is an example of giving to much credence to the BMI.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
I have read through this thread with interest. I work on the NHS and privately, and I have seen a shocking increase in the number of obese patients in the last twenty years. I have strong opinions on this.

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.

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.

Cigarettes are taxed, and the revenues used for (nuclear weaponry and) healthcare. Fatty foods should be the same. If it cost you twenty quid for a plate of chips, you would probably get thin.

If you need cardiovascular surgery for the crippling angina you get from your coronary arteriosclerosis, or the pedal amputation you need because of your uncontrolled diabetes because you’re obese, then you should be obliged to pay for that out of your own pocket, not the taxpayer’s. Then you would probably get thin.

People vote with their wallets. If you price pork pies out of their pockets, they would buy broccoli and carrots instead. It’s that simple.

If we had legislation for Fat Tax and refused public-funded healthcare to obese patients (like we increasingly do for smokers), then people would have the moral right to their obesity, and all the suffering that goes with it. From my view within the NHS, this is where I think things will go in the next ten years.

The way things are otherwise going, treating all the fat people for illness caused by their obesity means we won’t have the money to treat little children with leukaemia.

Think about that when you’re eating your dinner tonight.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Right, obesity is caused by people eating the wrong sorts of foods, because healthier food is more expensive, so the way to deal with people who can't afford posh food is to refuse to treat them on the NHS and expect them to go private? [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Well said, dogwonderer (welcome to the ship, BTW - drop by All Saints and introduce yourself!)

I'm with you all the way except here:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
If you need cardiovascular surgery for the crippling angina you get from your coronary arteriosclerosis, or the pedal amputation you need because of your uncontrolled diabetes because you’re obese, then you should be obliged to pay for that out of your own pocket, not the taxpayer’s. Then you would probably get thin.

on this side of the pond, most people (? she says with lack of any real numbers) are paying for their own health care, either out of pocket or through health insurance premiums. It's not working.

In my experience, this results in a) people not getting preventative medical care at all and their first treatment being the crash cart and ER, and b) health care premiums going further and further out the roof to where if you work for a small company, chances are you dont have insurance at all, which brings you back to scenario a.

I wish I could say making people pay their medical privately would work, but it demonstrably won't.

the $40 plate of fries would work for me, though! [Ultra confused]

re: BMI - Raptor is right. When I was in my size 7's, size 5 for UK folks, I was technically "overweight" on the BMI at 160 pounds. I looked great. I also hauled/split/wrangled/hiked etc as required for our living situation. My doctor laughed when I asked her about the BMI.

Now, I think I'm probably "shockingly obese" on the BMI or however they put it, but I'm not that much heavier than I was before. however, my components ratio has changed - i.e. zee butt she has grown.

so I give the BMI very little credence except as a starting place for the conversation. for my height, I think the BMI says my weight should be something like 115 lbs. I'd slip down the shower drain at that weight.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I don't know, comet.

Surely, if you make unhealthy food more expensive, those with the money and who really do want the unhealthy food will just buy it anyway. Those who can no longer afford it, but can't afford healthier, more expensive food - what do they do? And what is the point of imposing financial sanctions on them?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
But comet, I rather think that if we (on our side of the pond) didn't fund the incredibly expensive things that people (understandably) want for their loved ones (like keeping vegetables alive for years) then health care wouldn't be as expensive. I predict that we have reached the practical limits of life-prolonging and that some of these more expensive treatments are going to be gradually used less and less so that we can afford some health care for more.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Right, obesity is caused by people eating the wrong sorts of foods

That is exactly not what the godbotherer said. Its not about the "wrong sorts" of foods it is about the wrong amount of food. He she or it wrote:

quote:

Fat people get fat because they eat too much and don’t burn it off enough

Which is entirely and undeniably true - and if you think it is false then either you don't understand what what are saying or else you have discovered a way to break thge first law of thermodynamics, which woudl be deeply cool. Well, it would be rather hot actually. And could lead to all sorts of fun applications from cheap spaceflight to perpetual motion to time travel to anti-gravity.

Also the idea that:

quote:

healthier food is more expensive

is simple nonsense, as any visit to a supermarket will tell you.

That said, nearly everything else that Dogbolter said is elitist cack and in the unlikely event that the scummy little troll does work for the NHS I hope they are cleaning the toilets - God forbid that such a prat should be in contact with patients.

[ 19. December 2006, 17:23: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Right, so it's all to do with the amount you eat and not with what you eat, is it? Whatever.

And I didn't notice much healthy food in Nettos, Liddles and some of the other cheaper supermarkets last time i went in to them ooo about a week ago. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I predict that we have reached the practical limits of life-prolonging

Other way round I think (and very much hope). There are lots and lots of possible treatments for all sorts of serious problems coming into the frame right now.

More likely that in a hundred years time the world will be divided into two kids of countries. Those that spend 30-60% of their entire GDP on social healthcare free to everyone at the point of use, and those that are in a permanent civil war between the long-lived elite rich owners and the short-lived poor workers.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That is exactly not what the godbotherer said. Its not about the "wrong sorts" of foods it is about the wrong amount of food.

Then why chunter on about fatty foods?

Also, if my position is so innacurate, how do you explain this article on the link between obesity and income?
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
I don't know, comet.

Surely, if you make unhealthy food more expensive, those with the money and who really do want the unhealthy food will just buy it anyway.

sure. and in those instances they can afford the healthcare too, theoretically.
quote:
Those who can no longer afford it, but can't afford healthier, more expensive food - what do they do? And what is the point of imposing financial sanctions on them?

Papio - you've got me confused: in your scenario is the healthy food or the unhealthy food more expensive? I understood dogwonderer's scenario to mean that the healthier food would be more affordable than the junk food.

and all I said on that is that a $40 plate of fries would work for me.
quote:
Gwai said:But comet, I rather think that if we (on our side of the pond) didn't fund the incredibly expensive things that people (understandably) want for their loved ones (like keeping vegetables alive for years) then health care wouldn't be as expensive. I predict that we have reached the practical limits of life-prolonging and that some of these more expensive treatments are going to be gradually used less and less so that we can afford some health care for more.
Not arguing that. our system here is a complete mess. I'm the first to admit that. I have spent kiloJoules of wasted energy agonizing over our crap healthcare-funding system. all I was saying is that having to pay privately for health care does not create a skinny nation.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
sure. and in those instances they can afford the healthcare too, theoretically.

Yes. But by making rich fat people go private you give them less reason to care what happens to the NHS, which i think would be bad for the country on the grounds that it may undermine intellectual and popular support for the NHS due to people being forced to support it with their taxes, but not be able to use it. Don't you think that might cause even more resentment?

quote:
Papio - you've got me confused: in your scenario is the healthy food or the unhealthy food more expensive? I understood dogwonderer's scenario to mean that the healthier food would be more affordable than the junk food.

Well, it is obviously the case that is you make unhealthy food more expensive then healthy food then healthy food will be "more affordable". However, for those on very low incomes, some healthy food is not currently affordable - so should we look at ways of reducing the price of healthy food in addition to making fatty food more expensive? And could that work in practice anyway?

Unless those on very low incomes, who are actually more likely to be obese, are to be expected to live on lettuce, tomatoes and plain pasta - which hardly seems a realistic stance to me, personally speaking.

(typos)

[ 19. December 2006, 17:45: Message edited by: Papio ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
And I didn't notice much healthy food in Nettos, Liddles and some of the other cheaper supermarkets last time i went in to them ooo about a week ago. [Roll Eyes]

I can buy 5 kilos of potatoes for 2 quid in Tesco's, I can buy really quite large amounts of cabbage for less, tins of beans or peas of various sorts costing between 10p and 70p a tin. Carrots maybe 60/70p a kilo, onions cheaper, plenty of more exotic vegetables not a lot more. Dried pasta about 50p a kilo, cheap nasty American rice about the same, good Indian basmati maybe twice that.

You can cook an awful lot of different kinds of meal with those ingredients. That may not make for an exciting diet, but its a cheap and wholesome one. And more fun and palatable with a few spices and herbs. And a lot cheaper than buying cheesey microwaveable ready-meals or transfatburgers from MacWimpies

You could even have bread. Decent bread costs about 50-70p a loaf. White sliced crap 20-30p a loaf - it tastes unpleasant but it contains the same nutrients minus a bit of roughage and makes decent if crispy toast. If you bake it yourself you can get cheap flour for prices occasionally as low as 9p a kilo, and almost always less than 30p a kilo - posh organic stuff is indeed more expensive, though still not so expensive that anyone with any income at all couldn't afford it if they didn't want to.

Or fruit. Apples are surprisingly cheap in season, bananas even more suprisingly cheap all year round.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
However, for those on very low incomes, some healthy food is not currently affordable - so should we look at ways of reducing the price of healthy food in addition to making fatty food more expensive? And could that work in practice anyway?

Absolutely. Here in North America, the reason McD's sells hamburgers for 99 cents and salads for $2.49 is because of huge government subsidies, marketing boads, and the like for particular agricultural products (meat, dairy/poultry, wheat, corn). Our own governments are drowning us in a Niagara of subsidized high-fructose corn syrup.

We created this distorted and unhealthy mess; we can uncreate it. OliviaG
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
sure. and in those instances they can afford the healthcare too, theoretically.

Yes. But by making rich fat people go private you give them less reason to care what happens to the NHS, which i think would be bad for the country on the grounds that it may undermine intellectual and popular support for the NHS due to people being forced to support it with their taxes, but not be able to use it. Don't you think that might cause even more resentment?
forgive me for not being all studied up on the NHS.

I see it more like, perhaps plastic surgery. does the NHS pay for that? I assume it doesn't. therefore, if you have the cash flow go ahead and get your nose job, and it hurts none. but don't take up boxing, knowing you'll likely have a few broken noses, without understanding that you're on your own for the rhinoplasty.

This would not mean that if someone was hit by a truck and a radical reconstruction be necessary, the NHs would leave them to suffer; the difference is choice. and I agree with Dog-waterer or whatever - I'm pretty sure the vast majority of obesity is a choice issue. I wouldn't think those with hypothyroid or related illnesses would be denied health care.

all that being said, you're attempting to hold my feet to the fire for what somebody else said.
quote:
Well, it is obviously the case that is you make unhealthy food more expensive then healthy food then healthy food will be "more affordable". However, for those on very low incomes, some healthy food is not currently affordable - so should we look at ways of reducing the price of healthy food in addition to making fatty food more expensive? And could that work in practice anyway?
I say yes, and yes!

And as ken said - if you go look, and use some careful math, you can see that in reality, healthy food used mindfully is cheaper today - it's just not easily cheaper. I can make a huge pot of stew for about $7 (last time I bothered adding it up) less if I've done any of the growing/fishing/shooting myself. from that pot, I can freeze (say) 7 16 oz. servings for later use. (probably more, but I'm trying to save myself whipping out the calculator) that comes to a buck per 16 ounces - whereas canned soup may look cheaper as it's only $3.00, it's actually more expensive.

sorry for all the inevitable crossposts, I was working.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You can cook an awful lot of different kinds of meal with those ingredients. That may not make for an exciting diet, but its a cheap and wholesome one.

but it can make for a very exciting menu with a few basic skills mastered and some relatively cheap spices in the cabinet.

I think my "big spender" item (not counting my expensive and wholely unnecessary imported wine habit) is olive oil. For me and my family, it is worth the cost.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
I'm with Ken. Good food is not necessarily expensive (at least, not here).

The secret is knowing how to cook good meals from whatever you have. And then not to eat more than you need of what you cook.

Fruit and veges are usually seasonal. You buy when a thing is cheap and you don't buy when it is dear. You learn to cook what's in season.*

No matter where I chose to buy hamburgers, chips and coke for my family, I could easily make a cheaper meal using stuff bought from the supermarket. For drinks, we'd have water.

The fresh-food-is-too-expensive is a red herring. Even in ultra-expensive London, it was way cheaper for us to buy from the supermarket and cook than to live off McDonalds/pizza etc. Way cheaper.

*I do know that in Alaska and other places of similar remoteness and not-so-farminess, things tend to stay expensive.

[ 19. December 2006, 18:30: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
does the NHS pay for that? I assume it doesn't. therefore, if you have the cash flow go ahead and get your nose job, and it hurts none. but don't take up boxing, knowing you'll likely have a few broken noses, without understanding that you're on your own for the rhinoplasty.

This would not mean that if someone was hit by a truck and a radical reconstruction be necessary, the NHs would leave them to suffer

Actually, and I speak from personal experience here, unless the rules have changed in the last few years (I don't know if they have or not) the NHS makes a distinction between "restorative" plastic surgery and plastic surgery purely for vanity. It also takes account of how much mental suffering the deformity or whatever is causing. Therefore, if someone was hit by a truck, it is entirely possible that the NHS would cough up.


quote:
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of obesity is a choice issue.
It may very well be so, but I am interested in why people make the choices that they do. I don't see how you can make an informed proscription for the improvement of public health unless you know a thing or two about why. I'm not saying i do and you don't. I'm saying that I don't think dogwonderer took that fully into account.

quote:
you're attempting to hold my feet to the fire for what somebody else said.
Which you have stated that you agree with.

quote:
Originally posted by Ken
You can cook an awful lot of different kinds of meal with those ingredients. That may not make for an exciting diet, but its a cheap and wholesome one.

True. I guess I find it hard to envision many people making that choice, really - which is not to say that I am disagreeing with you, as such...

quote:
Orinally Posted by Olivia G
Here in North America, the reason McD's sells hamburgers for 99 cents and salads for $2.49 is because of huge government subsidies, marketing boads, and the like for particular agricultural products (meat, dairy/poultry, wheat, corn). Our own governments are drowning us in a Niagara of subsidized high-fructose corn syrup.

We created this distorted and unhealthy mess; we can uncreate it. OliviaG

I didn't realise that, so thank you. However, I will need to find out more about why the subsidies are given and how they are allotted before I can say much more. An imediate question is - how, if at all, would changes in the subsidary rates effect farmers?
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
*I do know that in Alaska and other places of similar remoteness and not-so-farminess, things tend to stay expensive.

it's just relative. everything is more expensive, because it's shipped. even the packaged crap.

and in the summers, we actually have some lovely farmer's markets, but nothing compared to those "farmier" places, I'm sure.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
The secret is knowing how to cook good meals from whatever you have.

I would say the secret is knowing how to cook. I just think that cooking from scratch is becoming an increasingly arcane art for many people.

If you are already using sauce/seasoning packets, why not just buy a whole prepared meal? I mean you are busy and there is something good on the telly. And then your children are never going to learn how to cook.

I would note I can't cook for shit. But I don't have a wife, kids and a full time job. So I can at least do semi-decent vegetables or salad with whatever meat I am cooking (which most of the time involves a sauce packet or butchery filo/rissoles).
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Well, my mother can't cook for quids. I learned some (very) basics in school and taught myself the rest.

It's a matter of going out and buying a cookbook or three and doing what they say to do. You get good at it pretty quickly.

And you need never add a packet sauce to a meal again. (God, they taste so salty, yuk!).
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You can cook an awful lot of different kinds of meal with those ingredients. That may not make for an exciting diet, but its a cheap and wholesome one.

but it can make for a very exciting menu with a few basic skills mastered and some relatively cheap spices in the cabinet.
Yes, but you have to cook them. There are times when preparation and cooking and waiting and washing up can just be too much effort. This is why fast food and ready meals succeed - get a bag of something already cooked elsewhere, or buy something to take home, shove in the microwave, and take out three minutes later. Not everyone has the necessary enthusiasm or energy for cooking and all that goes with it.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Therefore, if someone was hit by a truck, it is entirely possible that the NHS would cough up.

exactly my point.

quote:
...unless you know a thing or two about why. I'm not saying i do and you don't. I'm saying that I don't think dogwonderer took that fully into account.

quote:
you're attempting to hold my feet to the fire for what somebody else said.
Which you have stated that you agree with.
So? that's like saying that because I voted for a democrat, I'd better defend everthing they have on their platform. [Roll Eyes]

Papio, meet dogwonderer; dogwonderer, Papio has a few questions for you.
quote:
An imediate question is - how, if at all, would changes in the subsidary rates effect farmers?
well, market cost would be more honest, if I understand it correctly. Therefore - the cost of HFCS as a sweetener would actually reflect the cost of growing the corn and processing it. right now, the cost of HFCS is artificially cheap, because the government is paying part of the cost for it's growth and production.

since it is so cheap, it's the low-price choice as a sweetener to those who produce ... well damn near anything prefab, the crap is in everything ... over sugar or turbinado or whatever. thanks to government subsidies.

I personally would love it if the government would only subsidize (and I'm not terribly comfortable with subsidies at all, frankly) those foods proven to support a healthy lifestyle and healthy weight. like good old fashioned carrots.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
However, I will need to find out more about why the subsidies are given and how they are allotted before I can say much more. An imediate question is - how, if at all, would changes in the subsidary rates effect farmers?

That's a really good question, Papio. One thing to remember as you explore the possible answers is that the bigger the farm, the bigger the subsidies. What starts off as government programs to help individual family farm ends up as corporate welfare. Those corporations will have a lot to lose if there are any changes, and they won't hesitate to use the individual farmer as their "poster child" to resist changes.

And yes, healthy, home-cooked meals can be affordable. They are also time-consuming, need some degree of planning, and require cooking skills, staples in the pantry, equipment and appliances. If it was easy for the poor to assemble these things, would we be having this conversation? OliviaG
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Comet - my ramblings on the NHS on this thread are mainly just ramblings. I am thinking this out as I type - so i apologise for making it look as though as though all my ramblings on the NHS were aimed at you - they weren't. Just me thinking out loud. That said, if you were going to defend a view then others have a right to question both the view and your defence of it. If dogwonderer can answer my concerns about his/her proposal then all well and good...

I actually don't know if a boxer could get treated on the NHS. I don't see an immediate reason why not, since they presumably pay their taxes the same as anyone else. ISTM that if a person's taxes contribute to the NHS they should be entitled to use the NHS when and if they need it. If some people choose not to, that is up to them, but doesn't effect the basic principle.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Not everyone has the necessary enthusiasm or energy for cooking and all that goes with it.

myself included, some days.

this is a choice. Some days I buy a pizza. Somedays I nuke something from a box. but I know this will make me fatter, and therefore I choose to make those days exceptions, not the rule.

and frankly, once I knew how, I don't think I put any more effort into a salad, stir-fry, or stew than I would with a
Hamburger Helper.

and like LATA, my cooking skills are mostly self-driven. Mom taught me basics, but they were uninspired basics. I taught myself to make it taste good. (sorry mom) And frankly, it's just not rocket science.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
I really hate perpetual subsidies (as opposed to hardship subsidies). But I also think allowing farming to be outsourced to developing nations is incredibly dangerous (which is what would happen in many cases is all subsidies were removed). But maybe that is just because I am paranoid about countries needing to be relatively self-sufficient (I blame the threat of nuclear holocaust during my childhood).
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
I think that the NHS angle is the wrong one. It's not fair (if you like) to say "We won't treat you because you are obese", when other illnesses get treated (I think obesity - as oppossed to tubbiness - is an illness and should be treated as such) regardless of lifestyle.

However, all NSH or any health system can do for a morbidly obese person, or a person whose health is so dodgy from smoking/eating/drinking is patch that person up a bit. At the end of the day, they'll almost certainly have a short life, compared to others who don't have those conditions.

You don't see many old fat people. They generally die, and will continue to do so, in their 40s, 50s and 60s.

I can't see why anyone would want to die young if there is a choice. It might be a hard choice, but dying of a heart attack, or having toes amputated from diabetes-related gangrene is tough too.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Comet - my ramblings on the NHS on this thread are mainly just ramblings. I am thinking this out as I type - so i apologise for making it look as though as though all my ramblings on the NHS were aimed at you - they weren't. Just me thinking out loud.

no worries, I didn't take it as a personal attack. But you did name me in your comments, so I did take it as asking my personal take on it.
quote:
That said, if you were going to defend a view then others have a right to question both the view and your defence of it.

I said I agree with him, except on the heathcare cost issue. since when does this mean you should direct your issues with what he said at me?

me: "hey I love Santa Claus!"

you: "How can you possibly defend his blatant B&E every year?"

dude - YMMV. Chill.

quote:
ISTM that if a person's taxes contribute to the NHS they should be entitled to use the NHS when and if they need it. If some people choose not to, that is up to them, but doesn't effect the basic principle.
I'm not sure I agree, though. for a local equivelent - I expect the local DOT to plow the public road outside my house. this is what my public money is going for.

but I want my driveway plowed too. Does being a tax payer and voting member of the public mean I get to have my private property plowed on the public dime?

other people can opt out, but it doesn't effect the basic principle, right?

I don't think so.

(and for the record, Papio, I'm not pissed at you, just responding)
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Not everyone has the necessary enthusiasm or energy for cooking and all that goes with it.

myself included, some days.

this is a choice. Some days I buy a pizza. Somedays I nuke something from a box. but I know this will make me fatter, and therefore I choose to make those days exceptions, not the rule.


Just have to add that staying fit and healthy and thin takes effort. It does not happen naturally for most people, at least in this day and age. It takes effort to shop and cook decent food, and then you still need to exercise. There is no magic to it. It would be lovely to have some nice scissors to cut off the excess flab, but they don't exist (I used to dream about such things!). It would be nice to pop a pill that makes your heart healthy, but there is not one. At the end of the day, it still comes down to effort.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
I think obesity - as oppossed to tubbiness - is an illness and should be treated as such

That word you keep using. I don't think it means what you think it means. [Biased]

Medically most "fat" people are obese. Not severely, or morbidly obese, but obese nonetheless. The common usage is a bit more extreme than the medical usage.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I'm not sure I agree, though. for a local equivelent - I expect the local DOT to plow the public road outside my house. this is what my public money is going for.

but I want my driveway plowed too. Does being a tax payer and voting member of the public mean I get to have my private property plowed on the public dime?

other people can opt out, but it doesn't effect the basic principle, right?

I don't think so.

(and for the record, Papio, I'm not pissed at you, just responding)

I'm not sure that the anology hold. The rules say that you pay your taxes and you get to have the road plowed outside your house. You don't get to have your drive plowed, because that is outside the rules of the contract. Seems fair enough to me.

If the rules say that boxers can be treated on the NHS for sports injuries then that also seems fair enough to me, on the whole. I know that you can argue that the injuries are self-inflicted, but so are a lot of other injuries - some of which may be life threatening. In some cases, the extent of the responsibility that lies with the injured party may not be clear cut. I don't think it is ethical for lawyers and surgeons to argue the toss about whether someone should get free treatment whilst a person's life is ebbing away, and for other reasons wouldn't be happy for the NHS to cease being free at the point of use anyway.

I suspect that we may have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
You might be right, the raptor.

Left to Right: Tubby and obese.

At least, what I'm talking about. (but probably both obese)

[ 19. December 2006, 19:31: Message edited by: Left at the Altar ]
 
Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Think about that when you’re eating your dinner tonight.

When Penguin Week is on Channel five , and I can watch King chicks feeding on regurgitated lamp-fish? Are you insane?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
Just have to add that staying fit and healthy and thin takes effort. It does not happen naturally for most people, at least in this day and age. It takes effort to shop and cook decent food, and then you still need to exercise. There is no magic to it. It would be lovely to have some nice scissors to cut off the excess flab, but they don't exist (I used to dream about such things!). It would be nice to pop a pill that makes your heart healthy, but there is not one. At the end of the day, it still comes down to effort.

This is so very true, and it's pretty much what Ruth was saying. Someone very dear to me has over the last two years gone from being quite overweight to being within healthy limits. That person believes that another 6months will see that person to actual trimness for the first time in years. What did it take? Exercising for 45 minutes a day, every day for two years, unless too ill to do so, and turning desserts and bad snacking to occasional treats, and eating moderate portions at all other times. It required nothing less than a complete change of lifestyle and staying that way requires sticking to that forever. It's really depressing, perhaps looked at one way, but the up side? That person looks and feels fit and good.

Humans are evolutionarily designed to put on weight in times of abundance and we live in perpetual caloric abundance. We continue to eat like farm laborers and hunter-gatherers but don't burn the 5000 calories a day that hard laborers burn. We work at computers all day. I think about my slim foremothers, the ones who did laundry every day on washboards and hauled water and ran farms. They didn't sit down for two seconds together. Of course they ate pancakes bacon etc. at breakfast and burned it off by 11 am.

Mmmmm. Pancakes.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
In some cases, the extent of the responsibility that lies with the injured party may not be clear cut. I don't think it is ethical for lawyers and surgeons to argue the toss about whether someone should get free treatment whilst a person's life is ebbing away, and for other reasons wouldn't be happy for the NHS to cease being free at the point of use anyway.

I think our main difference, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in that place of ambiguity I'm erring on the side of not paying for it and you're erring on the side of paying for it. both of us not knowing enough to be able to hammer out details.

Fair enough. I'm not a policy maker, I dont want to hammer out details.

However, I suspect in all of this there is a middle way. I could see, for instance, the NHS covering the preventative costs- free advice from a dietician; free weight monitoring; free cardiac stress-tests; and free diabetes management primary care. Hell, I'd be all for free gym memberships and even tax breaks for riding your bike to work.

that's my inner socialist talking, of course. [Biased]

But after all of that being available to everyone for free, should the NHS then be responsible for those who have chosen not to take advantage of that for years and years, and therefore offer Gastric Bypass (or whatever)? should they foot the cost for the walking aids needed by someone who is morbidly obese from their own choices and behaviors?

I would say no.

on another note - I just want to add my cheer to what LATA said earlier - YES it takes a shitload of effort to maintain health and fitness. I've had to put tons more focus into it than I ever wanted to - but the LCD in our society is to live a lifestyle that makes one fat. therefore, if I dont want to be fat I need to work hard and go against the grain. it sucks. But there ya go.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I think our main difference, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in that place of ambiguity I'm erring on the side of not paying for it and you're erring on the side of paying for it. both of us not knowing enough to be able to hammer out details.

I think you have it.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
You might be right, the raptor.

Left to Right: Tubby and obese.

At least, what I'm talking about. (but probably both obese)

On the other hand, while raptor may be right that most fat people are medically obese, it's been my experience that what we culturally consider fat is often not the same as what doctors consider fat.

I don't think I'm far off the mark in saying that at the moment a (UK) size 8 is considered aspirational, size 10 OK, and anything over a size 12 is considered fat. A celebrity who 'balloons' to size 12 is ridiculed.

I'm normally a size 14 on the bottom and 16 on top, by current aesthetic standards pretty hefty. Yet no doctor has ever flagged my weight as a potential problem, in fact the only doctor who ever mentioned it gave me a row for starvation dieting (I was anaemic) and a lecture on self-acceptance and body image. I just went through a pregnancy where my blood pressure and sugar levels were measured every other minute, and not once was my weight mentioned as an issue.

So when someone says fat, it's hard to know what they're picturing. Which is why I think we're trying to use obese as code for 'y'know, really, really properly fat'

Mind you, didn't they just change the measuring system so pretty much everybody's obese?
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Hugal is a chef, and is very conscientious about not heating things up more than once if they have already been cooked, as it's very dangerous food-poisoning wise.

A restaurant meal may well have been prepared earlier and heated up to order, so if you take it home and heat it up next day, you could be giving yourself a nice plateful of nasties.

I don't see how this can be true.

Food is liable to bacteriological infection when it resides in the "danger zone," 40 deg F/4 deg C - 140 deg F/60 deg C for too long, usually ≥2 hours. (According to USDA.)

This temperature range is the optimum for bacteriological growth.

Reheating a leftover meal to +140F/60C will stop further growth, and could even kill existing bacteria if the food were reheated hot enough (to at least boiling point.) But reheating, in and of itself, can't make food unsafe. Allowing the hot food to cool back down into the "danger zone" would make the food potentially unsafe. Reheated food is usually fine as long as you eat it right after the reheating...

...unless you're talking about eating leftovers that sat for too long in the "danger zone" after their initial heating in the restaurant, in which case you and Hugal are correct.

IME the odds of getting food poisoning from eating leftovers are very, very small (the few times I've gotten sick from restaurant food have been from food eaten at the place.) But everyone has to decide for themselves if their leftover steak au poivre and pommes frittes are worth the risk of hugging the porcelain god the next day.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by trebuchet (# 11970) on :
 
Re corn subsidies: We can get rid of these without hurting the farmers - corn is what American biodiesels are made from.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Well, in America, the rugby players rates would go up if he was injured often. (There's a law against it but they have a way of gettign around it. I'll spare you the details.)

As far as England goes? I guess that's the down side of public health. Unless you want a tax on dangerous behaviors, you do have to pay for people who do arduous, crazy and even dumb things.

[crossposted with Twilight]

[ 19. December 2006, 22:54: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Papio, I would say that in this case it's the POOR who are being harnessed with excess charges. Healthcare would be a hell of a lot cheaper if we didn't cover the most expensive procedures. Yes, sometimes the really expensive procedures are considered necessary but I know a woman who gave herself an abortion because she couldn't afford to do it any other way. I'm voting that's a better way for her abortion is also necessary. Unfortunately I don't know if we can have both.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by trebuchet (# 11970) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Why RooK, I for one am glad to explain. [Smile]


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]

[having trouble with code & stuff. argh.]

[ 20. December 2006, 02:00: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
'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?
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fight-club for the soul (# 11098) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
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 [Razz] )

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 ]
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
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?

 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
'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.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
In the UK, people were at their historical all-time 'healthiest' during rationing following the War, in the fifties.

Work that one out.
 
Posted by The Man With No Name (# 10858) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PeaceFeet (# 11001) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
'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'.

Oh yeah- those 4,000 people would not have died if they'd been obese!

People were better nourished in the 50s than they are today. This is indisputable.

There is a common lay misconception that thin people are more likely to perish than fat people. This is nonsense.

Obesity kills. Suck it and see.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
and for the most part we would just shut up about it and let our bodies find their natural weight.

This is also idiotic. Your body doesn't have a natural weight. Your body is designed to crave lots of bad food because historically you needed those to survive. You needed to fatten up for the times of famine. As we are in perpetual feast most people will become obese unless they fight their bodies "natural" desires.

I can probably eat 2-3x the amount of food that is needed to make me feel full, because I have been over eating for so long that my brain equates "stuffed" with "full" (I can easily eat to the point of it being physically impossible for me to eat more food. And not feel ill). And feeling stuffed makes my brain very happy.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
The trick is not for the body to find its natural weight; but for the hand with the Mars Bar in it to find its way to the mouth a little less often [Paranoid] .
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
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.

Most of my information comes from books I've returned to the library and copy right laws would keep me from printing most of it here, anyway. I didn't make it up.


one book
also Glen Gaesser's Big Fat Lies
and www.obesitymyths.com.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
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.

That's why you have to EXERCISE, too -- it keeps your metabolism from slowing down. Our bodies are not just designed to gain weight when calories are available; they're also designed to burn fat on demand. It's not rocket science. Also, it helps if you gradually lower your caloric intake rather than dropping it overnight to what it will eventually be when you reach a healthy weight.

Yeah, it's hard. But it's not impossible.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
'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'.

Oh yeah- those 4,000 people would not have died if they'd been obese!

People were better nourished in the 50s than they are today. This is indisputable.

There is a common lay misconception that thin people are more likely to perish than fat people. This is nonsense.

Obesity kills. Suck it and see.

I never said that the 1950's were a healthy period, just that the average weight was lower and we weren't dieting or exercising as much as we are now, in the US.

YOU are the one screaming about how horribly unhealthy we are now and how we have to change or all the money will run out !
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
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.

Actually I attribute my long term successful weight loss to giving up dieting. ("Dieting" meaning weirdo starvation plans.) I resolved to eat what I wanted, and enjoy what I ate. But otherwise, yeah, what she said.

When I need to lose a few (to, say, fit into a dress for a special event), there are no forbidden foods, but I have to be seriously jonesing for, say, French fries before I'll eat them. Otherwise it's avoidance of sugar, alcohol, and deep-fried things and an emphasis on legumes and fresh veg. (Knowing I can eat X item if my body truly desires it makes the hunger for X become less frequent, after an initial period of pigging out on X.)

I tend not to stress-eat, which is a big help. I've noted my weight go up the few times I did. (I tend to stress-cook and it's soup as often as baked goods. The soup I eat, the baked goods I give away.) I'm also tall and have a healthy metabolism, which makes it a lot easier for me to lose once I'm eating right.

Charlotte
 
Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
Twilight, I was replying to Sioni Sais (post timed at 10.35). Just can't get this chuffing quote formatting to work on this board...
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
It is true that sweets and really rich foods are far more available now than they were 50 years ago. Given that people realize that the human body has a natural predilection for sugar, it is arguable that it's a lot easier to become obese nowadays by just following your body's natural inclinations than it would have been 50 years ago.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
DW - go up to styx and the UBB practice thread. try it a few times until you're comfy with it. it's easy once you figure it out.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
Speaking from the fat capitol of the USA (Houston, Texas), Here there is no tax on groceries. There is tax on chips, soda, all restraunt food (including fast food), and oh yes candy bars. Yet we in the Houston area are considered to be the fattest* city in the US. I guess just taxing bad food and not taxing good food is not the answer. I suspect education is probably the best way to go.

Also, how are children suppose to learn good cooking skills at home when they don't leave from school until after 5pm? Some parents work all hours of the day and night as well as being single parents. Some of parents of my students are more worried about keeping there kids drug free than fat free. There are no easy answers. It will take alot of dedication from alot of people.

*I have no idea how the fattest city in the US is determined but it was and we are.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
bummer designation, Rugasaw.

if' it's any consolation, we're the "most liberal voting district in Alaska"

which just means we're slightly to the left of Buchannan. it's all relative.

back to the point - I wonder how much the advent of of home computer game consoles are also to blame. I say this because the chubby kids in my kids' schools tend to be the ones who's parents buy them lots of PS-whatevers, and have satTV, and buy them snowmachines instead of skis, and basically purchasepurchasepurchase anything the kids want.

I dont know how much it comes into play, except IME it seems to have a direct correlation to waist size in kids.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
People were better nourished in the 50s than they are today. This is indisputable.

No it isn't. It is both disputable and disputed.

quote:

There is a common lay misconception that thin people are more likely to perish than fat people. This is nonsense.

No it isn't. It depends on circumstances. If you live in an environment where food is freely availaible, and people rarely allow their homes or offices to fall below 25 degrees, then being thin is better.

If you have frequent serious food shortages and occasional actual famines, and long cold winters, then fat is better.


quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

I never said that the 1950's were a healthy period, just that the average weight was lower and we weren't dieting or exercising as much as we are now,

There are loads of possibile explanations for that. The most likely is that we really are eating more. And we really are on average doing less physical work.

But there are lots of other posibilities, not at all mutually exclusive.

Social changes take time to work through the population. Our habits and lifestyles are never perfectly adapted to the life we live now, buit to a sort of compromise between the way we live now, the way we were brought up, the way our parents lived, and the way they were brought up.

Genetic characters express as different traits in different circumstances.

Some biological changes take time to work through. Your adult height, for example, is influenced by your genes of course, but also by your nutrition. For example it is quite likely that a high-protein diet inthe months leading up to the pubertal and mid-childhood growth spurts will tend to produce taller people. Famously Japanese people are short - but 3rd generation Japanese living in the Americas are not. Your final height is also influenced by your body size art birth, and by youir experience of nutrition in the womb. And that is influenced by your mother's body size and nutritional status. So changes in height can take two or three generations to work through the population.

The same is almost certainly true of changes in response to nutrition. If our bodies now "expect" to be well-fed we might have altered our metabolisms in such a way as to take advantage of (i.e. store) the excess food. That alteration might well have taken two or three our four generations to work through.

[ 20. December 2006, 17:07: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
People were better nourished in the 50s than they are today. This is indisputable.

No it isn't. It is both disputable and disputed.

My dad told me that when he was a kid, the only fruits/vegetables they ate outside the growing season were things that they could store in the cellar (e.g. carrots, potatoes, apples), or home canning. Believe it or not, this was in California. OliviaG
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Speaking from the fat capitol of the USA (Houston, Texas), Here there is no tax on groceries. There is tax on chips, soda, all restraunt food (including fast food), and oh yes candy bars. Yet we in the Houston area are considered to be the fattest* city in the US. I guess just taxing bad food and not taxing good food is not the answer. I suspect education is probably the best way to go.

It's similar here in California -- groceries are not taxed (including junk food), and restaurant food is. With local taxes, it comes to an additional 8.25%, but that's not enough to change people's behavior. The double cheeseburger at McDonald's is $1 before tax, $1.08 with tax. Big deal. I don't think you've presented evidence that taxes aren't at least part of the answer.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
back to the point - I wonder how much the advent of of home computer game consoles are also to blame. I say this because the chubby kids in my kids' schools tend to be the ones who's parents buy them lots of PS-whatevers, and have satTV, and buy them snowmachines instead of skis, and basically purchasepurchasepurchase anything the kids want.

I would say the problem began with extensive childrens TV programming. Computer games just add to an existing problem. The problem is suburbs that don't have anywhere for kids to play even if they wanted to, and parents who are so afraid they would prefer their children stayed home.
 
Posted by the_raptor (# 10533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't think you've presented evidence that taxes aren't at least part of the answer.

Taxes are to easy an answer for politicians in my opinion. Especially as if they generate a significant income, their is actually a disincentive for the government to significantly reduce consumption of the product which is taxed.

I think that cigarette and liquor taxes haven't worked in any significant way (and I was reading the other day about someone pointing out the tax to be gained if marijuana was legalized, apparently it is Americas number one cash crop).

A much simpler way to reduce consumption of "bad" fats and sweeteners, is to just regulate the food industry.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I think that cigarette and liquor taxes haven't worked in any significant way (and I was reading the other day about someone pointing out the tax to be gained if marijuana was legalized, apparently it is Americas number one cash crop).

Taxes do reduce tobacco use: see reports of actual studies. So much better than uninformed opinion, don't you think?
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't think you've presented evidence that taxes aren't at least part of the answer.

Taxes are to easy an answer for politicians in my opinion. Especially as if they generate a significant income, their is actually a disincentive for the government to significantly reduce consumption of the product which is taxed.

I think that cigarette and liquor taxes haven't worked in any significant way (and I was reading the other day about someone pointing out the tax to be gained if marijuana was legalized, apparently it is Americas number one cash crop).

A much simpler way to reduce consumption of "bad" fats and sweeteners, is to just regulate the food industry.

I don't think it's either/or. Taxes do work to adjust behaviour to some extent, you also need appropriate regulations in the industry as well as education (which will probably be needed to gather support for the taxes and regulations).

Jonah
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
sorry, tangent...
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
(and I was reading the other day about someone pointing out the tax to be gained if marijuana was legalized, apparently it is Americas number one cash crop).

I highly doubt it. in my state, I believe this is the case in actual renewables - i.e. not petroleum. but otherwise - no way. remember, we dont have huge factory farms, etc. Marijuana is one of our few plant crops at all.

However, that being said, these numbers are always so hyper inflated for the sake of argument, simply because the reason marijuana (or fill in your illegal controlled substance of choice) is such a big income producer is because it is illegal. In a story I did a few years ago, a drug cop said when we made pot illegal up here the price went up tenfold, despite the fact that it had always been illegal to sell it. therefore, if we were to make it legal and tax it, we wouldn't be taxing, say, ten percent of that 100 dollar gram they're so excited about, ("10 bucks a gram into the coffers!") the legality would make it a ten dollar gram bag, and the actual tax income would go down to a buck a bag.


besides, when it was legal, it was much less interesting for us kids to want to use it. less demand for the supply.

end tangent, back to your regularly scheduled whining and grousing.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Handy data Ruth but to me it shows that taxation doesn't work! See this on the BBC re tax in the USA compared to that in Britain and Europe.

Just as one example "The US tax on cigarettes is actually quite low. In many countries in Western Europe up to 80% of the price of a pack of cigarettes goes to the taxman."

The tax is pretty high in the UK. You can easily pay £5 for a pack of 20 (about $9). People still smoke and those who do are the hard core who will, IMO, always smoke. Even if it is made illegal.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
No one ever claimed taxation would eliminate tobacco use entirely, Sioni Sais. Some people will pay the price, however high it is. But the fact remains that taxing tobacco does reduce the number of people using it. Young people are particularly sensitive to price, and that's extremely important, and people who don't start smoking when they're young are not likely to take it up later in life.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... People still smoke and those who do are the hard core who will, IMO, always smoke. Even if it is made illegal.

Pssst! Hey, man. C'mere... I gotta dime bag of Philip Morris for ya. Good shit.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
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.

That's why you have to EXERCISE, too -- it keeps your metabolism from slowing down.
Speaking of actual studies. This article explains that it would take a man 6 months of intense weight lifting to gain about 4 pounds of muscle. (Women less.) This four pounds would then raise the metabolism to the point of burning -- wait for it -- 24 extra calories a day.

This is a perfect example of why everyone on this thread is right -- to some degree.
I read an excellent book by science writer Gina Kolata called Ultimate Fitness. In it she explains why we all go around believing things like "exercise speeds up metabolism" and "fat makes us fat." It's all true to some slight degree but the publishers of magazines and diet books have been taking these bits of health "facts" and stretching them out of porportion so that they'll have a new theory for the latest article or book.

So yes, exercise does speed metabolism. Just not so you'd notice.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by the_raptor:
I think that cigarette and liquor taxes haven't worked in any significant way (and I was reading the other day about someone pointing out the tax to be gained if marijuana was legalized, apparently it is Americas number one cash crop).

Taxes do reduce tobacco use: see reports of actual studies. So much better than uninformed opinion, don't you think?
I never said taxes could not be part of the solution. And I don't think the study actually says taxation is the only thing* that caused the decrease in tobacco use. The handy website you linked to has this quote "A recent survey by the New York State Department of Health found a 12% decline in smoking in the state from 2003 to 2004. The national average, by comparison, fell just 4% from 2002 to 2003, the last year for which data has been compiled. Health advocates attribute New York's success rate in reducing tobacco use to the implementation of three key policies - a statewide smokefree workplace law, high tax on cigarettes ($1.50/pack), and an education program which includes a cessation program for adults and a prevention program targeting children. " From this I would say a heavy education and anti fat eating campaign along with heavy taxation along with outlawing things like candy in the schools and workplaces (is this possible) would get results. If you noticed I said alot of hard work was needed. If you think you can just tax the fat out of the people you are wrong. If you place a high priority on getting rid of high fat foods. And you make it harder to eat fatty foods. Then Ibelieve you will get less people eating fatty foods. I don't think these strategies will work on getting people to exercise. So now you only need to find a way to force people to exercise and you will have found your solution.

*perhaps those who interpret the data do and perhaps not. By the way this study is on cigars not tobbaco as a whole(I am a stat pedant).
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No one ever claimed taxation would eliminate tobacco use entirely, Sioni Sais. Some people will pay the price, however high it is. But the fact remains that taxing tobacco does reduce the number of people using it. Young people are particularly sensitive to price, and that's extremely important, and people who don't start smoking when they're young are not likely to take it up later in life.

I suspect that those who don't take it up, don't take it up because (a) Mum and Dad don't smoke and (b) they've been educated about the risks from a young age.

Children with parents who smoke seem to take it up and early. I find that so depressing. Mind you, they'd probably be thorougly addicted to the stuff by the age of 5 from the smoke in the air at home.

Taxing does nothing here (at least not that I've observed). Cigarettes cost a fortune, but people with not much money still buy them. It just means that there's less money for other things.

Similarly with food. If you tax junk food, I doubt people who live on the stuff will stop living on the stuff. They'll just have less money to buy other stuff.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Speaking of actual studies. This article explains that it would take a man 6 months of intense weight lifting to gain about 4 pounds of muscle. (Women less.) This four pounds would then raise the metabolism to the point of burning -- wait for it -- 24 extra calories a day.

This is a perfect example of why everyone on this thread is right -- to some degree.
I read an excellent book by science writer Gina Kolata called Ultimate Fitness. In it she explains why we all go around believing things like "exercise speeds up metabolism" and "fat makes us fat." It's all true to some slight degree but the publishers of magazines and diet books have been taking these bits of health "facts" and stretching them out of porportion so that they'll have a new theory for the latest article or book.

So yes, exercise does speed metabolism. Just not so you'd notice.

That's not a study, Twilight. It's a website that presents a bunch of unsupported assertions. That doesn't mean that the assertions are wrong, but it does mean that it's not a conversation stopper.

I'd really like to know the source of the factoid about "a high intensity 6 month lifting program" producing a 4-pound gain in muscle mass. Or is it 4 kilograms? That page says both. For 6 months and high intensity, I suspect it means kilograms.

I also wonder what effect the 4 kilograms (pounds?) of muscle would have on the actual, rather than resting, metabolism of an active person. In its broken grammar and confused units, I think the page says that the 28 Kg of skeletal muscle on the hypothetical 70 Kg man burns 22 percent of his calories. Assuming a typical intake of 2500 calories, his muscle is burning 550 calories per day, or just under 20 calories per kilogram. A 4 Kg muscle gain should account for roughly another 80 calories per day, or 3 percent of the guy's intake. If the exercise program is extended at a lower intensity, it could easily account for another few percent of the caloric intake.

What the numbers on that webpage tell me is that adding a few kilograms of muscle and a moderate exercise program has to potential to increase my overall metabolism by 5 percent or more. No, that's not going to have you looking like a fitness model by the end of next week. If, however, a normal, healthy person combines a 5 percent metabolic increase with a modest intake reduction, they are very likely to see some worthwhile and noticable improvements in the condition of their body.

[ 20. December 2006, 19:48: Message edited by: Scot ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
According to an article in the New Scientist (4/11/2006) obesity researchers are suggesting the following reasons for increase in weight over and above the obvious ones of consumption and exercise:
Skimped through at speed, but as people have been saying - it's more complicated than just diet and exercise.

[eta = speeling = caloric is better than coloric]

[ 20. December 2006, 20:14: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Also, how are children suppose to learn good cooking skills at home when they don't leave from school until after 5pm? Some parents work all hours of the day and night as well as being single parents. Some of parents of my students are more worried about keeping there kids drug free than fat free. There are no easy answers. It will take alot of dedication from alot of people.

For the last time, it isn't working parents that make kids fat. But cooking at home rather than carry out and eating all at the table together are associated with better fitness. My kids learn to cook as I cook, by my side, at breakfast and dinner. They eat lunch at school, which they pack themselves or with some help.
 
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 
Just as a note on cooking - I'm a great cook. My mother and father are great cooks. My father has tripled his weight* over the 28 years they've been together. Nova has gained 10 kgs in the 5 years we've been together. Both Maman and I cook more than most people I know, so it isn't just cooking. It's what we cook, how we cook, what we do, what we can do and how we work. It is also some genetic crap going on, at least with Da.

These things are not as clear cut as people like dogwonderer would think. I'm fat. I started getting fat when I stopped racing around at the age of 12 because I injured my knee. This injury lasted for 5 years before the doctors took a closer look beyond "you're fat". Turns out the injury catalysed a genetic tumour. Because it had five years to grow, I now have no cartiledge in my left knee, a mass of scar tissue the size of my hand and only three-quarters of my knee cap left. Which causes constant pain and means if I over-exercise I cripple myself. The obsession with fat as the major cause for everything means stuff like that gets missed. My sister got told to lose weight after she went to the doctors with a chest infection - her BMI is well within range and she's remarkably healthy. She just happens to have large breasts (like me) and unless you're wearing something fitting, you tend to look fatter than you actually are. Fat does not equal unfit or unhealthy. Just as thin does not equal fit or healthy. The societal obsession with visual judgement is horrific.

*As a note for medical costs - Da is seriously obese. But he works hard at physical labour every day (arms and legs like tree trunks) and has been to the doctor three times in the past decade. Once after boiling water caused third degree burns and he worked for a week out at sea with it until it got infected, once for a kidney infection and recently his blood pressure went through the roof. Since mum enforced a policy of office hours and at least one day a week at home without the phone that's cleared up.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
That's why you have to EXERCISE, too -- it keeps your metabolism from slowing down.

Speaking of actual studies. This article explains that it would take a man 6 months of intense weight lifting to gain about 4 pounds of muscle. (Women less.) This four pounds would then raise the metabolism to the point of burning -- wait for it -- 24 extra calories a day.

...

So yes, exercise does speed metabolism. Just not so you'd notice.

Good grief, learn to read. I said exercise would keep your metabolism from slowing down while you cut your calorie intake, not speed it up.

quote:
If you think you can just tax the fat out of the people you are wrong.
I didn't make this claim. You too should learn to read.

[ 21. December 2006, 00:04: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
Interesting article on yet another thing discovered to have a connection to obesity (though they aren't saying which causes which, the bacteria or the obesity)

Article about gut bacteria and obesity

Apparently the obese have more of a certain type of gut bacteria and less of another type than the non-obese.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
The societal obsession with visual judgement is horrific.

just thought this bore repeating.

while obesity is a real societal issue, crap self-esteem due to what ananke references above is, IMO, causing as much harm.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by rugasaw:
Also, how are children suppose to learn good cooking skills at home when they don't leave from school until after 5pm? Some parents work all hours of the day and night as well as being single parents. Some of parents of my students are more worried about keeping there kids drug free than fat free. There are no easy answers. It will take alot of dedication from alot of people.

For the last time, it isn't working parents that make kids fat. But cooking at home rather than carry out and eating all at the table together are associated with better fitness. My kids learn to cook as I cook, by my side, at breakfast and dinner. They eat lunch at school, which they pack themselves or with some help.
Not for the last time. To make myself clearer how do you have sit down meals when you do not see your kids because you work evenings and nights. Oh yes quit your job and go on welfare. I was just attempting to point out that fatness is of very low concern to alot of poor people. They have bigger things to worry about.

RuthW I appologize for thinking that you wanted to tax the fat out of people. I only thought that because you indicated that raising taxes on fatty foods would cause less people to buy fatty foods. Or maybe the tobacco aside was just an aside and not related to the op.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
All this talk of fifties food got to me. For dinner I had two sandwiches of white bread and a ham-salad-type spread made out of ground bologna. I've been looking at this stuff in the supermarket deli for months, wondering if it was just like the kind my mother used to make. She used to make it with one of those grinders clamped to the side of the table.
318 calories for 1/4 cup. Boy was it good.

Now I feel sick.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
What you said, rugasaw, is that I'm wrong if I think we can just tax the fat out of people -- and I didn't say that. Hence my remark about your needing to learn to read. I do think taxing junk food might make a difference if the taxes were high enough, but I don't for a minute think that's a solution all by itself.

But my bad for trying to post something beyond sloganeering in Hell.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
My bad for thinking in sloganeering terms in hell(or anywhere else). I do realize that you think it will take more than taxation and I agree with you. I also have no problems with the use of taxation to change behavior. I know that something you said ealier about hardwork is absolutely true not only on an individual scale but also on a national scale.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
According to an article in the New Scientist

I read that, it was great fun

NB the article did say that therwe was very little evidence to support most of those ideas.

quote:

[*]"Fat = Fecund" Heavier people have more children
[...][*]Like marrying like so larger people marry larger people, linked to genetic propensity to be overweight, a tendency to produce more children and the prenatal effects ...
[/list]

In other words being fat is a selective advantage. Think of it as evolution in action.
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
exactly. I am designed to survive the next Ice Age... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
I finally decided that the reason I don't find men with no body fat very attractive is I have an atavistic conviction that they won't make it through the winter. If I ever got hooked up with one, I'm afraid that a few weeks past the winter solstice I'd be dragging his emaciated corpse out of my cave.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
From all the males with more than zero body fat a great big thank you.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Well of course it's a big thank you! (Sorry, couldn't resist. [Big Grin] )
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I don't really care if a guy is fat/skinny as long as he is tall and the most important thing...he really likes to eat. If he enjoys seeing me stuff my face too and has no hang ups about my chowing down, even better. We will be love birds.

See...fat means = more to love
skinny means = more to push food on him

a win win situation.

tallness is just my own personal hang up.
 
Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :
 
I'm tall! [Biased]

Cc
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Ori***ally posted by RuthW:
I finally decided that the reason I don't find men with no body fat very attractive is I have an atavistic conviction that they won't make it through the winter. If I ever got hooked up with one, I'm afraid that a few weeks past the winter solstice I'd be drag***g his emaciated corpse out of my cave.

What the Hell were you planning on doing to him in that cave? [Eek!] [Help] [Ultra confused]

[ 22. December 2006, 17:58: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Nothing I'm going to tell the whole world on the internet! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Ori***ally posted by RuthW:
If I ever got hooked up with one, I'm afraid that a few weeks past the winter solstice I'd be drag***g his emaciated corpse out of my cave.

What the Hell were you planning on doing to him in that cave? [Eek!] [Help] [Ultra confused]
apparently not feeding him, at least!

"These men. so flimsy. I go through gobs of them every year..."
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
I'm tall! [Biased]

Cc

hello there big boy...

I mean Father. Here are some lemon magic cookie bars. Eat them at once and forget LATA & the dirt patch out in the shed...

[edited: Magic cookie bars are a real recipe with condense milk. I need to learn the make the lemon bars though in the condensd milk cookbook my brother has. ]

[ 27. December 2006, 08:45: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Fat, schmat. We're all going to die, and there are worse things to die of than a really good steak.
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
Yep, diabetes and heart disease are a hoot. You don't even have to go all at once: just take it one extremity at a time.

So avoidable.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
Yep, diabetes and heart disease are a hoot.

Yes, because all the other ways of dying are so positively cheery.

Personally, I can't wait 'till we've run out of usable antibiotics - then we can all die early of simple bacterial infections again, and we'll hear no more endless whining about heart disease and cancer.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
Yep, diabetes and heart disease are a hoot.

Yes, because all the other ways of dying are so positively cheery.
Some are a lot better than heart disease and the complications of diabetes. One of my grandmothers died at 93 simply of being old. That would be just fine with me.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Some are a lot better than heart disease and the complications of diabetes. One of my grandmothers died at 93 simply of being old. That would be just fine with me.

If only we could guarantee such an outcome just by living virtously.

One of mine never smoked, never drank more than 2 sherries once or twice a year and never ate more than would keep a bird alive. By her late 50s she had early onset alzeimers and parkinsons. For the four years before she died at 68 she was hospitalised, bedridden, catheterised, spoon-fed and living in nearly constant fear of an incomprehensible world.

The other died at 86 from throat cancer caused, most likely, by 70-odd years of smoking. Sore throat on monday, in hospital by thursday and dead by the weekend. Which would also be pretty fine by me.

Unfortunately we don't get what we deserve. They just want us to think we do.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Never trust a skinny cook.
 
Posted by Pax Romana (# 4653) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Never trust a skinny cook.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Overused]

Pax Romana
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
quote:
Originally posted by AdamPater:
Yep, diabetes and heart disease are a hoot.

Yes, because all the other ways of dying are so positively cheery.
But not nearly so simply avoidable (modulo family history).
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Nothing I'm going to tell the whole world on the internet! [Big Grin]

Well, if you're going through rafts of men, a la comet's suggestion, it'd be a great way to keep your weight down, I would think! [Big Grin]

Anyway, genetics of course affect things, but it seems that one's lifestyle choices can make a difference. But of course, you could get hit by a bus.

[ 27. December 2006, 21:41: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Nothing I'm going to tell the whole world on the internet! [Big Grin]

Well, if you're going through rafts of men, a la comet's suggestion, it'd be a great way to keep your weight down, I would think! [Big Grin]
I haven't been going through rafts of men. But in light of the potential for weight loss, perhaps I'll start!

quote:

Anyway, genetics of course affect things, but it seems that one's lifestyle choices can make a difference. But of course, you could get hit by a bus.

If I could be assured of dying instantly, and if it weren't so awful for everyone else involved, I wouldn't mind this.
 
Posted by Mostly Noble Pixels (# 8783) on :
 
Me! Me! Me!
I volunteer to drive the bus!
I volunteer to drive the bus!
Please, may I?

If I am chosen for this honour, may I video-tape the incident and post it in The Circus in order to begin a wonderful new game? [Angel]
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Posted by AdamPater:
quote:
But not nearly so simply avoidable (modulo family history).
Not avoidable. Merely ... slightly postponable.
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
To Mostly Noble Pixels:

Are you mad? If you go driving busses into fat people, you'll get whiplash something terrible!

(ETA context)

[ 27. December 2006, 22:54: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
But RuthW isn't fat: she's been working out with her... "team". I'm sure driving a bus into her (or, indeed, her into a bus) would be most satisfying for all concerned.
 
Posted by Mostly Noble Pixels (# 8783) on :
 
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Are you mad? If you go driving busses into fat people, you'll get whiplash something terrible!


But, MouseThief, it has to be a bus.
After all, a train has a cowcatcher on the front, and that would shove the fatso aside and ruin the whole effect.

[ 28. December 2006, 02:19: Message edited by: Mostly Noble Pixels ]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Ha ha ha ha! You crack me up, Crackers! Hah ha ha!
 
Posted by Mostly Noble Pixels (# 8783) on :
 
[Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]
That was most unkind, Gort.
Why can't we all just get along?
Twat in the moon of wintertime when other turds had fled!
 
Posted by Izzybee (# 10931) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Nothing I'm going to tell the whole world on the internet! [Big Grin]

Well, if you're going through rafts of men, a la comet's suggestion, it'd be a great way to keep your weight down, I would think! [Big Grin]

I can see it now. The "M" Plan. Sign me up [Big Grin]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
There are a lot of menz in Alaska come to think of it. Lots of menz. get busy!
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Izzybee:
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Nothing I'm going to tell the whole world on the internet! [Big Grin]

Well, if you're going through rafts of men, a la comet's suggestion, it'd be a great way to keep your weight down, I would think! [Big Grin]

I can see it now. The "M" Plan. Sign me up [Big Grin]
The F Plan, surely?
 
Posted by Izzybee (# 10931) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The F Plan, surely?

I thought there was already one of those - I thought there was finally a plan for me until I read the book and realised that the "F" they were talking about wasn't the "F" I was thinking about. [Waterworks]

[etited for coding "f"-up]

[ 28. December 2006, 16:44: Message edited by: Izzybee ]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
You all are a bunch of seeck beetches. F-plan indeed. It is the ML plan, the Bruce Campbell Way.

Sheesh. [Disappointed]

[eta: please tell me one person has suffered through that book besides me. Thank you.]

[ 28. December 2006, 17:53: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mostly Noble Pixels:
[Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks] [Waterworks]
That was most unkind, Gort.
Why can't we all just get along?
Twat in the moon of wintertime when other turds had fled!

You have the audacity to ruin my personal 2-year record of having never been called to Hell, with one of the most lame complaints in the history of these boards; within said Hell-call, I am not only suspended for two weeks but suffer the humiliation of having to shut down my personal shipmates' photo website under threat of my internet service provider being sued by an outraged, permanently planked shipmate who has an inflated sense of the proprietary nature manifest in his digital image and you want to know "Why can't we all just get along?"

I'll tell you what, Crackers and Goat Cheese: Not only are your Pixels Less Than Noble, you couldn't quell my burning hatred for your contemptible presence if you were to fall to your knees and suck the vital fluids from my engorged, throbbing cock.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Wow, check out the insane grudge-holding. Are you like a crazy person, Gort?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Are you like a crazy person, Gort?

Gort? Crazy? Whatever could possibly give anyone that idea?
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
within said Hell-call, I am not only suspended for two weeks but suffer the humiliation of having to shut down my personal shipmates' photo website under threat of my internet service provider being sued

Speaking as the admin who did the suspending, I want to make it completely clear that your suspension was a result of your own actions and your own poor judgment. I thought that you had chosen to accept your personal responsibility for that episode?

Scot
Member Admin
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Yes, you are correct, Scot. I apologize for including that in my rant.

Sarky: Don't make me send my clone army of flying monkeys after you.
 
Posted by Mostly Noble Pixels (# 8783) on :
 
Ummmm - Gort?
Have you considered heading down to Daytona Bike Week which runs from March 2-11th?
You could stroll along snow-white beaches, watch the dolphins leap, watch the Harley motorcyles leap, maybe pop a valium or two...

For what it is worth, I regret that your suspension ever happened, but I personally played absolutely no part in it.
You and another shippie were on a tangent, and things simply got away on you.

Speaking of tangents, what are you doing on this thread, since, looking at your photo in your gallery, you do not appear to be overly fat?
Now, I could stand to lose some weight, but am mostly here to try to run over someone with a bus.
After all, Marvin told me to fuck off; the first part of his instruction was fairly simple to carry out, but finding someone to "off" has been a bit more difficult. Are you, perhaps, volunteering?

Happy New Year, Gort; I think maybe I will go spend some time under my bridge wit the Three Billy Goats Gruff, to give you a chance to calm down a tiny wee bit.
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
And here I was, just enjoying comet's complaint about flimsy men... "These men. so flimsy. I go through gobs of them every year..." (what does one DO with a flimsy man, anyway?! [Eek!] ).
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Bad things always happen after I mention Bruce Campbell's [edited out title] piece o' crap book.

[ 30. December 2006, 03:49: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
what does one DO with a flimsy man, anyway?! [Eek!]

oh lots of things. but not very much or they break. it's tragic, really. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by grushi (# 11938) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
what does one DO with a flimsy man, anyway?! [Eek!]

oh lots of things. but not very much or they break. it's tragic, really. [Disappointed]
Don't forget that many flimsy men can be woven together to make a much stronger flimsy man. Multi-thread flimsy men have many uses, including sail-making, about-the-house and macrame.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
They make good bookmarks.

(I used to have a thing about really, really skinny guys, back in the day.)
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Can we get back to Gort's throbbing cock, please?
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
No.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
*sigh*

OK, what else were we talking about, then?

Frail men?

*grumble whine pout*

I wonder how things work out when really whipcord-thin men have a preference for chunky round women? If we all got on the Fit & Trim bandwagon, what would all the chubby-chasers do?

(... imagines being adored by Thin Men...)

[ 30. December 2006, 22:28: Message edited by: Janine ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
OK, what else were we talking about, then?

Frail men?

One of the observations that I found myself stewing in this holiday was how uncomfortable I was seeing my father frail and withered, and distinctly missing his previous cortisone-prompted obesity. Although, my grandfather has always been a slightly-built steel spring of a man, and at 78 he'll still outwork any other ten men combined.

quote:
I wonder how things work out when really whipcord-thin men have a preference for chunky round women? If we all got on the Fit & Trim bandwagon, what would all the chubby-chasers do?
Before I graduated university and could afford food, I was 66kg at 1.88m, and my general preference was for girls with soft curves. That is, until I had an ahem "conversion experience" with a fit and trim girl whose physique allowed us to do things previously unthinkable with my rounder girls. Perhaps if every girl got Fit & Trim, there should be arranged interventions for chubby chasers to have similar conversion experiences.
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Can we get back to Gort's throbbing cock, please?

[Big Grin]

Kelly, I hate to disagree (in Hell, of all places) but frail men do not make good bookmarks: despite their frailty they're still too lumpy and they end up damaging the spine.

I never went for skinny guys, but I had a lovely collection of beautifully muscled athletic types (gymnasts & bicyclists, mostly), back in the day. 2nd husband was definitely against type - he was chunky and hairy AND he turned out to be a bastard, so there you go-- that's a hell thread for you.

RooK, I pose no danger now, but when I was slim-ish I had lethal hips; when I was at my best weight visually I inflicted bruises on my partner... *sigh*... he only complained a little. And then an extra 10 pounds and voila! - I was once again safe to ride... [Snigger]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
what happened to this conversation?

Gort's chicken is throbbing, we're sticking skinny guys in books, and Lynn is a Harley.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
what happened to this conversation?

Gort's chicken is throbbing, we're sticking skinny guys in books, and Lynn is a Harley.

Indeed. We need to get back to the loving accusations that YOU PERSONALLY are killing yourself/ monopolising all available healthcare to the detriment of sickly orphans/ causing global warming/ depleting the ozone layer/ making bad things happen to Africa/ and being DIRECTLY responsible for the First Crusade and all that lead to.

We can't allow a fine viper pit of a thread like this deteriorate into cheerful smut. Fun as that may be.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Yes, please. My graphic rant was simply a literary device, used in anger, to embellish the expletive "blow me".

Can we just move on to "fatties vs skinnies" before I'm skewered by RooK or Scot? I'm far more interested in the ramifications of RooK's "conversion experience" with a fit and trim girl than seeing more speculation on my questionable virility.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
We need to get back to the loving accusations that YOU PERSONALLY are killing yourself/ monopolising all available healthcare to the detriment of sickly orphans/ causing global warming/ depleting the ozone layer/ making bad things happen to Africa/ and being DIRECTLY responsible for the First Crusade and all that lead to.

Well, for Christmas we had a thoroughly orphan-sickening orange-glazed roasted duck in a port sauce, potatoes roasted in the fat off the duck and maple-roasted parsnips, along with any amount of deeply evil home baking (my mince pies particularly rocked, warm with cream). And we just finished making a creamy tiramisu for tomorrow's Ne'ers Day dinner that is probably deadly in itself. And I already started in on a rather nice bottle of cava.

'Tis terrible to be so wicked...
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
We eat like that all the time and our circulation will suffer and then we'll no longer be in danger from throbbing cocks anyway.

(RooK I'll have you know I can still swing from the chandelier. I just need it anchored to a really good beam, these days.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Janine, I have met you in person, and I can safely say that any guy who doesn't experience a testosterone rush at the first flash of your eyes simply has a funcional problem.

I want to hear from all those guys on Dating Threads past who sung all these hymns of praises to the ample woman. Why are you guys kicking back and letting RooK have the last word on who is sexy, and who should be converted?
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
fear?
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
Pack instinct?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Janine, I have met you in person, and I can safely say that any guy who doesn't experience a testosterone rush at the first flash of your eyes simply has a funcional problem.

I want to hear from all those guys on Dating Threads past who sung all these hymns of praises to the ample woman. Why are you guys kicking back and letting RooK have the last word on who is sexy, and who should be converted?

We aren't going to try to persuade RooK, or anyone else who says they prefer skinny women, because if by some chance we did succeed, there would be fewer of you lovely sexy, woman-shaped women for us.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I want to hear from all those guys on Dating Threads past who sung all these hymns of praises to the ample woman. Why are you guys kicking back and letting RooK have the last word on who is sexy, and who should be converted?

I did what now? I thought all I was doing was addressing the ridiculous tongue-in-cheek suggestion that over-ample women need to maintain their spheroidal profile for the sake of chubby-chasers. And I did so by suggesting, not very originally, that generally every man that includes soft curves among things he can find sexy will not have necessarily dismissed more lithe female shapes from that set.

Indeed, I suspect that most who proclaim to have high regard for blobular shapes are going to have a pretty high correlation with those who have little hope of attracting anything else. It's a self-selecting set of dubious objectivity.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

Indeed, I suspect that most who proclaim to have high regard for blobular shapes are going to have a pretty high correlation with those who have little hope of attracting anything else. It's a self-selecting set of dubious objectivity.

There is "blobular" and there is "lithe" and somewhere in between a lot of sexy women. Certainly, many more than think they are.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
my attempt of translation of RooK's post: Men who prefer fat chicks could consider skinny chicks if given the chance. Men who are really bent on fat chicks are probably not attractive enough to get anything else.

Being a person who is too uptight to talk about sex even in hell, I will not challenege that portion of posts.

I am reasonably certain though that chubby-chasers are not the only men I attract. I have enjoyed the company of men who never dated a fat chick beforehand. And yes, a very fit man himself, who did not hold my blubberous carnal carbon form against me. And I have seen chubby chasers get won over by a personality encased in a skinny carbon form. Sometimes attraction is a random thing that confuses and befuddles people. I don't find it a bad thing if a man prefers a type I am not part of. There is plenty who will pick me since I honest, open and intelligent in some area. Whatever floats your boat. I just hope Gort does not lure you into describing sex in hell otherwise I am out of here for awhile. My puritan uptight white girl sensibilites just can't stand it. thx.


So I remain unmoved. And I ate another biscuit.

[eta: dang, these buttered buns are good.]

[ 01. January 2007, 12:35: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Indeed, I suspect that most who proclaim to have high regard for blobular shapes are going to have a pretty high correlation with those who have little hope of attracting anything else. It's a self-selecting set of dubious objectivity.

Gosh, that really is a masterpiece of the how to insult the greatest number of people using the fewest number of words school of communication.

I'm impressed.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There is "blobular" and there is "lithe" and somewhere in between a lot of sexy women. Certainly, many more than think they are.

Don't mislead yourself into thinking that I'm arguing against you directly. Or that I think "sexy" is only about physical shape...

[tangent]
The sexiest organ is the brain. By far.
[/tangent]

However, as this is a discussion about the unflinching stare at the condition of human obesity, there is no denying that physical shape has a sexual element. It is also my understanding that it is commonly agreed among psychologists that apparent health is the #1 contributing element to what most humans find sexually appealing. So, inasmuch as shape can suggest conditions of health, so too will shape be more or less appealing.

quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I just hope Gort does not lure you into describing sex in hell otherwise I am out of here for awhile. My puritan uptight white girl sensibilites just can't stand it. thx.

Do you have any idea of how hard it was to resist after you said that? Luckily, even my extremely low standards prevent me from capitalizing on such an easy mark.

quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
Gosh, that really is a masterpiece of the how to insult the greatest number of people using the fewest number of words school of communication.

You're just saying that because you're ugly, right? Because that opinion of mine could use some refining. It's based on the general observation that humans tend to self-sort and associate with what they seem to consider to be others of similar status. However that status tends to be socially (read: somewhat arbitrarily) ranked at the time.
 
Posted by Ann (# 94) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:

And yes, a very fit man himself, who did not hold my blubberous carnal carbon form against me.

I wouldn't have thought you'd want him to hold your form against you; against him maybe ...
quote:

[eta: dang, these buttered buns are good.]

I think it's time to take my mind to a purer board.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
You're just saying that because you're ugly, right?


Yer. Not as ugly as my husband, though.

quote:
Because that opinion of mine could use some refining. It's based on the general observation that humans tend to self-sort and associate with what they seem to consider to be others of similar status. However that status tends to be socially (read: somewhat arbitrarily) ranked at the time.

Where your theory falls down, I think, is that social association depends on loads more factors than simple sexual attraction. In fact, you could equally argue that the current social equivalence of weight with status actually distorts what we've evolved to find bodily attractive.

After all, plenty of men (in my experience) have affairs with women who are plumper than their wives, or patronise podgy prostitutes, who don't want for clients by all accounts. Both of those could be said to have far more to do with raw sexual attraction than permanent relationships do. Who some men secretly want to have sex with might have little to do with who they want to be seen with.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
Who some men secretly want to have sex with might have little to do with who they want to be seen with.

Exactly. Which is why the word "status" is used rather than "comfort level" or "degree of familiarity."
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
Where your theory falls down, I think, is that social association depends on loads more factors than simple sexual attraction.

It is indeed extremely hard to pare down the idea using social association as a measure, because that's going to absurdly underestimate open-minded peoples interactions. So, bear with me while I try to explain my offensiveness in better detail.

Let's take the completely impossible situation where there's a group of people whose only distinguishing characteristic are their fitness levels... and they're all looking to hook up. Standard human behaviour (as I've observed it) would then be for everybody to contemplate the desirability of those with compatible gender and sexual orientation to themselves, and those with which they are in competition for the attention of that subset. The healthiest (ergo, in our set, the most attractive) of a particular set will tend to succeed in pairing off with the most attractive member of the complementary set. Because of this, those who deem themselves to be mid-rank in attractiveness will usually have the most success vying for the attentions of similarly mid-rank individuals of the complementary set. And so on. Hence my suspicions about the objectivity of those espousing the glory of nominally low-rank attributes.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:

Yer. Not as ugly as my husband, though.

You ain't ugly, child. (Picture in gallery).


quote:
After all, plenty of men (in my experience) have affairs with women who are plumper than their wives, or patronise podgy prostitutes, who don't want for clients by all accounts. Both of those could be said to have far more to do with raw sexual attraction than permanent relationships do. Who some men secretly want to have sex with might have little to do with who they want to be seen with.
*Cough* Divine Brown. *Cough* Patti Scialfa 1988

[eta: Patti was not the boss's first wife.]

[ 01. January 2007, 18:30: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Rook: So how do you account for men whose weight is healthy who are sexually attracted to fat women? Because they do exist.

[ 01. January 2007, 18:31: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
...because that's going to absurdly underestimate open-minded peoples interactions.
That's a very, very important codicil. Thank you for it.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Rook: So how do you account for men whose weight is healthy who are sexually attracted to fat women?

The same way I account for people who are otherwise healthy that are sexually aroused by pain, or by animals, or by feces, or by partners with missing limbs:
The statistical fringe.

And I thought I was insulting before. Yowza. To clarify my clarification of my clarification - I do not mean to equate fat people with shit. I'm not try to assert any sort of perceived law or requirement, merely an observed strong tendency of the majority.

Is it just me, or am I standing on a narrow ledge?
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Is it just me, or am I standing on a narrow ledge?

<push>
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
RuthW, that was one cruel webpage. Dang it, the dudes always think fat chicks like me are easy...and I am a uptight white bitch who is celibate for religious reasons. I don't think I am the only tubb o' lard to be smacking drunks away with this tired stereo-type at discos/holiday parties/etc.

And now if you'll excuse me, I need to check up on RooK and see if he lived through being pushed off the cliff...
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
[ I'm not try to assert any sort of perceived law or requirement, merely an observed strong tendency of the majority.

Is it just me, or am I standing on a narrow ledge?

Maybe the minority in the case of 'zaftique' people is not as "fringe" as you think. Maybe it's more like men who have a thing for girls with a gap in their teeth, or guys who like short- haired girls, Or (using me) girls who have thing for tenor men, or short guys.

In other words, maybe it's not a fetish but a simple preference. Why is that such a wild idea?

Having said all that, there is a grain of truth in what you say, as I have met the kind of person who is secretly attracted to people nearer the common standard of beauty, but will settle for hanging out with you because they feel they can do no better-- because of thier own self image. They usually end up reminding you of this frequently, in one way or another.

I'm learning to smell them and avoid them, because, dammit, I want to hang out with somebody who actually thinks I really am the best they can do. So bring on your open-minded folk.

[ 01. January 2007, 19:00: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I kind of see it like this...in my job, I sell software that has some huge competition. Better known products, more sexy....better marketing $$$ than mine.

But I still manage to find people who want to go with my product.

There is a lot of business out there, just waiting to be found.

Same thing about men. The majority of them may well be attracted to women, thinner, younger, prettier etc than me.

But there is that percentage that is attracted to me for whatever reason. And all I need is one.

<Is he dead yet? Nope? Good...um, he is sort of useful and we need him back here to be host...throws rope...>
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Kelly: You like tenors? That's sick, I tell you, just sick. [Projectile]

[Biased]

RooK: My guess is that the men who like really, really fat women are, as you say, the statistical fringe. But I think the men who like the more in-between women, neither obese nor buff, are pretty normal and rather more plentiful than one would think from looking at the images of women in the mass media.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I have met the kind of person who is secretly attracted to people nearer the common standard of beauty, but will settle for hanging out with you because they feel they can do no better-- because of thier own self image. (snip)

I'm learning to smell them and avoid them, because, dammit, I want to hang out with somebody who actually thinks I really am the best they can do.

Er, aren't they the same people? The guy with self esteem issues may be attracted to the supermodels, but if he genuinely doesn't think he can hit that mark then he does believe that you're the best he can do.

Or do you mean you're looking for someone who thinks you're the best there is? Coz that's a very different thing indeed...
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Kelly: You like tenors? That's sick, I tell you, just sick. [Projectile]


Certainly defies Darwin; I should be attracted to DEEP, MANLY, TESTOSTERONE ENRICHED voices!

(There is one gentleman of my acquaintance who could keep me extraordinarily happy if he just found something to whisper in my ear two or three times a day. Seriously, the word "no" would completely disappear from my vocabulary.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Or do you mean you're looking for someone who thinks you're the best there is? Coz that's a very different thing indeed...

[Big Grin]

Yeah, I phrased it arrogantly. To put it more humbly: I'm looking for someone who does actually enjoy and delight in me, rather than simply settles for me.

[ 01. January 2007, 19:37: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Maybe the minority in the case of 'zaftique' people is not as "fringe" as you think.

Maybe my understanding of zaftig is confused, but I certainly wouldn't classify that as unhealthy or unattractive. Full bosoms, rounded hips, and lots of curves are what healthy adult females often look like. Despite what fashion sources try to insist.

Further, it seems likely to me that humans are instinctively predisposed to sexually idealize the forms we take when we're aged 18-24. So it appears to be quite likely that we're all potentially a bit conflicted with regard to sexual image when we get much past that age.

Thanks to Kelly and duchess, who both seem willing to take my expressed opinions with charity about me personally.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
Yes. [er, that yes was to what RuthW posted: x-posted with a cast of thousands]

Now I don't have much truck with socio-biology (except when it backs up my personal prejudices, obviously) but it is fairly clear that throughout most of human existence a certain amplitude in a woman has signified a) fertility and b) greater likelihood of surviving to raise offspring successfully. It hardly seems wild to assume that these are desirable traits in a sexual partner, and that an extremely short time of plenty is unlikely to have reversed millenia of conditioning (refer back to the zaftig mistresses and prostitutes).

I'm not claiming that all men are going to be identical in their desires - clearly they are not, we are not slaves to our evolution. And I'm not claiming that gross obesity is a survival trait. But it does seem likely that a liking for the normally plump sort of woman is well within the range of normal, far more so than our culture allows. And that those drawn to gross obesity are are on the extreme end of a normal curve, rather than comparable to coprophiliacs and amputee fetishists.

Through no fault of my own I've spent a dispiriting amount of my working life playing mother confessor to young male engineers* and one thing I've learned is that the women many of them actually fancy are not the same women that they admit to fancying when talking with their male friends.

* addmittedly maybe not a representative sample

[ 01. January 2007, 19:51: Message edited by: Iole Nui ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Maybe the minority in the case of 'zaftique' people is not as "fringe" as you think.

Maybe my understanding of zaftig is confused, but I certainly wouldn't classify that as unhealthy or unattractive. Full bosoms, rounded hips, and lots of curves are what healthy adult females often look like. Despite what fashion sources try to insist.

Further, it seems likely to me that humans are instinctively predisposed to sexually idealize the forms we take when we're aged 18-24. So it appears to be quite likely that we're all potentially a bit conflicted with regard to sexual image when we get much past that age.

Thanks to Kelly and duchess, who both seem willing to take my expressed opinions with charity about me personally.

I've been wondering if the definition of "fat" is the issue-- because I think in the last 15 years or so the medical definitions have loosened up a bit in that regard. When I was (say) 20, I was about 10 pounds "overweight" at 120 (even though all the muscle on my arms vanished at this weight), and clinically "obese" at 145
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Full bosoms, rounded hips, and lots of curves are what healthy adult females often look like.

Well, given that we both live in cultures where that sort of figure would routinely be described as fat, perhaps you should have been more specific in your original statement.

Also, a great many people are not skinny and coltish when they are 18-24. The current culturally desirable sillouette is far more typical of late pre-pubescence than it is of sexually mature young adults.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:


Thanks to Kelly and duchess, who both seem willing to take my expressed opinions with charity about me personally.

It is because I have made peace with myself about being um, zaftig. It sort of now reads like "I only like women under 5'3" " to me when I read something like "I prefer the skinny fit women since they can do acrobats". I am not offended in the least by that since I do not have what is called scarcity mentality.

Why? Because I worked with black people for over 6 years. I had older women beat into my head over and over again that being um, larger, is not a bad thing. I also have nowadays a good friend in Sweden who prefers larger rounder chicks. He will try to date a chick who is smaller because she is pretty and has a great personality, but he really wants a fat one secretly. I always end up dying of laughter when he calls me up to lament on how skinny somebody got or express delight in how curvy his latest date is.

So I could go on, but in effect, if you are at peace with yourself, the way you are, bald, short, whatever...you will not get offended so easy.

There is a woman in my life who seems upset that I can date and be happy at my weight ... and the fact that I am not a "really pretty girl". I feel sorry for her. She actually said that to me less than a month ago "...it is hard, duchess, for me...it is not easy being a really pretty girl...you said yourself you don't want to be a raving beauty". I was a bit shocked but I just said "Um, yeah, true. I don't want to be a raving beauty. And it does not guarantee you love". This chick is still not talking to me. She is highly insecure even though she is slender, beautiful & intelligent in some areas in life.

And that makes her act like a royal wanker at times.

Scarcity mentality does that to people.

[apologies to long-ass post but still.]

[ 01. January 2007, 20:22: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
Well, given that we both live in cultures where that sort of figure would routinely be described as fat, perhaps you should have been more specific in your original statement.

Perhaps, and I think I've paid the price in terms of the subsequent tap-dancing I've had to do.

Nevertheless, regardless of how ridiculously anorexic much of the cultural media insists is the ideal, I still argue that when weight starts affecting apparent health it simultaneously affects physical attractiveness. For most people, most of the time, when considering physique exclusively (however unrealistic that is in practice).
 
Posted by The Man With No Name (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Or do you mean you're looking for someone who thinks you're the best there is? Coz that's a very different thing indeed...

[Big Grin]

Yeah, I phrased it arrogantly. To put it more humbly: I'm looking for someone who does actually enjoy and delight in me, rather than simply settles for me.

I don't think it would be arrogant to want to be with someone who genuinely thinks you're the best there is. My old man regularly and sincerely tells me that I am the Most Beautiful Woman in the World.

Now if you take a look at my picture you'll see it isn't so.

Or wait! Could it perhaps be the case that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? If so, doesn't everyone deserve to be with someone who sees something extraordinarily beautiful when they look at them??
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Nevertheless, regardless of how ridiculously anorexic much of the cultural media insists is the ideal, I still argue that when weight starts affecting apparent health it simultaneously affects physical attractiveness. For most people, most of the time, when considering physique exclusively (however unrealistic that is in practice).

That isn't an unreasonable proposition (though logically it should also apply to the severely underweight, and I don't routinely hear men who fancy very skinny women compared to coprophiliacs. However.)

But I'd still maintain that health, like attractiveness, is a much broader band than much of our current culture allows for. And also varies a lot from individual to individual in both directions*. 'Health' is an easy way for people to justify indulging their aesthetic prejudices.


* A couple of shipmates have complained in the past that although they eat sensibly, their health has been routinely questioned because they are naturally thin.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
...

Nevertheless, regardless of how ridiculously anorexic much of the cultural media insists is the ideal, I still argue that when weight starts affecting apparent health it simultaneously affects physical attractiveness. For most people, most of the time, when considering physique exclusively (however unrealistic that is in practice).

Looking at the preferences of our black brothas...Latin brothas, Southern brothas, Middle-Eastern brothas & Eastern-European brothas, even this statement is open for interpetation on different levels, than say a white brotha from the West-Coast.

quote:
think I've paid the price in terms of the subsequent tap-dancing I've had to do...
No, I'd say you still have some mo' tap-dancin' to do. If it were up to me, but than okay.

<tap-deee-dee-tap-tap...Mr. Bojangles...tap-tap-dee-tap-tap!>

[ 01. January 2007, 22:12: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Looking at the preferences of our black brothas...Latin brothas, Southern brothas, Middle-Eastern brothas & Eastern-European brothas, even this statement is open for interpetation on different levels, than say a white brotha from the West-Coast.

Please spare us your terrible whigger impersonation. Do you mean to suggest that the sociological trend of preferring healthy-appearing mates is an artifact limited primarily to the left coast of North America?

Here's some tap shoes. Go for it.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
No. I think it is everywhere white boys like you want to go, not just the Left Coast. Everybody knows that in the South, the taste run a little bigger on average. And that men from other countries don't always prefer Jane Fonda Jr. Or Sir-Mix-a-lot (anybody remember him?)

I would rather talk like this than your mumble jumble Iamsuchasocialscientist crap. Your psycho-babble is annoying since you hide behind it rather than say what want directly. That is your choice. This is my choice and how I really talk in real life. I am not changing for you after 4 years of being addicted to these boards.

If you don't want to tap dance, than take off your dancing shoes. Or sit around and say "I don't feel like dancing". It's your choice.
 
Posted by samara (# 9932) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
I don't routinely hear men who fancy very skinny women compared to coprophiliacs.

You know, I can't think of any instance of men fancying very skinny women. Certainly that's what is pushed by the fashion industry, women's magazines, whatever. But I have never heard (or can't remember): "I'd rather have sex with a stick-thin woman." or "She's so skinny, that's hot." Healthy, fit, thin, yes. But never very skinny.

Is it common, and I haven't noticed? Or as subliminal as I suspect?
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by samara:
You know, I can't think of any instance of men fancying very skinny women. Certainly that's what is pushed by the fashion industry, women's magazines, whatever. But I have never heard (or can't remember): "I'd rather have sex with a stick-thin woman." or "She's so skinny, that's hot." Healthy, fit, thin, yes. But never very skinny.

The only person I can remember expressing a preference for skinny in so many words, was, oddly enough, Donald Sutherland (Keifer's dad). I have no idea why I remember that!

But I've worked a lot with groups of young single men, and listened to a lot of locker room type chat over the office cubicle wall. Castigation, in the coarsest of sexual terms, of any woman with an ounce of flesh on her in my experience comes a close second to crude homophobia as a conversational topic*. Both a million miles from the sentiments expressed by the same boys in private conversation away from the pack.

And does anybody remember the outright personal viciousness directed at Amber Benson ('fat' Tara)when she joined Buffy, not by the media but by fans. She claims that at the time her doctor already considered her to be medically underweight.

In a society where perceptions of body image are so royally screwed up, terms like skinny, fit, thin and healthy have really lost any meaning - see RooK's earlier use of 'fat' and the confusion that ensued.

I'm really not bothered about individual preferences, to which people are entitled. What's irritating me is RooK's apparent attempt to dress up a culturally specific trend as a universal truth.

* when they're not talking about football, obviously
 
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 
I think we need to remember that the maximum healthy waist circumference for a woman is approximately the same circumference as the average model's bust/hips.

I'm rather curious as to the sexual acrobatic difference between thin and lardo...not a damn thing has changed for me over the 30kg gain since I started.
 
Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Just to add more confusion....

In evolutionary terms, people are looking for a sexually/reproductively healthy partner. And it's not weight that people subconsciously judge this on, it's body proportions. For women the ideal proportion is a ratio of 0.7 waist to hips (i.e. your waist measurement is around 70% or your hips measurement). For men it's higher - around 0.85 or 0.9.

Somewhat interesting article about waist-to-hip ratios.

Can't pull the actual studies etc., because my books are not in the same place as me, currently [Frown]

So attractiveness is not solely dependent on weight but also on proportions - up to a certain weight, you'll be more attractive if you have an hourglass figure (if you're female) rather than going straight up and down [Biased]

Sarkycow
 
Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarkycow:
up to a certain weight, you'll be more attractive if you have an hourglass figure (if you're female) rather than going straight up and down [Biased]

Well I never! Who could have guessed that? It's so reassuring that some of the brightest minds in the country are working on this kind of conundrum.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
I know this thread is about weight, but something RooK hinted at earlier is key here: we are not just attracted to someone's physical characteristics. Remember, a nice selection of features can come together on a dead person too - but damn few people are attrracted to dead people. It's the spark within that causes attraction.

I submit to you - fat or thin (or just freaking normal, people), tall or short, pale or dark, hairy or bald - we are attracted to those people with the combination of personality quirks and dysfuncitons that we are pre-programmed to be attracted to.

I have been involved with all physical types. No men who are outrageously obese, but not because I am repulsed by obesity; I happen to be attracted to people who spend their time outdoors, non-motorized, and being active. that eliminates the severely obese. but chubby guys - sure. I had a boyfriend for a short time who was pretty hefty - and damn fine to look at. My husband is quite lean - until recently he was too lean for what I would normally consider healthy/attractive - but he is massively sexy.

I believe we are attracted to personality and compatibility. And self-esteem, frankly. The people who are considered unversally sexy, IME, are those who meet your gaze, smile beautifully, laugh loud, and aren't afraid of putting themselves out there.

Things like clothing/hair/make up merely reflect that aspect of their personality.

I see what RooK is saying about attractive body types (I think that is what you're getting at) and yes, people in general, given a line up of those dead bodies, I think would select those who are in the middle of the road. I think unenhanced and photo-retouched supermodels would be at the bottom of the barrel, along with the morbidly obese. I'm not attracted to skin and bones, I dont want to see ribs.

and those who are healthy, rounded, and showing the signs of being physically active would have the highest level of attractiveness.

but those are just bodies. it's a meaningless measurement. We're not attracted to dead bodies.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I really don't know exactly what RooK is saying comet since he is so vague to me. Your guess is as good as mine and it makes total sense. I am with you in what you are saying, it is my hope he is too, but I won't sleep at night if he is not.

BTW,

My own sister has this on her friendster blog:
"Amiable, outgoing, mustelid-loving, low-carbing, artistic
yet working in high tech, fat yet a triathlete, American yet
lived for three years in Europe"


Yes, she weighs more than me and yet is a traithelete. She just had a baby boy in April.

She is way fitter than some slender people who may "look fitter". If you have PCOS, lots of physical activity does not make you lose weight as much as those who do not have it. Those who would like to challenge me are welcome to do so. I am armed with medical data, have been researching my condition & my sister's for over 5 years now.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
A tribute for Duchess. Hey, some of us do admire a big backside. I however agree that more than looks are required.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
I'm too nosy not to ask. What does

quote:
mustelid-loving
mean?
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Hey, just got sis on the yahoo...

"Mustelids are weasels...the whole weasel family of animals"

(My sister loves ferrets, I guess this includes them...)

eta: rugasaw, I had forgotten how filthy that song was! Shame on me! Argh. Ah, but thx for the tribute.
It took me back in time. To the early 90s. [Smile]

[ 02. January 2007, 22:13: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by KenWritez (# 3238) on :
 
FWIW, having met duchess and Kelly, their physiques enhanced their attractiveness but did not form the whole of it. What was inside was more important.

[ 02. January 2007, 22:27: Message edited by: KenWritez ]
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
Weasel love. To some, it's a beautiful thing. Who are we to judge people on their hobbies?
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Um better than muskrat luv.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
FWIW, having met duchess and Kelly, their physiques enhanced their attractiveness but did not form the whole of it. What was inside was more important.

[Hot and Hormonal] Right back at you Ken.

Even if I have work to do on my outsides, I hope that they will always be the least attractive thing about me.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KenWritez:
FWIW, having met duchess and Kelly, their physiques enhanced their attractiveness but did not form the whole of it. What was inside was more important.

I've also met them both but never suspected that the quality of their ribs, tenderloin or brisket could outweigh their physical attractiveness. Although I haven't your unique expertise in culinary discrimination, I'm always willing to be enlightened.
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Kelly is one gorgeous girly [Smile]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:

eta: rugasaw, I had forgotten how filthy that song was! Shame on me! Argh. Ah, but thx for the tribute.

Duch-- favor to Kelster-- change your sig to "LA face with Oakland Booty"
 
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :
 
Surely the 'Baby Got Book' version would be more appropriate for Duchess.

I like big Bibles and I cannot lie ...
 
Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Surely the 'Baby Got Book' version would be more appropriate for Duchess.

I like big Bibles and I cannot lie ...

Well there is this...
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Duch, you rock. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Duch, you rock. [Big Grin]

Thanks Kelly. I'll keep it up for maybe a week but then will replace it was something more humble. [Biased]

BTW, the big bible video is up on my blog. click! [Axe murder]
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
Well, given that we both live in cultures where that sort of figure would routinely be described as fat, perhaps you should have been more specific in your original statement.

Perhaps, and I think I've paid the price in terms of the subsequent tap-dancing I've had to do.

Nevertheless, regardless of how ridiculously anorexic much of the cultural media insists is the ideal, I still argue that when weight starts affecting apparent health it simultaneously affects physical attractiveness. For most people, most of the time, when considering physique exclusively (however unrealistic that is in practice).

Have you seen Monster House? I won't say more, not wanting to do spoilers, but it's relevant to this thread and this post in particular...

Duchess, your friend who tells you how hard it is being a really attractive woman is NOT a really attractive woman; she's a jerk. I've known several of those, the I'm going to use my model-looks to intimidate you because, in fact, you intimidate ME! bleah. You're better off w/o her friendship (unless you like a person like that to run "interference" for you - this can be useful, in fact) because, clearly, her outsides are the most attractive thing about her - and that don't last.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
It is amazing how transparent people are and how they don't seem to realise that they are.

She is plenty boring. Much prettier than I will ever be. But oh so boring, it hurts.

Self-absorbed people often are pretty...and pretty boring. [Snore]
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I imagine that Persephone is supposed to either walk the streets naked or wrap herself in a sheet, considering that any attempt to buy clothing will be taken for her being deluded and thinking she is a size 4.

I do hope that sales assistants have enough intelligence to realise (as those Perspephone mentioned do not) that the obese size 14 who just walked into the store used to be a size 28. She's been in slimming programmes for years, and cannot remember the last time she either had a decent meal or did anything in the evening other than going to a gym. She's had to constantly reduce intake through the years, just not to gain back what she's lost. She's trying desperately to pretend that all that matters is better 'heart health,' but still does wish she were svelte. (Of course, she may have lost massive amounts of weight by getting away from 'healthy' pasta and the like, but that does not matter either.)
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Newman's Own, please pray for the poor old soul who can no longer smile because of a cracked lip due to the absence of all fats (that might soften dry skin) in the diet.

Unfortunately I now know quite a number of people who have become, over the years, quite skinny and flabby, but they can't smile.... alas. All dried up and wrinkled like an old prune. Faces like cubist paintings.

M
feeling impelled to drink canola oil right out of the bottle!

[ 05. January 2007, 14:58: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Well, this is what is considered is sexy now...
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Song of Songs [Solomon] 8:8.

M
 
Posted by Bittersweet (# 10483) on :
 
Duchess, that's quite foul!

She looks like she's about to break a limb, and as for the sticky-out ribs... (shudders)
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I guess that is just a matter of opinion though.
All subjective.
 
Posted by rosamundi (# 2495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Well, this is what is considered is sexy now...

For the love of the sweet Baby Jesus, someone give that woman some food before she breaks.

Deborah
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Saw a documentary called "Thin" on HBO,about a bunch of women in rehab for eating disorders. They all pretty much had the physical type of Nichole. Two of them broke out on a day pass and got tattoos. When the tattoo artist-- young, muscle-bound guy-- asked where they came from, they told him about the rehab center, and one of them said "They are trying to make us fat."

"Oh, God, don't let them do that!" he cried.

Both girls looked like they had been slapped. But then they put big smiles on their faces and assured him they wouldn't.

One of them was about 95 pounds.
 
Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :
 
I have an acquaintance online (mutual IRL friend) who is about 85 lbs and it's very touch and go whether she will survive. This is a brilliant woman; she was also an Olympic contender gymnast, so the ED goes 'way back. She has badly damaged her heart with the ED. She knows intellectually that she isn't fat but, in her bones, she feels compelled to exercise until she drops and eat next to nothing; she tries to avoid purging w/laxatives, etc. She's working really hard to stay alive - but the jury's still out.

As much as my knees creak under too many stairs (and it's all my fault, no question) I would rather have my weight problems than hers *anyday* - even though she "looks good"... We have become one seriously twisted society. [Mad]
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
duchess posted:
quote:
Well, this is what is considered is sexy now...
As a male, I have to disagree with whoever is doing that considering. That woman (she is a woman, right?) looks absolutely hideous. [Projectile]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Here we go again; focusing on the ridiculous extremes. Ms. Ritchie and the bizarre ex-gymnast are as much outside the norm as the occasional gigantic 800-lb person on the news who was so large they had to use a crane to lift their body out of their apartment after they died. Nobody on this thread has even remotely suggested that sickly concentration camp appearance is attractive.

The central issue, as far as I see it, is that as a society we're suffering from large numbers of us being obese - much larger numbers than we are suffering from being wretched scarecrows. The fact that there are wretched scarecrows is in no way a justification for many of us being unhealthily overweight. Neither is the fact that the stupid fashion media pushes anorexic appearance as attractive in any sane way an impetus to be morbidly obese.

Honestly, the ability of you fat people to distract yourselves from your gaping maw of personal culpability for your own state is truly remarkable.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Not really, RooK, eating disorders are just about as close to being declared epidemic as obesity. They kind of weirdly go hand -in- hand.


It's as if the country is so fucked up about the weight issue that half of us are going "fuck it" and overeating, and the other half are going "fuck it" and not eating.

But wait, weren't you they guy a few post up worrying about people personally judging you for your opinions? And now you are personally judging everyone's "culpability" (which you know nothing about)?
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
...
Honestly, the ability of you fat people to distract yourselves from your gaping maw of personal culpability for your own state is truly remarkable.

The only crime I have is being too much woman for most men to handle. If that is a crime, then some cop pull me over. All this sexiness in one place is just too much for me, sometimes I just can not stand it.

And you can kiss my fat bitchin' ass. After you are done with your lame lectures.

[edited to say...you can so do better than that.]

[ 06. January 2007, 02:01: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
But wait, weren't you they guy a few post up worrying about people personally judging you for your opinions? And now you are personally judging everyone's "culpability" (which you know nothing about)?

I am culpable for what I say, though I do hope that neither you nor duchess or the rest think that I mean to say I don't like you or find you repulsive. So, yeah, I am worrying that I'm being cast into the role of some non-human who can't possibly understand. As if I don't eat, or as if I don't like to eat. As if I can't possibly fathom the gentle cradle of relaxing instead of running regularly, or using the car to get my groceries instead of walking 20 minutes each way with a backpack. As if I have some magic force field surrounding me that makes calories bounce off of me and it's all effortless for me stay healthy.

If you want to back up the statement that eating disorders are anywhere near the problem among the general public that obesity is, I'll talk about it. But what was the point of it in this thread, if not as some sort of straw man? "Oh look, some crazy people have overreacted to the concept of their self-image!" Or maybe it was meant as a suggestion that the media treats fat people as non-humans that can't be understood.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
The point is we really do need to address what is healthy or not, because the way people keep lowering and lowering the weight bar is fucking with people's heads. Now everybody thinks they are fat. This mindset creates extreme behavior.

Part of my hysteria is that I work with kids. They are picking up on this stuff at horrifically early ages. No shit. And you can bet that none of my kids are worried that they will be too skinny.

Dragging us back to the OP--that kind of public shaming-- and that's what it is-- will just serve to fuck with more people's heads-- "Oh shit, am I gaining weight? I sure don't want to get pamphleted at Mervyn's"
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
As if I don't eat, or as if I don't like to eat. As if I can't possibly fathom the gentle cradle of relaxing instead of running regularly, or using the car to get my groceries instead of walking 20 minutes each way with a backpack. As if I have some magic force field surrounding me that makes calories bounce off of me and it's all effortless for me stay healthy.


Ok, now imagine that in the middle of making all this effort, your fucking arches collapsed. Might it not make you a little bitter? and a little resentful at a bunch of suppositions foisted on you by a total stranger (Mervyn's again) as to how you live your life?
 
Posted by lapensiera (# 4057) on :
 
I think it might reduce the fucking-with of my head just enough to be tolerable if the stupid asshats who design clothes would - if their current designs do indeed only look good on 5'10" size 2 women - start designing something for the rest of us who are not that size/height that looks good. Especially that looks good on someone younger than 60! It is INDESCRIBABLY frustrating to wear the same number size once worn by the sexiest of the sexy (viz. Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield, Mae West, need I go on?) yet NEVER be able to find anything beautiful that I can wear and feel like my inner bombshell self. May the eejit designers [Mad] ... sorry, just had to add that rant!
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
One more point-- the point of my "thin" story was not the anorexics per se, but the reaction of Johnny Tattoo.

I mean, fuck me, the girls are telling him they are at a rehab for eating disorders and he says "Ewww! Don't let them make you fat!"

Why the heck was that such a knee- jerk response for him? To me, that says he's picked up the idea that Half-dead chick is better than Fat chick.

How many "No Skinny chicks" bumper stickers do you see?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
The only crime I have is being too much woman for most men to handle.

Yeah. Keep telling yourself that.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I mean, fuck me, the girls are telling him they are at a rehab for eating disorders and he says "Ewww! Don't let them make you fat!"

Why the heck was that such a knee- jerk response for him? To me, that says he's picked up the idea that Half-dead chick is better than Fat chick.

Hell, he was probably just telling them what they wanted to hear so that they'd stick around and give him money. Good sales technique.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(grumble) That does make sense. Still makes him a dickhead.

Oh and sorry RooK, if you think I meant you know nothng about culpability. What I meant was, you know nothing about somebody else's culpability.


But my real problem? You brought up sex. And hinted that if all the zaftig- lovers got wise, they'd deprive me of sex. Let's just say you hit me at the wrong moment. I'm sure you've been there.

(Stomps off to take cold shower.)

[ 06. January 2007, 03:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
This verifies that I probably started hearing about eating disorders as"epidemic" in the 80's sometime.

I'm not really concerned if the numbers are "anywhere near" the numbers for obesity-- the numbers are large enough to create a significant health problem, and draw on the health community.

And really? I am arguing that both obesity and reduction eating disorders belong in the same category of "we are really fucked up about health" What we are currently doing is not working.

Mocking and diminishing fat folk has been a technique at work for quite a while... and it doesn't- fucking-work. In some cases, it makes the situation markedly worse. If what we are after is resutls-- well, there you go.

[ 06. January 2007, 04:03: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that.

Actually my deacon ex-boyfriend years ago told me that. Very cheesy lame phrase but I treasure it.

The real crux of this matter is exactly what has gone on in this thread...and goes on everywhere. The desexualization (is that really a word, okay checked on gooogle, yup) of zaftig women everywhere of how we are portrayed.

I try to ignore these types of threads but I honestly can't stand some chick reading out there and actually being depressed over it. So I flaunt myself, so sue me.

Done flaunting now though. All serious and um stuff.

[edited out swear word. I have kidlets over watching bad tv shows atm.]

[ 06. January 2007, 04:11: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
In my defense, though my mention of sex might have been the most memorable, it was technically a response. And it was meant to suggest that most people have a fairly wide range of what they find physically attractive, such that if chubby chasers were denied rubenesque targets they may well still get by just fine with other body types.

And I've been agreeing all along that simply mocking and diminishing people probably isn't going to be terribly productive. Though I am guilty of suggesting that it is understandable that society would probably need to identify people as clearly overweight, and I also grumbled that any such attempt would be taken poorly by the unfortunate people in this category.

And, as much as I can respect what everybody has been explaining about the myriad of involved issues, sometimes it's hard to swallow. It seems like everybody has an excuse of some sort or another. It's human nature, I suppose.

But, when I see my co-workers taking the elevator exclusively to go down one floor, and loading up a monstrous pile of food in the cafeteria, and hitting the fountain pop machine six times during the work day, I have to say that I think they're unhealthy and fat because of themselves. Sure, it's the end result of a long slippery slope, but it's not like it was a particularly surprising progression.

Maybe they don't care about it, but that doesn't make them any less responsible. I doubt anybody forced anything between their lips, or that anybody stopped them from getting a membership at a pool. We are all well-paid professionals with excellent health care. Hell, the company helps sponsor our gym memberships, forces managers to make allowances for workout schedules, and has "health fairs" where they drag the HMO's in to give anybody who has a spare couple minutes a brief physical.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
But, when I see my co-workers taking the elevator exclusively to go down one floor, and loading up a monstrous pile of food in the cafeteria, and hitting the fountain pop machine six times during the work day, I have to say that I think they're unhealthy and fat because of themselves. Sure, it's the end result of a long slippery slope, but it's not like it was a particularly surprising progression.

Maybe they don't care about it, but that doesn't make them any less responsible. I doubt anybody forced anything between their lips, or that anybody stopped them from getting a membership at a pool. We are all well-paid professionals with excellent health care. Hell, the company helps sponsor our gym memberships, forces managers to make allowances for workout schedules, and has "health fairs" where they drag the HMO's in to give anybody who has a spare couple minutes a brief physical.

Behavior that extreme ceases to be medical and begins to be mental, IMO. Actually, Not IMO, in the opinion of the NIMH.

Which is the crux of the problem.

I think the real answer is pouring a fuckload of money into the NAEYC (or your national equivalent) and First Five, because it's between ages 0-7 we can set the kind of habits people need to generally maintain their health. It's probably more like fighting heroin addiction for adults.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Was it lapensiera, a couple pages back, who ranted about the stupid designers not designing attractive stuff for us well-rounded womens?

It's getting better -- maybe hit more ethnic shops? Look for lines that have never abandoned the West/Monroe/Mansfield figure. You'll never see "Fat-so Fat-so Fat-so" tags there.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Janine, I have met you in person, and I can safely say that any guy who doesn't experience a testosterone rush at the first flash of your eyes simply has a funtional problem...

Excellent compliment, coming from a woman who could be the archetypical flowing original all the best ships' figureheads take after. I think you know a thing or two about flashing eyes. (Sniffle...) Sweet of you to say, too, Kel, especially since you so cruelly refused to sleep with me in Santa Fe.* [Biased]

There is a strange connection between the radically too-thin and many size-20-and-ups -- I see it in myself. It's that disconnect from reality, a body image of oneself that hasn't, logically, anything to do with the real.

75-pound almost-dead girls look in the mirror and see "fat". Perfectly fit girls looking up from the fifth regurgitation of the day see "obese" in the bathroom mirror.

I look in the mirror and see... A thrill ride. The cockpit of a vintage luxury car well-covered in butter-soft Fine Corinthian Leather. A full-fat, extra-cream dessert, spiked with spices and finest liquors and set afire as it's served.

Then logic reminds me I'm a middle-aged grandmother, but it doesn't matter -- I revel in the out-of-sync picture (fantasy? insanity?) in my head.

I doubt it has a lot of effect on the men I work with every day -- all those taut young engineers probably see the middle-aged grandmother, not the purring temptress. And the effect they have on me is comparable to how my sons effect me. Dang it. Can't even while away the hours behind that desk awash in arousal. (None that they've caused anyway.) [Razz]

Anyway, it's what goes on in our heads that makes the confidence level flow, isn't it? Others' reactions to all that is lagniappe.

.
.
.
.
*(We had planned, if needed, to share a bed at a Shipmeet. Get your mind out of the gutter.) [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
(It's "how my sons A-ffect me", dang it... Typos increase as hormones slosh ever higher...)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Honestly, Janine? I just didn't trust myself)

Ok, don't hit me, Sark, I'll stop.
 
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
In my defense, though my mention of sex might have been the most memorable, it was technically a response. And it was meant to suggest that most people have a fairly wide range of what they find physically attractive, such that if chubby chasers were denied rubenesque targets they may well still get by just fine with other body types.

That may be, but you didn't answer my question as to exactly what changes. I've gone from healthy to obese (by the BMI) and nowt has changed, so either you were going for very obese women, or didn't have the mechanics down pat.

As for the rest of it - it's nice that you might see my fat arse taking the elevtor instead of the stairs and that you may join my sister, my sibling's-in-law and random strangers in teling me I'd lose weight if I just 'walked a little more', when the reality is that I cannot physically walk up stairs at some points in the day. Chances are I'll have a walking stick by thirty (I'm 26) but since I don't have one now, and the scars aren't visible to the average shit-flinging monkey who comments on my weight, people, so kindly, feel that telling me I'm fat will work and magically make me lose it.

Judgements come from a point of stupidity where you assume you know something about the other person. Not every fat person is going to have a 'reason' but there's a good chance the chick you take to task for being fat is on chemo, or the bloke is actually a third of the size he was, or that the young kid has come off six months of bed rest and can't actually play sport. Chances are your 'help' is going to hurt and offend much more than just the commentary of 'you're fat' because I sure as fuck HATE being reminded of the fact I'll never ever ever be able to play sport, ever be able to kick ball with my kids, or even spend more than a day walking around sight seeing. I know I'm fat, you can tell me that til the cows come home (where I can drink their delicious full fat milk and chew on deliciously marbled steak...) because I don't really care about that. I do care about the constant reminder that I'm disabled and the average moron is too rude and too stupid to deal with that.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
In my defense, though my mention of sex might have been the most memorable, it was technically a response. And it was meant to suggest that most people have a fairly wide range of what they find physically attractive, such that if chubby chasers were denied rubenesque targets they may well still get by just fine with other body types.

I'm sorry, but that is not what you said at all. You said:
quote:
Indeed, I suspect that most who proclaim to have high regard for blobular shapes are going to have a pretty high correlation with those who have little hope of attracting anything else.
Given that nearly every woman alive (probably including Nicole whatserface) considers herself to have a blobular shape, and worries about it, what you actually said was 'Your partner says he fancies you, but he's lying and would swap you for a thin bitch in a minute given the chance. Ha, loser! Oh and you're shit in bed as well.'.

Yes, those of us with baby tummies may be oversensitive. But really, if you worry about being cast in a callous role, maybe you should reconsider statements that are guaranteed to strike a personal nerve with practically every woman on the planet.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
You're right, that was what he said.

RooK, she's right. If you are going to fling poo around , don't act all shocked when it lands on someone.


I have to hand it to you, though you seem like you are at least trying to listen, now. Part of my irritation was a general one I have been having, in all areas of my life, regarding people who express their opinions with a bullhorn, then clutch their little hearts and dab their little eyes with a lavendar-scented hankie when somebody dares call them on it. Why is people who have the boldness and brashness to open up a rhetorical tommygun on people in the interests of "Being brutally honest" are usually the people who crumple into a heap if you develop an opinion about their technique?

Ego is ego, RooK. Everybody has one. I see evidence that you are concerned about yours right now-- that is you are concerned about how you are being percieved-- why can't you therefore understand the effect of your words on the egos of others?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Oh, and your inbox is full.

Don't worry, I was going to say something nice. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Persephone Hazard (# 4648) on :
 
I think weight has surprisingly little to do with sexual attraction. I am not the thinnest woman in the universe. Neither am I enormous. I know that I'm going to get shot down in flames for saying this, but I don't think I look as big as I am. The men who find me attractive are not just men who say they find fat women attractive.

There's a photograph of me in my profile. It's not a professional photo or anything, it was taken by a friend in a nightclub. I don't think I look enormous or ugly.

I'm aware that Nicole Richie is an extreme, but there are also women in the media who are considered to be 'chubby' who are in fact underweight or very near it. The world's perception of what is attractive is beyond fucked up.

I only know one man who says that he prefers skinny women, and he's insane in all sorts of ways. It's all just bullshit.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
"I don't think I look as big as I am" is not a flameworthy statement. Media-fed ideals shift, society-held ideals shift, one's own inner estimations of one's looks shift. The whole mess is about as rigid as an amoeba.

All my life, if the subject of my weight has been in a conversation, I've gotten reactions like "Wow, there's no way you weigh that much." We live with the material things and make our way through them every day, all the while navigating by shifting perception.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Persephone Hazard:
I think weight has surprisingly little to do with sexual attraction. I am not the thinnest woman in the universe. Neither am I enormous. I know that I'm going to get shot down in flames for saying this, but I don't think I look as big as I am. The men who find me attractive are not just men who say they find fat women attractive.

There's a photograph of me in my profile. It's not a professional photo or anything, it was taken by a friend in a nightclub. I don't think I look enormous or ugly.

I'm aware that Nicole Richie is an extreme, but there are also women in the media who are considered to be 'chubby' who are in fact underweight or very near it. The world's perception of what is attractive is beyond fucked up.

I only know one man who says that he prefers skinny women, and he's insane in all sorts of ways. It's all just bullshit.

I think I am in the same boat as you, Persephone; if you saw the number on the scale you'd gasp, but my mother blessed me with her frame, so I carry it fairly well. That and strategic dressing helps a lot.(Although fuck if I ever wear a girdle again.)

My weight is my own fault, sure, but it is a result of mistakes I made ten fucking years ago, with the help of a bad marriage,beer and two stupid doctors who prescribed me steroids at the same time without warning me about the side effects. I spent the last two years of my marriage using food and alcohol to numb myself out. And it took it's toll. I'm just lucky that the booze didn't get out of hand.

I really don't want to think I will spend the rest of my life-- literally, I'm 38, my metabolism ain't going to snap back to age 20-- apying for mistakes I amde 10 years ago. Paying as far as the kind of respect I get, the kind of assumptions people make about me, the kind of man I should "settle for"

I was thinking this morning about this thread, and the chubby object d'crush I keep referring to. The idea that any woman would be "settling" for him "because they can't do any better"
is preposterous. He's kind, he's funny, he's creative and kind of carries this innate sensuality that makes a woman wonder what kind of kisser he is. He's also a little squirrley and neurotic, so it's not just bold self-confidence that carries him off. If you go by straight biological cues, he's pretty average. It's how he uses his face, hands, eyes, spirit that makes him beautiful.

And he's pretty severely overweight.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
This is kind of related. But I watched a new Scooby-doo cartoon today and Velma looks as if she's lost about 45lbs. She has a neck and a waist and was showing thigh.

[Disappointed]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
See, that just ain't right.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
But you see Thelma is the one who looked fit and healthy (and competent) to me all these years. Not her fault that they put her in a chunky sweater so she looked neckless.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
I thought she was Velma. What do I know.


Ruh-roh!
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Hang on -- having a weirded-out moment -- I've a friend named Velma and sort of misfiled my Scooby Doo details...

Which is it?

(intoning deep serious voice)
Let Us Google...

OK, you've got it, my brainquirk.

Velma was always the better-looking all around, over Daphne, to me. Of course Freddie was prettier than both of them.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
This post is pent up lecture. Nothing to do with Janine's previous post...or Kelly's but anyway...

If you take somebody and isolate them, forcing them to starve, yes, they will lose weight. And so yes, eating less works. We ALL FREAKING AGREE WITH THAT. And if you work out, ah, that makes you burn calories. And the more muscle you build, the more calories you burn.

Now that we got that across, I will explain something. I have PCOS. It makes losing weight harder for me than somebody who does not. I have to take 2 medications. If I don't take them, I don't lose weight as well. I have managed in some years to lose about 40 lbs. since 2001 and have kept it off. I am just tired of low-carbing and having to work out all the time. That is the honest truth.

I went out to coffee lately with a guy who is like 6'4" or something and builds a house all the time, besides working a normal job. He looks like he is getting a little skinner than he ought to be but he has some muscles. And he laughed and made fun of what I ordered "is that all you are eating?" I dunno but maybe he has noticed me chowing down, or assumes cuz I am zaftig I chow down 24/7. But the said truth is I don't! And I felt like saying "You know, I am onl 5'7" and I don't build a house...I only work out a few times a week...if that...and I have a lot more fat than you...so yes, I need less calories than you do!" I ended up canceling the small tart order and getting a large brownie. The dude ended up ordering 2 large breakfast treats and he ate them before I finished my brownie.

So maybe somebody should stick me on a desert island with no gin and let me just lose weight slowing, spearing a few fishes to eat.

But I might end up with lots of sagging skin if I lose too fast. I actually have a friend who ended up with some saggy skin. It frightened me so much I actually monitor any weightloss with an eagle eye...

I am though under orders to lose 20 lbs. by my endo doctor. by freaking april! (when I see him next) I won't say all he said that day but it was weird. A really weird office visit

So let me say that I am beyond getting all worked up over comments. I do have to lose weight. But it is a health issue due to my PCOS condition. I don't want to end up screwing up my blood tests...and then my body freaking out again, I stop ovulating and having periods that last more than 5 months ago. And feeling like crap.

For those who are upset because you think I am putting myself down when I call myself fat (pm's I receive and comments on my blog), think again. I don't think being fat is a huge crime. And I think I look so good, it is a crime though. But I will start using the word zaftig from now on since Kelly reminded me of it.

[ 07. January 2007, 05:49: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
That may be, but you didn't answer my question as to exactly what changes. I've gone from healthy to obese (by the BMI) and nowt has changed, so either you were going for very obese women, or didn't have the mechanics down pat.

I didn't explain in graphic detail what the differences were? Does this look like T'n'T to you? Let me just mention these: We could could have vigorous penetrative sex while I was driving. More generally, though, was the fact that I could support her entire weight with one arm. This will have to be sufficient for even your plainly meagre imagination.

quote:
Judgements come from a point of stupidity where you assume you know something about the other person. Not every fat person is going to have a 'reason' but there's a good chance the chick you take to task for being fat is on chemo, or the bloke is actually a third of the size he was, or that the young kid has come off six months of bed rest and can't actually play sport. Chances are your 'help' is going to hurt and offend much more than just the commentary of 'you're fat' because I sure as fuck HATE being reminded of the fact I'll never ever ever be able to play sport, ever be able to kick ball with my kids, or even spend more than a day walking around sight seeing. I know I'm fat, you can tell me that til the cows come home (where I can drink their delicious full fat milk and chew on deliciously marbled steak...) because I don't really care about that. I do care about the constant reminder that I'm disabled and the average moron is too rude and too stupid to deal with that.
I think I'm going to rant about this later (meaning, tomorrow - maybe). But, for now, let me assure you that I don't try to "help" anybody. I don't remind anybody of anything. I don't treat anybody differently. I do, however, see people around me, and wonder what it's like to be them and think about what I see. And, for reasons I can't readily justify to myself right now, I honestly consider these thoughts publicly on this bulletin board.

quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
I'm sorry, but that is not what you said at all. You said:
quote:
Indeed, I suspect that most who proclaim to have high regard for blobular shapes are going to have a pretty high correlation with those who have little hope of attracting anything else.

Indeed I did. And I deserve some wrath for it.
Especially since I think that I still stand by it. What can I say? I'm a craven cynic, with a low opinion of humanity.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Oh, and your inbox is full.

Mine? That's unpossible!
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Good thing not all men agree with you. And some of them are pretty hot men that don't. I know from experience.

[edited to carefully consider woulds after kahlua and milk drink mixtures I had tonight. Dang, that party is over and the road is long.]

[ 07. January 2007, 06:12: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Yep, I want a guy who thinks my lovely singing voice, my massage talents, and my ability to create riotous laughter wherever I go-- whether I intend it or not-- is more valuable than whether or not I can be a sexual Nautilus machine.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
Sounds like you're looking for a Sydney Anglican priest.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I don't get the connection.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I see that I have not been the only one drinking here tonight*. I might not have posted all that in my longish post...but it is too late. RooK got revenge by describing his sexual experience.

All I can say is Gort*, if you are saying that all men look for is a sex toy, I would have to say that you are terribly wrong. Not all men are RooK and also not all men are you.

*the other one drinking...

[ 07. January 2007, 07:00: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Actually, I'm looking for an Alan Cresswell.

No offense, Flausa, I mean that strictly in terms of character template. And intelligence level.
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
Sounds like you're looking for a Sydney Anglican priest.

No, she's looking for someone looking for her, rather than a wanker in search of a sex-aid. And the SA shot is way wide too.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
<Thanks, AP>
 
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 
Hey Janine,

Having met you in person, I have to say you exude the kind of beauty, confidence, sex appeal and radiance that is the genuine article. Girls in lingerie catalogs try to imitate it, but it can't be manufactured, pretended, or duplicated. Either you have "it" or you don't. They don't, you do.

I can understand a beauty ideal of slenderness because it communicates the desirable feminine traits of vulnerability, youth and delicacy. Kate Moss' neo-Twiggy, heroin-chic "waif" look communicates this kind of "if-I-wasn't-already-broken-you-could-break-me-in-half" kind of message. It's hard to say what women or men find attractive about this kind of image. I don't know, myself.

As an aside rant, could the fashion industry PUH-LEEEUUUZZZ QUIT designing their wares for 12 year old mannequins made-up to look like 20 year olds??? Some of these girls have not even begun to grow their boobs fer chrissake, and they are wearing clothes they won't be able to afford until they are 40 but only look good on you until you're 20.


FF
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Both Alan and Flausa have suddenly joined the "recent visitors" list

I have a feeling I am up shit creek. [Big Grin] )
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
That skeeeeeeeeeeeeeny keeeeeeed Alan? Peh! (I'd watch out for the floozy if I were you though.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Well, I confessed my "thing" for bald guys to her once, and she took it well.
 
Posted by Flausa (# 3466) on :
 
Kelly, I completely understand the attraction to my husband. I'm just offended you don't think he married me because he thought I was a sexy Nautilus machine.
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
Sooo.... how about those Dockers, hey? Do you think they'll do any better this season?
 
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I didn't explain in graphic detail what the differences were? Does this look like T'n'T to you? Let me just mention these: We could could have vigorous penetrative sex while I was driving. More generally, though, was the fact that I could support her entire weight with one arm. This will have to be sufficient for even your plainly meagre imagination.

That's more than enough detail. Particularly the thought of someone driving whilst having sex. *shudder* Not a good thing. Not to mention both of those things are not bound by skinniness - I probably could do the first, but choose safety instead, and since my husband happens to have a fair bit of muscle, can do the second. I also happen to be close to 100kg.

My poor imagination, so limited by safety, sanity and muscular men...
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
We could could have vigorous penetrative sex while I was driving.

I hope it didn't cause you to spill your drink.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
That may be, but you didn't answer my question as to exactly what changes. I've gone from healthy to obese (by the BMI) and nowt has changed, so either you were going for very obese women, or didn't have the mechanics down pat.

We could could have vigorous penetrative sex while I was driving.
(judicious edit by Anselmina)

Hey ananke, you could be on to a good thing here. He doesn't make that offer to just anyone you know.... [Biased]
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I hope I don't walk into the shitstorm here but I think that most people look first at people who fit into their category of good looking (no comments at all intended about what fits there for most people.)
If you don't strike most people as good looking then it's harder to get people's attention, I'd say. Probably, once you do, you have similar chances of a serious relationship suceeding as anyone else.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Practically, since we're spending so much time thinking and debating about it:
One certainly could gather evidence to prove something--start a poll in the circus asking whether people would date an obese member of the appealing sex. I have no idea what the results would say and I don't know how other people would feel about this, so I'm not doing it but it is an interesting idea, IMO.
 
Posted by Jimmy B (# 220) on :
 
Gang shuo Caocao, Caocao jiu dao*.

The Poll awaits you in the Circus.


[ETA: * loosely, 'Speak of the Devil!', Caocao a warlord from the time of the 3 Kingdoms)

[ 07. January 2007, 14:33: Message edited by: Jimmy B ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Flausa:
Kelly, I completely understand the attraction to my husband. I'm just offended you don't think he married me because he thought I was a sexy Nautilus machine.

What do you think I meant by "intelligence level"? The guy has good taste.
 
Posted by rugasaw (# 7315) on :
 
I just started playing around with a BMI calculator. I discovered when I first got out of the military I weighed 185 pounds. I had to buy jeans a size to large for my waist so the legs would fit*. Yet I by BMI standards I would have been considered overweight.

That did not remain long and I have since gained more than a few pounds.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
See, that's why I think there's so much heat on this thread-- I think a lot of people are clinically, BMI-wise, obese, and they know it. It just doesn't show. It might not even significantly impact their general health or activity level. This is the kind of person who is generally healthy, but can't look at a slice of bread without acquiring it on their thighs, sort of thing.

Or the person who gets on track with a good excercise routine, MESSES UP HER FUCKING FOOT!, and re-gains ten pounds by simply not starving herself to compensate for the lack of excercise. Grrr. [Mad]

So the lucky Perfect Specimens toss around the word "obese" innocently meaning "somebody who is manifestly grossly overweight" when it might not mean that in a lot of people's minds.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
To me, someone who is manifestly grossly overweight weighs in excess of 25 stone. At least.

That isn't because I am ignorant of the medical defination, as I'm not, but because, to me, the catergories "obese" and "morbidly obese" obscure real differences.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Aha! Good point.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
So the lucky Perfect Specimens toss around the word "obese" innocently meaning "somebody who is manifestly grossly overweight" when it might not mean that in a lot of people's minds.

And whose problem is that?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Anybody who actually wants to get their point across.

Of course, I guess the tradition around here is to judge people for what you think they are saying, so pardon me for trying to analyze that.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
That's more than enough detail. Particularly the thought of someone driving whilst having sex. *shudder* Not a good thing. Not to mention both of those things are not bound by skinniness - I probably could do the first, but choose safety instead, and since my husband happens to have a fair bit of muscle, can do the second. I also happen to be close to 100kg.

My poor imagination, so limited by safety, sanity and muscular men...

I stand corrected - you appear to have some imagination. Though, from what I can tell, not particularly vivid.

The driving/sex thing is definitely not safe sex. Personally, driving my sports cars is one of the few things I compare to sex. So you'll just have to forgive me for being so happy about combining the two. However, unless you're driving something with a bench seat, and are remarkably flexible, it takes a pretty lean couple to fit the thighs around the hips in a bucket seat and maintain forward vision and access to all the controls.

As for the lifting of the female partner with one hand, I find myself suspicious about your experience with this during copulation. Because, if you had, you'd probably realize that in addition to being able to support someone during such a vigorous activity force-wise, it is also necessary to be able to wrap the arm most of the way around the waist. So, unless you've married a orangutan, it makes me suspect you are just being contrary.

Whatever. We are accomplishing nothing with this tangent. It was something of a conversion experience for me, however skeptical or annoyed you might feel about it. And you are comfortably certain that you are a vibrantly sexual being who is missing out on nothing - which I don't mean to contest. I suggest we drop this, and meander back to the central context of the thread, while trying to fix our dishevelled composure from this tryst of comparative sexual experience.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
As amusing as it's been watching RooK squirm, I have to say that I took his sexual-tangent-producing remark as a reaction to the previous remarks about some people preferring chubbies. I may be reading too much into it, but I thought he was trying to point out (in his shitheaded way) that people who state a preference for chubby partners are actually being just as superficial and one-dimensional as people who say they only like thin partners. Which is to say that while most of us could think about the people we've been attracted to and conclude that we have a preference for one or the other, most of us realize that attraction is a much more complex and multifaceted thing. And that our idea of what we're attracted to can change with experience.

Anyway. The problem with these conversations (IME) is that most of us realize that things as they stand aren't good and we can and should do something. But when you start talking about what to do, people get defensive: "Are you calling me fat/unattractive/ lazy/ a slob/a pig/ worthless/ immoral/ whatever? Huh, are you?"

"Uh, no. I'm sure that someone somewhere has called you those things, but it wasn't me. I have a friend/relative whose on medication that makes her gain weight, so I have sympathy for that. On the other hand, I deliberately limit my fast food consumption, so it's hard to be sympathetic when my coworker eats an extra value meal every day for lunch."

"I have a medical condition! Stop judging me!"

"Uh, so are you my coworker? I don't know whether or not he has a medical condition, but I don't and I'd gain weight eating that every day."

Anyway. I think there's a place for both individual and collective action here. But it's not hard to get the impression that some people think "you're not obese, therefore you don't struggle with your weight or diet and exercise, therefore you can't participate in this conversation."

When the truth is, I've been struggling with my weight since I was a kid. And I'll acknowledge that it may be some accident of fate or genes or good health that has allowed me to mostly keep it in the healthy range as an adult and I don't judge people who haven't. But there are certain collective actions that would make things easier for me, and it's annoying to get shut out of the conversation or risk getting jumped on for suggesting that individual action will be a necessary component of even the best plan.

Though I do admit to being one of those people who tends to use obese to mean someone who is overweight enough that it does interfere with their health and ability to function in the world and not whatever measure the people who are trying to drum up funding have decided to use this week. So I may be guilty of tossing the word around too casually.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Hello, he was saying "While some may say they prefer fatter chicks, if given the chance, they would choose a skinnier one, unless they are less attractive and can only attract fatter chicks."
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
That's not all I was saying, duchess. And that particular piece you've focused on is mostly about my cynicism regarding human interactions. Do you really need me to explain my logic underlying that particular sentiment again?

Don't you ever get tired of oversimplifying everything until it's meaningless? No, wait - I forgot: you voted for Dubya. Twice.
 
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Because, if you had, you'd probably realize that in addition to being able to support someone during such a vigorous activity force-wise, it is also necessary to be able to wrap the arm most of the way around the waist. So, unless you've married a orangutan, it makes me suspect you are just being contrary.

See this makes me think your idea of fat/obese is completely different to mine, and to the world in general. Because Nova, while having slightly ape-like arms, can most definately encircle my waist, and I'd have to put on a shitload more weight to make that impossible. Simply because, like most women, I'm mostly pear shaped. I said before, my waist is below the maximum recommended for women, but I'm still close to 100kg.

I still get called fat, hit the BMI obese level and have trouble buying clothes. Still would be targeted by these 'helpful' measures of shaming and pamphletting. I'm not convinced that it will help, is ethical or at all sensible. I'm not convinced your average tool knows enough to be supported in telling fat people they're fat.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
I don't use the word "obese" very often, but in my mind at least it doesn't apply until someone's weight/size is a health problem, maybe even killing them. Maybe someone like *Israel Kamakawiwo'ole is obese, the way I use the word.

(And my generous proportions have not prevented me from... erm.... enjoying automotive playtime. I just need a luxury sedan rather than a little sewing machine of a car, is all. And a man able to manhandle me and drive simultaneously. Unless I'm driving.)


*(Here's a url for a video that wouldn't link for me. Just put it all together in your browser and it should work:

http:// video. google. com/ videoplay?
docid=3090180824233343584&q
=Israel+Kamakawiwo%27ole&hl=en )
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
I'm not convinced your average tool knows enough to be supported in telling fat people they're fat.

In that, we have complete agreement. People are idiots.

However, I do maintain that it makes sense for society to try to find some way to curb casual trends of obesity.

WARNING: Rambling ahead contains amateur and unresearched opinions. Ingest at your own risk.

The basic human body is primarily a semi-tropical plains or water shore hunter-gathering machine, designed to expend lots of effort to be able to derive sustenance from meagre sources. In order to expand outside of comfortable bare-skin territory, it was necessary to adapt our lives with such things as clothing and fire. Our current model of existence, with modern food availability and levels of necessary effort, is an order of magnitude more removed from that originally adapted-for plain or beach.

So, the problems most of us face with regard to trends of obesity isn't something that we're really ever going to want to address by changing our environment. Because, well, society as we know it depends on individuals being able to do things besides just running around all day to get enough to eat (and avoid Smilodons). Which means that we could rage uselessly at how difficult it makes it for us to balance our fundamental adaptations/design/drives and our current environment. But it won't help.

Instead, I feel like the best answer is in ourselves. We just need some way to reinforce that in our individual lives - systemically, and broadly across demographics. Some way or means to beat down the stomach suggestions, when it says "I can fit a whole lot more if you want, and you'll enjoy it". And some kind of manner of inspiration to make us use all our muscles to potential, instead of giving in to the instinctive urge to conserve effort.

But, you know, without turning too many of us into freaks afraid of food or flesh. Or consigning vast demographics to dehumanizing affronts.

It's frustrating for me, philosophically, because I know what works for me really doesn't work for most people. So I don't know what could possibly be done to achieve a generally healthier society. I guess, the most I can hope for on this thread is to talk with you guys, to find out what might work for you. Maybe we can find something that's a beginning of a trend we could encourage?
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Kids, don't try this at home!
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
That's not all I was saying, duchess. And that particular piece you've focused on is mostly about my cynicism regarding human interactions. Do you really need me to explain my logic underlying that particular sentiment again?

Don't you ever get tired of oversimplifying everything until it's meaningless? No, wait - I forgot: you voted for Dubya. Twice.

It is amazing how much you protest this and shrill you get when I point out the obvious with little effort. It is the crux of what you have been saying here all along. Hope that is better.

[eta: to add an airbag or two.]

[ 08. January 2007, 02:41: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
It is amazing how much you protest this and shrill you get when I point out the obvious with little effort. It is the crux of what you have been saying here all along. Hope that is better.

Perhaps you should spend some more effort, because it isn't the crux of what have been saying. It's just what you are fixated on.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Ahuh, right.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Hello, he was saying "While some may say they prefer fatter chicks, if given the chance, they would choose a skinnier one, unless they are less attractive and can only attract fatter chicks."

Okay. Then just answer me this kindly please.
Do you think the above statement is true or false?

I thought so.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
And you think that one statement is central to my input on this thread, why?
 
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It's frustrating for me, philosophically, because I know what works for me really doesn't work for most people. So I don't know what could possibly be done to achieve a generally healthier society. I guess, the most I can hope for on this thread is to talk with you guys, to find out what might work for you. Maybe we can find something that's a beginning of a trend we could encourage?

This is my point. People can tell me to exercise all they want, I just wish they'd be holding my hair backwhile I vomit blood after giving myself and ulcer taking anti-inflammatories in an effort to walk more. More being relative - two to three hours of strolling around will cripple me. Literally. Today I'm paying the price for going to a theme park with someone who can't understand that the pace I maintain is the upper limit - my knee is about twice what it should be and my hip shrieks should I do silly things like stand up. Diet control only does so much.

All that aside though, I don't really want to lose weight. I am because my husband worries and I don't particularly want to get bigger as I get old. If I could stay this weight, I would. But I'm going to get more lame as I get older, particularly if I have kids, so I need to do something to make that future easier. TV, clothes shops and random morons on the street aren't the reason, and never will be. What would have helped is sport I could have done as a teenager, not having a tumour, not having large breasts and having doctors take me seriously instead of palming me off until the tumour took out parts of my knee cap, all of the cartiledge and some of the surrounding flesh. The idea that fat people (with fat being a fashion inspired judgement) as unhealthy is that things get missed and ignored. Even though I wasn't a fat teenager, I was bigger than my peers (never having been on a diet and DD by highschool will do that) and looked bigger thanks to crippling self esteem inspired clothing choices. So doctors made decisions based on "she looks fat" rather than, y'know, medical stuff and I ended up with more scar tissue than knee.

That all aside, I'm lucky. I'm healthy enough to do what I want, mobile enough that I can go do aqua-aerobics and smart enough to not give up and go along with the rest of the world in thinking I'm a helpless, useless lardo. It could very easily be much worse.
 
Posted by Gort (# 6855) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
...It's frustrating for me, philosophically, because I know what works for me really doesn't work for most people. So I don't know what could possibly be done to achieve a generally healthier society. I guess, the most I can hope for on this thread is to talk with you guys, to find out what might work for you. Maybe we can find something that's a beginning of a trend we could encourage?

There's only one thing that works for me as a motivator for losing weight. It may be simplistic, but I have to focus attention on the "feel good" factors of more energy, better sleep, higher sensitivity to stimulus, increased concentration and ambition. Every little bump in awareness needs to be noticed for the benefit it is, otherwise it's all pissing in the wind. There has to be positive personal feedback. Who really gives a damn what others think of your condition? It's YOU that has to be rewarded.

[btw: I was startled by how much Mousethief has shrunk when I saw him at the shipmeet today.]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
And you think that one statement is central to my input on this thread, why?

Because I think it what pissed a lot of people off.
Go ahead and dodge the question. But you and I both know what the answer is.
 
Posted by Lori (# 9456) on :
 
I am - in orientation - bisexual, so I can appreciate both genders. To (probably mis-)quote a line from an old novel (Women on the Edge of Time - Marge Piercy): some people are fat beautiful, and some people are thin beautiful.

Me, I'm more attracted to fat beautiful. It seems to me so big and real. I had one fat beautiful grandmother and one (very!) thin beautiful grandmother. I am disappointed that I am taking after the thin one. I wish I was big (even if not beautiful) - like my partner.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ananke:
That all aside, I'm lucky. I'm healthy enough to do what I want, mobile enough that I can go do aqua-aerobics and smart enough to not give up and go along with the rest of the world in thinking I'm a helpless, useless lardo. It could very easily be much worse.

You know, helpless might be one of the pivotal ideas in this damn thread. Because I'm pretty certain we all have different ideas about how helpless any given situation is. Seems like it's mostly the smug bastards who look on overeating as something that people aren't helpless about, and that leads to thinking unkind thoughts. And it's the people who view it as helpless that are at risk of just succumbing to it, or are enablers.

It sort of makes sense, if you follow my backward-seeming reasoning there.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Because I think it what pissed a lot of people off.
Go ahead and dodge the question. But you and I both know what the answer is.

Sure, it pissed a lot of people off. Why does that automatically make it my primary idea? Answer my fucking question please, madame one-tiny-thought-at-a-time.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Seems like it's mostly the smug bastards who look on overeating as something that people aren't helpless about, and that leads to thinking unkind thoughts. And it's the people who view it as helpless that are at risk of just succumbing to it, or are enablers.

It sort of makes sense, if you follow my backward-seeming reasoning there.

It does make sense.

Personally I am a lot more calm now that we've established that there is a lot of subjective stuff around the word "obese", and that the only definition of "healthy" isn't "people you can pick up with one arm."
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
No kidding, Kelly. I guess I should have been more cognizant of terminology and clarified that much of what I was arguing was not meant to be viewing people in the same way that fashion magazines do.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
[Overused]

Gents? This would be a Real Man (can't do the TM thing)
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
No kidding, Kelly. I guess I should have been more cognizant of terminology and clarified that much of what I was arguing was not meant to be viewing people in the same way that fashion magazines do.

I suspect that you have simply never experienced the level of flack you can attract, and at what a low level that flack can start. (Often, as Ananke says, it starts not because you are fat but because you are the wrong shape). So yes, there are plenty of us who are hyper-aware and hyper-sensitive of implied or intended slights.

The story I told earlier about pregnancy, for instance. Perfectly presentable and attractive girls become a bit thick round the middle due to not-yet-obvious pregnancy, and suddenly they find waiting staff treating them with a barely concealed sneer because they order dessert.

I wasn't fat as a girl. I was, unfortunately, a short, sturdy person from a long line of short, sturdy people. No amount of starvation (and believe me, I tried it) will ever make me elfin, or delicate, or apt to attract the sort of man who wants to pick his women up with one hand. I also, like Ananke, developed large breasts at an age when girls are 'supposed' to be leggy and coltish. And, although not at that age overweight at all, I was routinely called fat, not just by fellow schoolchildren, but by PE teachers and other adults who, frankly, should damn well have known better. I vividly remember asking in a certain chain store whether a particular blouse came in a size 14 (I think a US size 12) and the skinny, adult assistant telling me with unconcealed contempt "God, no, we don't carry outsize here, you'd better go somewhere else" and going home in tears. (This was not just bad business - I still avoid that shop to this day - it was an outright lie. 14 is a perfectly normal size and they do carry it. It was, in fact, just deliberate cruelty.)

The point of this sob story isn't to fish for sympathy in Hell ( [Eek!] ), though it is partly to illustrate why illconsidered statements can easily be hurtful to people who've had a bellyful of disdain. But more than that, I think these attitudes are getting worse, and that partly because of the insistent publicity about the 'obesity epidemic', and the government's desperation to be seen as doing something about it with shaming policies like the one described in the OP. The sort of cruelty that happens anyway, as I described, is actually being legitimised.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It's frustrating for me, philosophically, because I know what works for me really doesn't work for most people. So I don't know what could possibly be done to achieve a generally healthier society. I guess, the most I can hope for on this thread is to talk with you guys, to find out what might work for you. Maybe we can find something that's a beginning of a trend we could encourage?

Earlier in the thread I posted my 9-point-plan! Why does nobody pay attention to me!

It wasn't particularly well thought out, but the underlying theme, by which I stand, was that there is very little that a government or central agency can do to control people's individual choices (and I'm extrememly doubtful that they should even want to, or be allowed to) but what they can do is create an environment that makes it easier, in some cases just possible, for individuals to make healthy choices.

They can't force people to leave their cars at home, but they can make sure that new developments are not planned in such a way that facilities can only be accessed by car, and make sure an efficient public transport system exists. They can't force people to take their kids swimming on Saturday instead of sitting them in front of the playstation, but they can make sure that pleasant, affordable swimming pools exist in most communities, whether by maintaining existing council provision or by offering tax breaks to private companies to move in.

There are all sorts of positive things that could be done, without turning individuals into scapegoats.

Beyond that, it does in the end come down to individual choices. I'm just unconvinced that in the healthiest and more long-living time in history, if a few individuals make choices that may (and it is may, just look at Ken Russell, I bet he hasn't lived a virtuous life) reduce their lifespan from 'extremely long' to just 'long' we need to get all hysterical and punitive about it.
 
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gort:
There's only one thing that works for me as a motivator for losing weight. It may be simplistic, but I have to focus attention on the "feel good" factors of more energy, better sleep, higher sensitivity to stimulus, increased concentration and ambition. Every little bump in awareness needs to be noticed for the benefit it is, otherwise it's all pissing in the wind. There has to be positive personal feedback.

Yup! Maintaining a sensible weight (particularly when you're middled-aged) is difficult because we (westerners) live in a time of plenty, and we're all descended from folks who liked to eat. It's pretty clear why there's a problem here -- plenty of grub and an inherited strong desire to eat it.

So unless people get an obvious and tangible benefit from maintaining reasonable weight, most people aren't going to be able to, whatever facilties for exercise, etc., are provided. Of course, there will always be a few freaks who either (i) don't like to eat or (ii) like to eat but don't gain weight because of some metabolic problem; but for nearly everybody else weight control is bloody hard work, and needs to be rewarded.

The fact that I might live longer is not, for me, much of a motivating factor. Nor, I'm ashamed to admit, is that fact that I might enjoy better health in my dotage. Since I'm 6'5" tall, I have difficulty buying clothes whatever I weigh. None of these things make me want to diet.

When I was younger and single, my motivating factor for being thin was that I got more sex. These days my rewards are more subtle, but they are there all the same. I'm not interested in being thin for thin's sake -- as soon as it stops benefiting me personally, I imagine I'll get fat quickly enough.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
So unless people get an obvious and tangible benefit from maintaining reasonable weight, most people aren't going to be able to, whatever facilties for exercise, etc., are provided. Of course, there will always be a few freaks who either (i) don't like to eat or (ii) like to eat but don't gain weight because of some metabolic problem; but for nearly everybody else weight control is bloody hard work, and needs to be rewarded.

You are right. I hadn't thought it through properly, but this is one good reason why RooK is wrong to say that the current cultural obsession with extreme thinness has no relevance to individual weight problems.

Most people can't attain a socially desirable body shape, many people at a medically perfectly acceptable weight will still be considered 'fat' by our current weird standards, will still be assumed to be lazy, stupid and greedy and derided for it. And most of us, as you say, are not well motivated by longer term, fairly undefinable, risks over short term reward (otherwise we wouldn't smoke, ride motorbikes or have sex behind the wheel of moving vehicles).

So if you are realistic enough to know you fall into the imperfect category (i.e. nearly everybody) and you are a couple of stone overweight, and not suffering any immediate daily, health disbenefit from it, you have very little motivation to do the hard work and self-denial required to lose those couple of stone. At the end of it you'll still be 'fat', won't get any more sex, and will still be accused of eating the cream cakes you've been denying yourself all these months. So bugger it, might as well just eat them now and get some pleasure out of life.

I honestly believe that the cult of thin does contribute to the so-called epidemic of fat.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:

But more than that, I think these attitudes are getting worse, and that partly because of the insistent publicity about the 'obesity epidemic', and the government's desperation to be seen as doing something about it with shaming policies like the one described in the OP. The sort of cruelty that happens anyway, as I described, is actually being legitimised.

That's it. That's what offends me. It's this belief that we, any of us, have the right to comment on another person's body size.

My first posts on this thread were on behalf of the people who have problems with the BMI scale and about my own struggle to lose weight and keep it off. I was pretty much called a liar by the people who think it's all just a matter of doing a little exercise and leaving out dessert.


As the thread continued I've become equally offfended on behalf of the thin people who have been called heroin addicts, weak, sexually unattractive, shallow and "unreal." Until I was 46 years old I, at 5'6" weighed less than 110 pounds, occasionally dropping as low as 103. This was a combination of genetics, smoking and a passion for ballet. I wasn't out to impress anyone but simply loved to go to dance class as often as I could afford. You wouldn't believe the amount of snide, hateful comments I heard from other women. I was constantly accused of being stuck-up, conceited, vain, shallow, etc, all based on a body type I had inherited from my skinny old father.

I know our movies and magazines perpetuate the idea that thin women are more sexually attractive than the full-figured so I'm willing to excuse a certain amount of bragging by the plump women -- but when they follow their descriptions of themselves as delicious, voluptuous goddesses with snide remarks about their thinner sisters -- they are just as guilty of judging others by appearances as anyone else.

I think the whole debate about who's more desirable and why, is wrong on all sides. It's a number on a scale. It is absolutely nobody's business but the owner of the body and, just possibly, her doctor's business provided the doc has something real, like a high blood sugar lab report, to back up his advice. Otherwise, everybody who doesn't like the width of someone else's backside, should just keep their mouths shut.
 
Posted by Mostly Noble Pixels (# 8783) on :
 
So are you saying it would somehow be wrong to post "Get outa here, you fat bastard" as a response to your post?
Or to use that comment as a regular signature?
Wow - hyper-sensitive or what!
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
Oh brill, Twilight. There I was, feeling all full of self-righteous indignation, and now you've got me all guilty for casually using 'thin bitch' earlier in the thread...

It was in context, honest. I didn't mean it.

I know lots of nice thin people.

Some of them don't even diet, it just happens.

You are right, of course. It's all part of an eating disordered culture (a phrase I stole off a shipmate, but can't remember who now to credit them. Telepath, maybe?).
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Because I think it what pissed a lot of people off.
Go ahead and dodge the question. But you and I both know what the answer is.

Sure, it pissed a lot of people off. Why does that automatically make it my primary idea? Answer my fucking question please, madame one-tiny-thought-at-a-time.
from previous post:
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
I'm sorry, but that is not what you said at all. You said:
quote:
Indeed, I suspect that most who proclaim to have high regard for blobular shapes are going to have a pretty high correlation with those who have little hope of attracting anything else.
Indeed I did. And I deserve some wrath for it.
Especially since I think that I still stand by it. What can I say? I'm a craven cynic, with a low opinion of humanity.

[Italics, mine.] There is the answer to your question. Just because I am trying to be short and pithy does not make my thoughts tiny, sir. I do follow what you wrote. And this post to me, pretty much shows you admitted that is truly what you believe and yes, you wrote this idea more than one time, more than one way. Is it behind every post you wrote? Maybe I am wrong. But it seems that way when it comes out again after you are called on it and wrote it more than one time.

Now will you PLEASE answer my question? Thx.

[Your code sucked like Monica.]

[ 08. January 2007, 15:58: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Yes, I said it. I DO have cynical suspicions about personal assertions made by people on the internet. It DOES seem to me that many people think that "blobular shaped" people are desperate and have low standards and some might try to take advantage of that.

AND YOU READ THIS INTO EVERY ONE OF MY POSTS HERE... WHY?

Honestly duchess, snap out of it. Give me all the grief you want for having said it that way. Argue with me all you want, because I do still think the same basic cynical and mean thought. But to assert that this is the "crux" of my interaction here feels like deliberate stupidity on your part, and it's pissing me off.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's what offends me. It's this belief that we, any of us, have the right to comment on another person's body size.

Egad, here we are - back where I got lured in to this bottomless pit of my own fear and loathing.

I hate to say it, but as much as I cringe from polite society actually engaging in such rudeness, I think that all of us have the right to make public comment about pretty much everything that is available for public notice. And about most stuff that isn't, too.

Which makes me mutter often-repeated oaths of vengeance against my high-school tormentors, but there you go.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
I know this isn't my blog, though it's beginning to look increasingly like it today (I'm hanging around beside the computer trying to encourage the bunch of muppets at the agency to get off their bums and sort out the contract for the nanny who's supposed to start on Wednesday. How's that for bloggy?)

But I just thought I'd add this datapoint for those who think the overweight are eating ginormous amounts of food all the time.

This last week or so I've been tracking all my food intake in a geeky spreadsheet. And I'm being honest (come on, nobody lies to their food diary in the first week). And I'm having real difficulty reaching 1000 calories a day. So much so that most evening I'm saying, bugger, I'd better eat a banana just to get a respectable total.

I'm not dieting, I'm really just doing this to keep Mr Nui company, this is just pretty much what I normally eat on a day without treats (which is most days).

According to the BBC health site, someone of my age, weight and height ought to be using 1500 calories just to survive if they're completely sedentary - and I'm not, I walk most days, pushing a pushchair, and swim once or twice a week.

It's unnatural, I tell you, unnatural. If I don't start losing weight I'm going to take this food diary and go to the doctor.

[ 08. January 2007, 14:28: Message edited by: Iole Nui ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
Oh brill, Twilight. There I was, feeling all full of self-righteous indignation, and now you've got me all guilty for casually using 'thin bitch' earlier in the thread...


Relax Your Rodently One. We're on the same side here. I would have done the "not-worthy" smiley on your earlier post, but I hate that thing.


Duchess; really. I've never seen RooK work so hard to appease someone, usually by now he'd be getting out the farm implements.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
To be fair we also have the right to attempt to murder our fellow citizens--who have the right to try to get us punished.

[crossposted with everyone. Responding to Rook's post.]

[ 08. January 2007, 14:58: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Scholar Gypsy (# 7210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
I know this isn't my blog, though it's beginning to look increasingly like it today (I'm hanging around beside the computer trying to encourage the bunch of muppets at the agency to get off their bums and sort out the contract for the nanny who's supposed to start on Wednesday. How's that for bloggy?)

But I just thought I'd add this datapoint for those who think the overweight are eating ginormous amounts of food all the time.

This last week or so I've been tracking all my food intake in a geeky spreadsheet. And I'm being honest (come on, nobody lies to their food diary in the first week). And I'm having real difficulty reaching 1000 calories a day. So much so that most evening I'm saying, bugger, I'd better eat a banana just to get a respectable total.

I'm not dieting, I'm really just doing this to keep Mr Nui company, this is just pretty much what I normally eat on a day without treats (which is most days).

According to the BBC health site, someone of my age, weight and height ought to be using 1500 calories just to survive if they're completely sedentary - and I'm not, I walk most days, pushing a pushchair, and swim once or twice a week.

It's unnatural, I tell you, unnatural. If I don't start losing weight I'm going to take this food diary and go to the doctor.

This isn't just you. I haven't actually been keeping a food diary (though I've been meaning to start!) but I got pretty conscious of what I was eating before Christmas, and I'm sure I wasn't eating 1500 calories a day, and I don't have a particularly sedentary lifestyle, and I didn't lose very much weight either. Odd.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Yes, I said it. I DO have cynical suspicions about personal assertions made by people on the internet. It DOES seem to me that many people think that "blobular shaped" people are desperate and have low standards and some might try to take advantage of that.

AND YOU READ THIS INTO EVERY ONE OF MY POSTS HERE... WHY?

Honestly duchess, snap out of it. Give me all the grief you want for having said it that way. Argue with me all you want, because I do still think the same basic cynical and mean thought. But to assert that this is the "crux" of my interaction here feels like deliberate stupidity on your part, and it's pissing me off.

I have tried to answer your question, but I am afraid I can't seem to give you an answer that satifies you. I am sad to read your answer to my quesiton, but I do thank you for answering the question. And I will now drop it after I post this...

quote:
I think that all of us have the right to make public comment about pretty much everything that is available for public notice. And about most stuff that isn't, too.
And that was me asserting my right, to comment on everything you said in public on this board in this thread (the whole crux of the matter thang).

Buh-bye.
 
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on :
 
years ago (mid 80's) I worked for 5 years in a residential tx center for people with eating disorders--read mostly severe obesity. I know that a lot of science has come down the pike since then to change the way we understand issues around obesity. However, i do think I remember that cutting calories over a period of time (i.e. dieting) was considered to cause the body to be more efficient in conserving energy, thus reducing weight loss.
This might be relevant to some of the posts.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's what offends me. It's this belief that we, any of us, have the right to comment on another person's body size.

Egad, here we are - back where I got lured in to this bottomless pit of my own fear and loathing.

I hate to say it, but as much as I cringe from polite society actually engaging in such rudeness, I think that all of us have the right to make public comment about pretty much everything that is available for public notice. And about most stuff that isn't, too.


Give me a break. Of course I wasn't talking about legal rights. You don't have the right to tell me what I should weigh or how much I should eat because it's not part of your moral, professional or legal duty (definition 16 in my dictionary.) You won't go to jail for telling me i'm fat but it's none of your business either.
-----------

Let's blog women! You know in the beginning of all this I said I had given up all sweets two years ago, lost 60 lbs the first year gained back almost 30 in the second?

Just last week, I decided that before I started another year of this deprivation I would give myself a week off. Last week I ate every sugar laden food I had missed during the past two years. I had candy, cake, pie, cookies, doughnuts, ice-cream, ribs baked in sugary BBQ sauce and biscuits dripping with honey. I not only ate every fattening thing I ever liked, I baked all my family's favorites and ate half of that stuff too.

I weighed myself today. For the first time in a year, I actually lost weight.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Let's blog women!

Spare us. We don't care. If you really want to blog, sign up for a blogging site.

More relevant ... the NY Times has an article today on schools sending home notes telling parents what their kids' BMI is, and the kids in turn getting freaky about food. We're talking about kids as young as six. Talk about having the fatso siren go off.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Let's blog women!

Spare us. We don't care. If you really want to blog, sign up for a blogging site.

More relevant ... the NY Times has an article today on schools sending home notes telling parents what their kids' BMI is, and the kids in turn getting freaky about food. We're talking about kids as young as six. Talk about having the fatso siren go off.

Let's publish the BMIs of the legislators that think this is a great idea, and the teachers too although I expect some of them reckon it is a daft idea as they have rather more contact with children.

Another I heard last week was that our government is showing its concern about eating disorders by banning websites that glorify eating disorders. If that spreads to TV, they will have to close VH1 down!

One thing that won't ever appear on the "Pond Differences" thread is the way that only Congress or Parliament pass or propose stupid legislation.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
taken from the link to the arcile in RuthW's post:Holly Berguson, the homecoming queen at North Penn Junior-Senior High School here, wears a size 20, a fact cited by her many admirers as proof of this community’s generous attitude toward weight, its proud indifference to the “Baywatch” bodies on television.

Thanks for posting that article, RuthW. I was feeling a bit down today and that paragraph alone made my day. (I am the same size as Holly, well 18-20 depending on the company making the clothes). Shows maybe there is some progress in some parts of the country with views on body-size. [Overused]

[Once again, freaked out I found something this uplifting in hell.]

[ 08. January 2007, 17:28: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Let's blog women!

Spare us. We don't care. If you really want to blog, sign up for a blogging site.

More relevant ... the NY Times has an article today on schools sending home notes telling parents what their kids' BMI is, and the kids in turn getting freaky about food. We're talking about kids as young as six. Talk about having the fatso siren go off.

That's interesting, Ruth.

I thought my post was a little bit interesting and relevant, too, since the OP was about passing out warnings geared toward telling women to "do something" about their weight. In many people's minds the "do something" is "quit eating sweets" and my point is that very few people actually know a fool proof way to lose weight or, as Newman's Own pointed out, very few people can tell by looking at a person, just what they've been eating or where they are in their personal weight loss story.

The mention of blogging was just a joke to Ione Nui about sharing diet experiences.

This whole trend lately of telling people to "get a blog" has me confused. Are we not to mention any personal experiences here anymore or are personal stories limited to shipmates from California?

Another question comes to mind as to the use of 'we" in, "We don't care." Was this based on another poll in the Circus or just your massive ego?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
This whole trend lately of telling people to "get a blog" has me confused. Are we not to mention any personal experiences here anymore or are personal stories limited to shipmates from California?

See, there was me thinking Ruth's post was in answer to you posting

quote:
Let's blog women!
It goes without saying that these boards are not here to be your (anyone's) blog. Posts about the subject of weight (see also "fat bitches", "lardarses", "skinny runts" &c.) are fine, pointless anecdotes about dieting and/or Bridget Jones-esque calorie counting aren't. Kapische?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
This whole trend lately of telling people to "get a blog" has me confused. Are we not to mention any personal experiences here anymore or are personal stories limited to shipmates from California?

See, there was me thinking Ruth's post was in answer to you posting

quote:
Let's blog women!
It goes without saying that these boards are not here to be your (anyone's) blog. Posts about the subject of weight (see also "fat bitches", "lardarses", "skinny runts" &c.) are fine, pointless anecdotes about dieting and/or Bridget Jones-esque calorie counting aren't. Kapische?

My post, as I've already said, was in response to Iole Nui saying
quote:
I know this isn't my blog, though it's beginning to look increasingly like it today <snip>
She seemed apologetic about the blog- like aspects of her post and I was just trying to say, something like, don't feel bad, mine has similar aspects.

My post wasn't really a blog. Rat's wasn't either. No one has listed all the food she had to eat today and it's calorie count and no one is coming back daily to do that.

Don't worry about me taking up any more precious bandwidth with my pointless anecdotes -- I'm out of here.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I haven't posted much to this thread, though I have ample, sotospeak, qualifications.

My current physique owes something to my genes (the Irish peasantry didn't breed for elfin); something to modern life/work (I should be carrying carthorses or something rather than sitting in an office all day) but mostly, mostly, it is a tribute to many years of fine meals in good company, to sociability and hedonism.

But the negative perceptions of others are not a problem - for I am invisible. Doubly so, for I am not only Fat but Old (well, 50+, same thing). I am out of the sexual market, on which the present age sets such store. Well, IMO cooking lasts longer than kissing - or, at least, you can enjoy it with more people simultaneously.

So, do what it takes to get laid as much as you'd like - but I wouldn't let it get in the way of enjoying yourself.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

So, do what it takes to get laid as much as you'd like - but I wouldn't let it get in the way of enjoying yourself.

Er, no. No need for that. I would rather eat good food out dining.

*added more words, so that that this could not be made to be dirty. thx.

[ 08. January 2007, 20:42: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Twilight, no one called your post a blog. I responded only to your call for people to blog. So unbunch your panties.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
On the other hand, what are we to do about really fat kids? They're setting out toward adulthood with a huge disadvantage. And kids didn't used to be fat very often, so again, something has changed. What's to be done? I'm not saying sending notes home is good, but what is the solution?
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
More relevant ... the NY Times has an article today on schools sending home notes telling parents what their kids' BMI is, and the kids in turn getting freaky about food. We're talking about kids as young as six. Talk about having the fatso siren go off.

This reminds me of my entirely reasonable GP who put me on a diet aged 5 because I weighed the same as my older sister. The fact that I was 2 inches taller than her wasn't taken into the equation but it did spell the beginning of a lifetime of fucked up food intake.

But then I'm fat because I eat a lot of shite and I don't get enough exercise. I eat a lot partly because the doctor has now, in his infinite wisdom, put me on a drug that increases appetite. I eat a lot of shit partly because I'm a shift worker which can make it difficult to eat regularly, partly because I don't know how to cook and partly because I'm lazy.

The reason the doctor put me on said drugs is because I'm depressed. And because I'm depressed I comfort eat. Comfort eating and a drug that increases appetite is not a good combination. I don't get enough exercise. Part of the reason for this is that I'm depressed and the idea of leaving the house or being together enough to organise myself exercising in the house is not always possible.

I'm genetically fat - my parents are fat, my sisters are fat, my cousins are fat, my grandparents are fat. I patently have a genetic predisposition to be fat.

I don't know what the answer is. One of the answers is to change the drugs and hopefully I'll do that next month. But the other drug has to work in relation to the depression because I'd rather be fat and coping then losing weight and suicidal.

I wish it was as easy as eat less and exercise more. I wish it was but unfortunately when things get fucked up the whole picture gets fucked up and easy answers don't always help.

[ 08. January 2007, 22:55: Message edited by: chive ]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chive:
...This reminds me of my entirely reasonable GP who put me on a diet aged 5 because I weighed the same as my older sister. The fact that I was 2 inches taller than her wasn't taken into the equation but it did spell the beginning of a lifetime of fucked up food intake.

But then I'm fat because I eat a lot of shite and I don't get enough exercise. I eat a lot partly because the doctor has now, in his infinite wisdom, put me on a drug that increases appetite. I eat a lot of shit partly because I'm a shift worker which can make it difficult to eat regularly, partly because I don't know how to cook and partly because I'm lazy....


Your post could have been written by me. To save time ranting since i am at work and the subject is muy painful...I will say honestly that if my weight wasn't made to be such a big freakin' deal, there is slight chance I would not have such an emotional relationship to the food items.

I would say that loving your kidlets and building them up with love, good words...feeding them low glycemic healthy foods, making sure they get fun activities to move around, is what I would do should I get an opportunity in this life to have my own kidlets (outside of being a rather bossy evil auntie).
 
Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
On the other hand, what are we to do about really fat kids? They're setting out toward adulthood with a huge disadvantage. And kids didn't used to be fat very often, so again, something has changed. What's to be done? I'm not saying sending notes home is good, but what is the solution?

If the parents need to have a note sent home to make them aware that their kids are really fat, then there's probably nothing that can be done. Personally I suspect that it's far more likely to be lifestyle and eating habits that are inherited, and that "genetics" is far less significant.

In winter we take PaterMajor along to Netta/FunNet/Introductory Netball on a Saturday morning, which seems like a great venue to see kids being active, healthy and happy. Except we regularly see the beach-ball shaped girl with the beach-ball shaped parents hoeing into hot chips and deep fried food at 9am. Maybe they're all on the same medication for inherited conditions, but I doubt it.

On the other hand, I was sobered to hear PaterMinor complain about that he is "fat". This from a six year old whose legs seem to be stretching up on a daily basis, and who likes cricket because he gets to run after the ball a lot. Somehow the messages are being heard by the wrong people.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Cordelia! The spatula!
 
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on :
 
It's funny how the "fat" bells can ring. I'm not overweight but I still remember my father's rants about people (mostly women) he considered fat, and the really nasty things he'd say. Plus he was always commenting on my weight. Consequently, I am so freaked out about weight gain that I can easily starve myself and have to be very vigilant to engage in positive self care. [Frown]
 
Posted by WatersOfBabylon (# 11893) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's what offends me. It's this belief that we, any of us, have the right to comment on another person's body size.

Egad, here we are - back where I got lured in to this bottomless pit of my own fear and loathing.

I hate to say it, but as much as I cringe from polite society actually engaging in such rudeness, I think that all of us have the right to make public comment about pretty much everything that is available for public notice. And about most stuff that isn't, too.

I was a size 12-14 for a period of time. Then, I went to Africa, got a parasite, and lost tons of weight. I came back to the States, and for a period of about a month, I could not go an hour without someone telling me how great I looked. They were all "so happy for me" that I had lost so much weight.

Consequently, I developed an eating disorder and am 50 pounds lighter than I was a year ago, and much less happy.

So, RooK, I would have to most emphatically disagree with you. No matter how "public" someone's size is, it is not up for public discussion.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
I have tried to answer your question, but I am afraid I can't seem to give you an answer that satifies you.

I was hoping you would notice that your answer really shouldn't satisfy you either. If you can drop it, though, it's dropped.

Back to the mainstream thread:

I'm still conflicted about my reactions to assertions that some people make that they eat relatively little and get significant exercise yet don't lose fat. Intellectually, I can piece together the fact that there can be different absorption rates, and that our physiologies can cling to a certain shape despite our earnest efforts. But my (admittedly biased) observed samples of ingested-portion size to patron size at public eating establishments have an extremely high degree of correlation. So on one hand I'm extremely sympathetic with the quite-rational arguments people have made to explain the myriad of circumstances leading to their current shape, but on the other I still hear myself thinking "eating less would probably help regardless".
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WatersOfBabylon:
So, RooK, I would have to most emphatically disagree with you. No matter how "public" someone's size is, it is not up for public discussion.

Yeah, people are stupid. Boo fucking hoo. What precisely is there to discuss that can't possibly be uncomfortable for anybody? And who gets to decide what that is?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
On the other hand, what are we to do about really fat kids? They're setting out toward adulthood with a huge disadvantage. And kids didn't used to be fat very often, so again, something has changed. What's to be done? I'm not saying sending notes home is good, but what is the solution?

I think a lot of children do not have a safe place to play outdoors. In the inner city many children are parked in front of the TV as soon as they get home from school. If I were a parent living in a dangerous neighborhood, this is what I would do.

In more affluent communities, children are driven to various activities, many of which do not involve much physical excercise.

I don't see the answer.

Moo
 
Posted by DaisyM (# 9098) on :
 
I suppose that one can make a comment about almost anything. The larger question is, "what's the point of the comment?" Or maybe, "what does the comment say about the character of the commenter?"
Re: someone who is overweight, such a remark seems to me to be patronizing, cruel, or uninformed. such remarks do not help the person lose weight in any sort of healthy way; usually it backfires.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
...But my (admittedly biased) observed samples of ingested-portion size to patron size at public eating establishments have an extremely high degree of correlation. So on one hand I'm extremely sympathetic with the quite-rational arguments people have made to explain the myriad of circumstances leading to their current shape, but on the other I still hear myself thinking "eating less would probably help regardless".

I'm not going to deny that in many cases, you are right. But, take a look at this.

As a person with severe sleep apnea (mostly obstructive), I know that my weight was not under "my control" until I started hooking myself up to a C-Flex machine every night (about 9 months ago). Doing this stopped the weight gain I was having.

It is also interesting to note that I've been able to drop some weight and keep it off after my gall bladder came out about 3 months ago. This happened without restarting my lapsed gym membership.

So, I haven't had to make all that many changes to start having my trousers fit looser other than getting the medical care I needed. I suspect that as spring and summer roles around, I may continue to lose some weight, as I will probably be much more active than I have been.

YMMV.

(Of course, my doctors will get worried if I start taking off "too much" weight. Something about being a cancer survivor that stops your family doctor from suggesting, "maybe you should take off 10 pounds." Even my pulmonologist [sleep specialists are typically pulmonologists] won't even suggest it to me, because I asked him whether I should lose weight. [Cool] )
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Another I heard last week was that our government is showing its concern about eating disorders by banning websites that glorify eating disorders. If that spreads to TV, they will have to close VH1 down!

You know, this is stupid. 90% of people who appear on TV may be underweight, but as far as I know there are no programs that instruct girls how to be anorexic, and give them tips on how to trick their worried parents into thinking they're eating, etc which is what those websites do.

PaterMinor probably got called fat by someone, because pretty much everyone gets called fat at some point. I remember my classmates used to delight in calling one of my friends fat. She wasn't, but she had an obese aunt who lived with her (obese as in unable to get out of bed without assistance) and the insult would get her upset every time. I actually was fat, but had an immunity to the insult built up from years of my brother calling me fat, ugly, and stupid, so they mostly didn't bother with me.

What can we do?

Kids should get taught that most people on TV are on TV because they're thinner and prettier than others, not because they're representative.

And we really need to stop using food as a reward or punishment.
 
Posted by WatersOfBabylon (# 11893) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Another I heard last week was that our government is showing its concern about eating disorders by banning websites that glorify eating disorders. If that spreads to TV, they will have to close VH1 down!

You know, this is stupid. 90% of people who appear on TV may be underweight, but as far as I know there are no programs that instruct girls how to be anorexic, and give them tips on how to trick their worried parents into thinking they're eating, etc which is what those websites do.

As an aside, I've talked to several people who said that the "good" pro-recovery websites aided their disordered eating habits. I even had a friend develop an ED in middle school when someone came in to talk to the young women about EDs. By telling them what not to do, this friend got ideas.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
I'm not going to deny that in many cases, you are right. But, take a look at this.


Great. Something that now I am scared I have! I actually have some of these symptons. I have to now get married so that I can permit myself to have a "bed partner" (like the article says). Then I will know for sure!

[eta: Lightning striking Silicon Valley twice...hell freezing over...and the jackpot in VEGAS suddenly becoming mine.]

[ 09. January 2007, 02:33: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
PaterMinor probably got called fat by someone, because pretty much everyone gets called fat at some point.

Pretty Much Everyone but BUT not everyone.

Some of us have never been ridiculed for being fat- but we have been ridiculed for being thin. It's life. Get used to it. You were mocked for being overwieght and that's awful. Plenty of us were mocked for being underweight and its just as awful. Trust me.

I'm getting a bit pissed off with hearing the fat folk constantly whinge about the bad time they have for being fat. Hey fat people - get thin and expect it's going to be better.

Cc
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Yeah but you're sexy. Even though you are a celibate priest trying to kill off an Australian woman's husband. You bring sexy back. Even better than Justin.

Damn ciggerette hanging out of your mouth, priest vestments.

Father forgive me.
 
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

More relevant ... the NY Times has an article today on schools sending home notes telling parents what their kids' BMI is, and the kids in turn getting freaky about food.

This was fascinating. As an overweight woman who is diabetic, I worry about someone like the young woman mentioned who is size 18-20 and already insulin resistant. Yeah its good that she feel OK in her swimsuit, but she already has medical problems that are most likely to be contributed to by her weight, and diabetes which develops from insulin resistance ia a degenerative disease.

How on earth do we take the focus off being fat or thin and encourage people to feel good about developing a healthy life? For me it was a health scare (ironically caused by a condition unrelated to weight) that started me walking and eating more sensibly, but how do we get through to children, and especially to teenagers who are all forever young and bulet-proof, (at least in their own minds)?

Huia

[ 09. January 2007, 04:24: Message edited by: Huia ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
Some of us have never been ridiculed for being fat- but we have been ridiculed for being thin. It's life. Get used to it. You were mocked for being overwieght and that's awful. Plenty of us were mocked for being underweight and its just as awful. Trust me.

Yeah, my point (possibly expressed only in my own mind) was that people are mean and stupid. They tend to stumble around trying to find insults until they find one that gets you riled up, and then they repeat that one for effect. My brother started calling me fat before I was overweight, because he knew it would set me off as I had gotten the message that fat = bad, especially for a woman. People prey on insecurity, and as much as I hate that, that's just how it goes.

* This is the opinion of someone who once seriously considered gaining 50 pounds because she remembered the shit she put up with at a higher weight as so much less soul-destroying than the shit she was currently putting up with but then decided she was probably romanticizing nostalgic memories.*
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
* This is the opinion of someone who once seriously considered gaining 50 pounds because she remembered the shit she put up with at a higher weight as so much less soul-destroying than the shit she was currently putting up with but then decided she was probably romanticizing nostalgic memories.*

Probably you were, but that doesn't mean being fat didn't do anything for you. I remember the first time I put on noticeable excess weight, in my late 20s, how I stopped getting squished on the bus because I took up more room. And fat is insulation against all kinds of things besides the cold.

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'm still conflicted about my reactions to assertions that some people make that they eat relatively little and get significant exercise yet don't lose fat. Intellectually, I can piece together the fact that there can be different absorption rates, and that our physiologies can cling to a certain shape despite our earnest efforts. But my (admittedly biased) observed samples of ingested-portion size to patron size at public eating establishments have an extremely high degree of correlation. So on one hand I'm extremely sympathetic with the quite-rational arguments people have made to explain the myriad of circumstances leading to their current shape, but on the other I still hear myself thinking "eating less would probably help regardless".

I always figure the first law of thermodynamics holds for everyone. One way or another, if you're fat you're getting more calories than you're burning. And I may be less sympathetic about the myriad explanations than you -- I have the zeal of the converted, and I know how many of my own "explanations" are bullshit rationalizations. And a lot of the "the chart says my BMI is way too high, but really, I'm not fat" stuff is also bullshit. For some people that's true, but for many, it's just distorted body image and denial.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Another I heard last week was that our government is showing its concern about eating disorders by banning websites that glorify eating disorders. If that spreads to TV, they will have to close VH1 down!

You know, this is stupid. 90% of people who appear on TV may be underweight, but as far as I know there are no programs that instruct girls how to be anorexic, and give them tips on how to trick their worried parents into thinking they're eating, etc which is what those websites do.

<snip>

What can we do?

Kids should get taught that most people on TV are on TV because they're thinner and prettier than others, not because they're representative.

And we really need to stop using food as a reward or punishment.

The "Celebrity Diet" programs on VH1 go pretty damn close: anything that celebrates how someone went from a dress size 12 to 6 (UK size) is downrightright dangerous. These shows advocate every diet fad in the book and quite a few outside it. I don't think I have seen bulimia advocated but it's a close run thing.

As for people being on TV because they are thinner and prettier than the run of the mill, that is horseshit. Most people get on TV because they are prettier or more handsome. Thinner doesn't come into it, in Britain anyway. Failing that they can go into politics, aka "Showbiz for ugly folks".

I have to agree 100% with your last point and also stop punishing kids for simply not clearing their plate.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DaisyM:
Re: someone who is overweight, such a remark seems to me to be patronizing, cruel, or uninformed. such remarks do not help the person lose weight in any sort of healthy way; usually it backfires.

You appear to have confused Hell with All Saints. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I'm still conflicted about my reactions to assertions that some people make that they eat relatively little and get significant exercise yet don't lose fat. Intellectually, I can piece together the fact that there can be different absorption rates, and that our physiologies can cling to a certain shape despite our earnest efforts. But my (admittedly biased) observed samples of ingested-portion size to patron size at public eating establishments have an extremely high degree of correlation. So on one hand I'm extremely sympathetic with the quite-rational arguments people have made to explain the myriad of circumstances leading to their current shape, but on the other I still hear myself thinking "eating less would probably help regardless".

I always figure the first law of thermodynamics holds for everyone. One way or another, if you're fat you're getting more calories than you're burning.
It seems undeniably true that if you're gaining weight, then you are ingesting more calories than you are expending (excepting for the sake of argument a few rare medical conditions). But I suspect that while you are overeating for you that doesn't necessarily mean you are always overeating in a social sense, i.e. eating socially unacceptably large amounts of food. (Or, in the case of thin people, eating socially unacceptably small amounts of food.) There was an hospital specialist in obesity on the TV a few weeks ago who said that he fairly regularly encountered people who's resting metabolic rate was in the order of 900 calories a day. I don't know how common this is - presumably he will deal with extremes on a daily basis - but it does seem fairly commmon-sensical that people eating the same diet and doing the same amount of exercise will not necessarily wind up the same weight. People's calorific needs vary for all sorts of reasons, and we all know people who, for instance, eat appallingly and never gain weight (the bastards!).

It seems plausible, then, that for some people the extreme measures to which they would have to go to lose weight may not be acceptable. If, for instance, they would have to restrict their social life to an extent they find unacceptable or isolating, or spend all their spare time exercising to the detriment of other contructive activities, they may decide that the game isn't worth the candle. This seems to me like a rational choice in some circumstances, and not necessarily a case of being lazy or greedy.

In my own case, I'm tending towards thinking that the mere act of measuring and writing down alters your perception of what you are eating, and that I probably normally sneak in loads more calories without being aware of it. But I'm curious now, to see what happens, if anything, if I keep journalling without consciously trying to diet. (Don't worry, I won't report back).

I have to admit I was a bit uncomfortable with the size 20 girl in the article. It's not a condition I'm terribly familiar with, but if she's insulin resistant doesn't that mean that her diet is already causing her a concrete, measurable health problem? One which could be helped by changing her habits? In which case - though it's good that she's not picked on, and I'm not suggesting that picking on her would help in any way - it does seem that her unconditional acceptance of her current lifestyle is also a bit problematic.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
Pretty Much Everyone but BUT not everyone.

Some of us have never been ridiculed for being fat- but we have been ridiculed for being thin. It's life. Get used to it. You were mocked for being overwieght and that's awful. Plenty of us were mocked for being underweight and its just as awful. Trust me.

The issue isn't so much that people are cruel, and will grab at whatever taunt they think will hurt most - of course they are and, as you say, that's life.

The issue for me is that when official agencies start to give sanction to people's prejudices, and implement policies that feed into people's need for a sense of superiority, offer up a scapegoat on a plate, then things turn a lot nastier very quickly. As a smoker, you should be well aware of that.
 
Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
Originally posted by Laura:

quote:
What's to be done? I'm not saying sending notes home is good, but what is the solution?
I think the solution is for people to stop treating the world like a hall of mirrors and start seeing other people for what they are: other people, separate from themselves.

If I taunt someone else for being fat or thin, what I'm really saying is:

- I look at you and I see the part of myself that I'm afraid is lazy/ugly/greedy/undisciplined, and I think that by punishing you, I can annihilate my own faults.
- I look at you and I see the part of myself that I'm afraid is vain/shallow/superficial/selfish, and I think that by punishing you, I can annihilate my own faults.
- I look at you and I see somebody I wouldn't want to have sex with, so there's no reason for you to exist at all.
- I look at you and I see somebody I think somebody else would want to have sex with because you don't look like me, therefore it follows that you are making me undesirable and unlovable, so I have to make you undesirable and unlovable to protect myself.
- I look at you and I see somebody whom I or others think beautiful. Since you are beautiful, I must therefore be ugly, and who are you to make me ugly? If I never had to look at you I would be beautiful again.
- I look at you and I see somebody whom I or others think beautiful. I strive to resemble you so that I can be beautiful. Since I am not you, I can never resemble you, and I blame you for tormenting me in this way.
- I look at you and I see the part of myself that is industrious/enlightened/refined/disciplined, and I think that by criticizing what I perceive to be the opposite qualities embodied in you, I can assert my superiority.
- I look at you and I see the part of myself that is loving/humble/generous/self-sacrificing/free of vanity, and I think that by criticizing what I perceive to be the opposite qualities embodied in you, I can assert my superiority.
- I look at you and I see somebody who has no problem taking up space and claiming what she wants and needs. The part of me that knows it is holy to want and need nothing and no-one, wishes it could make the public declaration, "I eat," and thereby claim my right to live.
- I look at you and I see somebody who takes up as little space as possible and appears to have no problem denying her wants and needs. The part of me that knows it is holy to want and need nothing and no-one, wishes it could make the public declaration, "I never eat," and thereby claim my right to live.
- I look at you and I see somebody who can be hurt by some criticism or other, and hurting you makes me powerful, so calling you "fat" or "thin" is good enough for me.
- I look at you and I see someone who looks small and puny, which makes me look big and strong when I stand next to you.
- I look at you and I seem to see any one of ten thousand other things, but all I really see is myself.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
- I look at your post and think "my God, what a tedious Sigmund Freud wannabe".
- I look at your post and, instead of losing the will to live, wish you would lose the will to live instead.
- I look at your post and get a strong desire to fall into a deep and lasting sleeeeddffbggbvnnbnnnnbnnnbnnngnnnhnnnhn nhnhhhhgg..........
 
Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
Thanks, Marvin! Coming from you, that's a compliment. [Smile]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
There was an hospital specialist in obesity on the TV a few weeks ago who said that he fairly regularly encountered people who's resting metabolic rate was in the order of 900 calories a day. I don't know how common this is - presumably he will deal with extremes on a daily basis - but it does seem fairly commmon-sensical that people eating the same diet and doing the same amount of exercise will not necessarily wind up the same weight. People's calorific needs vary for all sorts of reasons, and we all know people who, for instance, eat appallingly and never gain weight (the bastards!).

I have no doubt this is true. But my experiences at Souplantation make me think there's a lot to RooK's saying that there are a heck of a lot of fat people who just shovel food in like there's no tomorrow. Last time I was at Souplantation (a buffet restaurant chain which serves all you can eat for $8.99 or so) I saw scores of fat people piling their plates high with all sorts of fattening goodies. (The Souplantation people are freakin' brilliant at making you feel like it's okay to pig out. The places are set up so first you go through the salad bar, which is almost all pretty healthy food, with a few high-calorie pasta salads thrown in as tastes of the goodness to come, and then you enter a large open dining room, which has the creamy soups, pizzas, blueberry muffins, etc etc off to one side. So you virtuously make yourself a salad first, and then you can rationalize the mac and cheese.)

quote:
It seems plausible, then, that for some people the extreme measures to which they would have to go to lose weight may not be acceptable. If, for instance, they would have to restrict their social life to an extent they find unacceptable or isolating, or spend all their spare time exercising to the detriment of other contructive activities, they may decide that the game isn't worth the candle. This seems to me like a rational choice in some circumstances, and not necessarily a case of being lazy or greedy.
And I think a lot of people who have lost weight have found that the diet and exercise they have to do to maintain their lower weight are simply not acceptable or perhaps not possible. I don't blame them. But at the same time when I watch someone consume 3000 calories in one setting, and that person isn't an athlete, I know they could cut down and still go out to eat with friends and family.

quote:
In my own case, I'm tending towards thinking that the mere act of measuring and writing down alters your perception of what you are eating, and that I probably normally sneak in loads more calories without being aware of it. But I'm curious now, to see what happens, if anything, if I keep journalling without consciously trying to diet.
I know it makes an enormous difference in my eating habits if I find myself writing "double latte, chocolate chip scone" for breakfast three days in a row.

Edit: The other thing about Souplantation ... it's awkward to go back through the salad bar for seconds, but easy to go back for more muffins. Another example of environment setting us up to eat poorly -- not because Souplantation Inc wants us to be fat, but because of the way they make their money, I'm sure.

[ 09. January 2007, 14:52: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
quote:
------------------------------
In my own case, I'm tending towards thinking that the mere act of measuring and writing down alters your perception of what you are eating, and that I probably normally sneak in loads more calories without being aware of it. But I'm curious now, to see what happens, if anything, if I keep journalling without consciously trying to diet.
------------------------------

I know it makes an enormous difference in my eating habits if I find myself writing "double latte, chocolate chip scone" for breakfast three days in a row.

I've been in the company of people who were trying to lose weight but were very forgetful about what they were eating. For example:

- Get to the train station, buy and consume large ham-and-cheese-croissant-sandwich-thing, almost enough to be a meal in itself
- Get to destination, buy and consume lunch and large calorific drink
- Tea 'n' biscuits post-event
- Go back to train station, buy latte and large muffin.

At this point, her mother made a remark along the lines of "I thought you were watching your weight," which was met with protests of, "But you're forgetting that I haven't eaten anything since breakfast!"

Let me be clear, we're talking about at least a six-hour timespan here, not 45 minutes. But she did still forget about some of the snacks she had eaten between meals... and even about some of the meals she had eaten between meals... Which probably wouldn't have happened if she had been writing it down as she went along.

That's why I don't write anything down if I can help it.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
there is certainly nothing new under the sun.
Hopefully this thread will be archieved and we can move on from the fat threads and just link to this one. I am currently back to my wonderful eating plan and waiting for neck pain to totally subside before I start to work out a lot again. At least I can walk. But the machines at 24 Fitness really hellp you to burn off hyper nervous energy.

I have learned that some people like RooK will truly open their eyes and try to understand (I know you did so don't even try saying you didn't)....but most others are not interested in learning something new and need to hold on to hard-ass views on fat. And that means I have to develop a thicker skin and I think I have. But it has taken years (I am 39 now). And a lot of deprogramming.

I find now that I am more comfortable with myself, I hardly ever hear to my face insults about me being fat. It might be though I have a lot of more mature people around me, I don't know.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
The drinks are what did it for me. I was drinking at least one beer a night, sometimes two.

After my divorce, I immediately dropped 40 pounds-- well, about 240, if you count my ex. [Big Grin] )Mostly due to appetite loss. But since then I seem to have found the world's most perfect maintenace diet. (Barring the holidays... and I seem to have dropped the 10 lbs I was bitching about. Took about a week-plus of drastically restricted eating.)

For me, It seems to all be dependant on rigorous exercise, and if anything fucks with that, I'm screwed.

(Interesting side note-- while my foot was healing, I was developing these intense dairy cravings-- like I'd crave slice after slice of cheese. I'm convinced my body needed the calcium, because things started improving when I dropped the diet for a while and gave into the dairy craving. And I think I made the right choice-- in fact, I'm on cloud nine about it.Total tangent, but just another thought.)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
It seems undeniably true that if you're gaining weight, then you are ingesting more calories than you are expending (excepting for the sake of argument a few rare medical conditions)

Rare? Find even one and you can probably win a Nobel Prize, and we can all go to Mars.
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Yes, Ken, but some of us need fewer calories than others. Which is a maddening but nobel prize winning fact. I did though manage to lose 40 lbs after eating less carbs and then taking explosive insulin resistant solving the problem drugs. My body became more efficent and I could permit myself to eat a bit more.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
I strongly believe that one's body does often know what one needs to eat. Kelly, your example about craving dairy and it helping when you gave in and ate dairy is an excellent example. Similarly, when I was eating with vegetarians only, but wouldn't eat beans, I seriously started to crave protein. Suddenly found myself loving ground beef--problem fixed. I wonder if bodies universally know what they need mostly.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
It seems undeniably true that if you're gaining weight, then you are ingesting more calories than you are expending (excepting for the sake of argument a few rare medical conditions)

Rare? Find even one and you can probably win a Nobel Prize, and we can all go to Mars.
I thought there was some thyroid thing? And there are some drugs with weight gain as a side-effect, aren't there?

RuthW: Yes, I'm not denying that one efficient way to get fat is to eat loads and loads. That'll usually work [Biased]
 
Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
I don't think one can always take cravings as gospel, because our appetites grow with what they feed on. The more of something you consume, the more of it you're likely to want.

However, giving in to a dairy craving when you have a broken bone seems like a no-brainer to me! Gee, I want to eat larger than usual amounts of calcium-rich foodstuffs, big wonder why [Razz]

Anyway... IMO it only makes sense to talk about "giving in" to a dairy craving if you have medical or ethical reasons to avoid dairy. In the world of me, dairy food is food, and I personally experience food cravings many times a day. By giving in to them, I avoid dying.
 
Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :
 
Hmmm.

My thing is motivation. Wanting to lose weight was just not enough. Even wanting to be fitter/healthier didn't really help.

Then I moved to University and had a very strict food budget. Suddenly 'I can't have that, it's too expensive' overtook ' I shouldn't have that it's fattening/high GI/bad for me' and I lost about 25kg, even better it stayed off until I went on the road as event tech crew and was fed at weird hours by well-meaning Christians while getting very little exercise. Got back to cooking for myself and it's gone again.

Same was true of exercise. I simply can't say 'I need some exercise, what shall I go and do?' So I dance. I go have fun with my friends. I travel around the country to spend four hours with a room full of near-strangers spinning and skipping about! The fact that it's exercise is a beneficial side-effect, go figure.

So I don't think warning people of the dangers of being overweight is any use at all - most overweight people KNOW IT and know it's not great for their bodies. Nothing is going to demotivate a person in that position like pointing it out.
 
Posted by WatersOfBabylon (# 11893) on :
 
Instead of craving actual food groups, I find myself craving colors. Last month, I could not get enough orange in my diet. I wanted carrots, squash, and sweet potatoes all the time. This month, he trend seems to be red-- I dump marinara sauce on anything and everything.

Maybe I should just buy a big bag of M&Ms and work through the rainbow that way...
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
You'll probably stay healthier with the marinara sauce! [Razz]
 
Posted by To The Pain (# 12235) on :
 
Waters, could that be to do with the compounds that give foods their colours?

Someone correct me if I'm way off base (I'm an anatomist, not a nutritionist), but aren't the carotenes that make so many foods orange effective anti-oxidants? I seem to remember that from somewhere? So you *could* have been recognising a need to mop-up some free-radicals only cravings aren't generally as specific as 'I think we need some anti-oxidants today' so they go for 'orange, orange is good'

Hmmm...maybe I better stick to anatomy.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The "Celebrity Diet" programs on VH1 go pretty damn close: anything that celebrates how someone went from a dress size 12 to 6 (UK size) is downrightright dangerous. These shows advocate every diet fad in the book and quite a few outside it. I don't think I have seen bulimia advocated but it's a close run thing.

As for people being on TV because they are thinner and prettier than the run of the mill, that is horseshit. Most people get on TV because they are prettier or more handsome. Thinner doesn't come into it, in Britain anyway. Failing that they can go into politics, aka "Showbiz for ugly folks".

I have to admit that I haven't seen the celebrity diet programs, so you may be right about that. But I think most crash diets - as dangerous as they may be - as least pay lip service to health, which is different than pro-ana sites which explicitly say that being thin is more important than being healthy. I'm pretty sure most ISPs here won't allow those sites any more.

As for the importance of thinness for aspiring TV stars - it may be a pond difference. Every actor I've ever talked to has a story about an agent or casting director or someone pulling them aside and telling them that if they want to start getting parts, they need to drop 15-30 pounds, which would have made them underweight. And these aren't people auditioning for sitcoms, these are people auditioning for crappy managerial training videos.

quote:
]Originally posted by Iole Nui:
The issue for me is that when official agencies start to give sanction to people's prejudices, and implement policies that feed into people's need for a sense of superiority, offer up a scapegoat on a plate, then things turn a lot nastier very quickly.

The interesting thing that I don't think the article mentioned was that, while reporting kids' BMI scores to their parents may be new, reporting on their fitness levels or lack of it isn't.

Throughout elementary school, once a year we got weighed and measured in front of our peers, and I'm pretty sure that information got sent home. And during all my years of physical education - which mostly consisted of playing kickball or walking around the blacktop/gym - once a year we were given the presidential fitness test, in which you had to do pull-ups, sit-ups, and timed runs of different lengths. Again, all done while your peers stared at you, and the results of which also got sent home. Maybe sometime in the last 15 years that stopped happening, so this really is introducing a new measure that could cause things in schools to get nastier than they already are, but I suspect it's just more of the same red state/blue state shit.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think a lot of children do not have a safe place to play outdoors. In the inner city many children are parked in front of the TV as soon as they get home from school. If I were a parent living in a dangerous neighborhood, this is what I would do.

In more affluent communities, children are driven to various activities, many of which do not involve much physical excercise.

I don't see the answer.

Moo

I don't see the answer either. But I know that one of the contributing factors to my being overweight as a kid was that, for the first few years of elementary school, someone ran an after-school program. It wasn't much - I think the staffers may have been college kids, and although they occasionally provided structured activities, they mostly just supervised us as we ran around on the playground.

The program got cut - I think as part of Reagan's War on the Poor - and that had a devastating effect on the community. My neighborhood had a lot of single working mothers, so a lot of the kids ended up in various daycares. Instead of just staying at school playing with my friends until five, I went home. There was a huge drop in my activity level because I couldn't play with my friends in daycare without being enrolled in it, and there was nobody left in my neighborhood to play with.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I strongly believe that one's body does often know what one needs to eat.

Yeah, well, I think my body must be a filthy rotten liar then. It keeps telling me it needs Mars Bars more than broccoli, and this is evidently not true [Disappointed] !

Ans: who's been fighting the voices from within for quite some time now..... [Ultra confused]
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
[Devil]
[oh yeah, keep it going...put this thread out of its misery... [Snore] dang fat thread.]

[ 09. January 2007, 18:37: Message edited by: duchess ]
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
I'm not going to deny that in many cases, you are right. But, take a look at this.


Great. Something that now I am scared I have! I actually have some of these symptons. I have to now get married so that I can permit myself to have a "bed partner" (like the article says). Then I will know for sure!

[eta: Lightning striking Silicon Valley twice...hell freezing over...and the jackpot in VEGAS suddenly becoming mine.]

If you have medical insurance, go to the Mayo Clinic website and look up signs and symptoms of sleep apnea. Print the pages, and then mark the symptoms you have. Then, go to your doctor with this list. Do not take "no" for an answer until somebody finds out why you have those symptoms.

If you have sleep apnea, you are putting a chronic stress on your system. That is why some doctors believe that sleep apnea cause you to put on weight, no matter what you do. Here is a releated article about stress.

Those symptoms you have may not be from sleep apnea. There are other causes for many of them. (I just had so many of the symptoms that the pulmonologist my family doctor referred me to had no trouble recommending me for a sleep study.) But, those symptoms are caused by something. Find out what is causing the problems so you can treat causes, not symptoms.

If you do nothing about your health, no one else will.

Oh, if you don't have health insurance, good luck. Sleep studies are expensive. I paid around $1000 last year in various fees and payments to doctors and clinics, and I have health insurance. But, since I have central sleep apnea along with obstructive sleep apnea, my life at risk here without my little plug-in companion on a table next to the bed. (And the new CPAP, C-Flex, and BiPAP machines are now quiet. A heating or air conditioning vent in the room is noisier.)
 
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And during all my years of physical education - which mostly consisted of playing kickball or walking around the blacktop/gym - once a year we were given the presidential fitness test, in which you had to do pull-ups, sit-ups, and timed runs of different lengths.

We had those too, in elementary school. They seemed like part and parcel of everything else we did in P.E., which all seemed designed to show what a clutz I was and at the bottom of the heap in everything. No additional embarrassment attached to doing them though, everyone already knew I sucked in gym.
 
Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WatersOfBabylon:
As an aside, I've talked to several people who said that the "good" pro-recovery websites aided their disordered eating habits. I even had a friend develop an ED in middle school when someone came in to talk to the young women about EDs. By telling them what not to do, this friend got ideas.

Maybe some people are finding out methods earlier than otherwise, but I have it on good authority that those who have this compulsive disorder will find a way to exercise it, one way or another. You don't need a website to tell you how to stick a finger down your throat for this purpose, or how you feel after Thanksgiving dinner.

So, would you want your friend to suffer with an ED until middle age, making her life and those around her increasingly hellish—or are you happy she is in treatment now (I hope).
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I strongly believe that one's body does often know what one needs to eat.

Yeah, well, I think my body must be a filthy rotten liar then. It keeps telling me it needs Mars Bars more than broccoli, and this is evidently not true [Disappointed] !

Ans: who's been fighting the voices from within for quite some time now..... [Ultra confused]

[Big Grin] Well, yeah, there's that...

Although IME when I eat a more-or-less balanced diet, or take multivitamins, chocolate cravings seem to diminish (they never go away [Big Grin] )

The kind of craving I was experiencing was different, though-- it seemed to have nothing to do with my usual "taste" preferences. It was like "No, not chocolate, not the croissant-- chedder cheese. Lots of it. And meat, too. Hell with the bun"

Or "Apple juice. Not water, not soda-- apple juice."
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
We had those too, in elementary school. They seemed like part and parcel of everything else we did in P.E., which all seemed designed to show what a clutz I was and at the bottom of the heap in everything. No additional embarrassment attached to doing them though, everyone already knew I sucked in gym.

I detested them. I wasn't the best on the playground, but I wasn't the worst, either. And that rite of public humiliation descended every spring. And had fuck-all to do with anything we had done in gym/recess all year. I mean, we ran a couple of laps almost every day, but we never did sit-ups or push-ups and rarely even got to play on the monkey bars or chin-up bars (too far away from the school to be an everyday activity). And since they didn't really teach us PE or health, it wasn't like they told us there were things we could do to improve our scores, although at a certain point you could figure that out. It was just this arbitrary yearly evaluation.

Which, no doubt, is what the people now getting BMI scores without context or instruction feel about them. But no one tried to argue that the fact that certain people couldn't do (m)any chin-ups was a good thing.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I strongly believe that one's body does often know what one needs to eat.

Yeah, well, I think my body must be a filthy rotten liar then. It keeps telling me it needs Mars Bars more than broccoli, and this is evidently not true [Disappointed] !

Ans: who's been fighting the voices from within for quite some time now..... [Ultra confused]

[Big Grin] Well, yeah, there's that...

Although IME when I eat a more-or-less balanced diet, or take multivitamins, chocolate cravings seem to diminish (they never go away [Big Grin] )

The kind of craving I was experiencing was different, though-- it seemed to have nothing to do with my usual "taste" preferences. It was like "No, not chocolate, not the croissant-- chedder cheese. Lots of it. And meat, too. Hell with the bun"

Or "Apple juice. Not water, not soda-- apple juice."

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I'm thinking of. I'm somewhat hypoglycemic and I love chocolate as much as anyone, but if my sugar's in the wrong place, chocolate just isn't satisfying. It tastes fine, but the craving for substance is much deeper. Maybe I'm weird and that's just my body self regulating, but it completely changes the way I eat when it's present and taste just isn't relevant at all.
 
Posted by Oriel (# 748) on :
 
I have the same thing, and usually it's fruit I'm after. The trouble is that if there isn't any fruit around the craving doesn't go away and I have to eat something even though it doesn't satisfy. So if there's no fruit, but there is chocolate, I'm in trouble.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
When I was pregnant I was obsessed with apple juice - practically dreamt about it. Weird, because I never liked apple juice before, and don't like it now.

I don't know what apple juice in particular - as opposed to any old fruit juice - might have in it that a body could need, though?
 
Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
Why not keep some fruit about your person at all times? If it runs out, you'll have to wait until you're totally ravenous.

If totally ravenous and stranded on a chocolate island, well, no harm done, right?

(Assuming you don't accidentally somehow end up stranded on a chocolate island every day.)
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Iole, some particular vitamin, maybe?
 
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 
It seems to me that what RooK and others say is undeniably true: there is a level of food intake at which pretty much anyone will lose weight. What's more, even if that level is much lower for me than it is for other people (for whatever reason), that doesn't change the fundamental principle. If I need, say, 1000 calories a day to maintain weight balance, then it shouldn't hurt me medically to consume 1000 calories a day, even though everybody else eats, and maybe needs, 2-3 times as much.

The problem, and the reason that Rook and co. are unhelpful, is that most of us don't live in complete isolation, and our food intake is strongly affected by social and economic factors. The fact that food is readily available, and often consumed in a social setting, is a much bigger problem for some people than it is for others. It's not a huge problem for me, because I'm so anti-social [Smile]

But it's rather unfair to assume that, because you're the kind of person whose idea of losing weight is to eat one fewer bowl of ice-cream, that a person who is already living on celery ought to be able to do it if you can.

Anyhow, if you're the kind of person who needs very little food to maintain reasonable weight, as I am (for various reasons), then maintaining weight has certain costs. These are mine: regular, punishing exercise; never eating socially; weighing and measuring all your food, every meal; no alcoholic drinks except on feast days (yikes!); absolutely no relaxation of the regime, even on holiday, or on business trips, or in periods of illness; absolutely no choccy, sweets, nuts, cheese, cake, etc., even at Christmas.

For me, the benefits of being thin (just about) outweigh these costs. But it's a close fucking call, I can tell you. As I said before, if that stops being the case, I will get fat, no question about it.

Incidentally, and apropos nothing, reading some of the previous posts made me reconsider how I think about sexual attractiveness. I would previously have said (confessed?) that I am not at all attracted to women whom I think of as fat. But it now occurs to me to wonder if I have this the wrong way around: maybe I think of as `fat' those women whose shape I don't find attractive? That's an odd thought for me, because I've always assumed that nature has made us attracted to people who are likely to live long, healthy lives; and being either painfully thin or painfully fat is unlikely to qualify.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Anyhow, if you're the kind of person who needs very little food to maintain reasonable weight, as I am (for various reasons), then maintaining weight has certain costs. These are mine: regular, punishing exercise; never eating socially; weighing and measuring all your food, every meal; no alcoholic drinks except on feast days (yikes!); absolutely no relaxation of the regime, even on holiday, or on business trips, or in periods of illness; absolutely no choccy, sweets, nuts, cheese, cake, etc., even at Christmas.

I think you are right, and this is how quite a lot of people have to live to maintain their weight. Which is why it is terribly irritating when well meaning people say things like 'Oh, just drop the cream cakes and take the stairs occasionally, that's all I had to do to lose weight' or 'Come on, join in, a treat once or twice a week won't do you any harm'.

It is interesting, I think, that I've read a lot recently saying that a strong, active network of friends is one of the greatest indicators of likely good health and good life expectancy. Given that so much eating is social, it makes me wonder whether maintaining a social life at the expense of gaining a few pounds is actually better for your health.
 
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
I think you are right, and this is how quite a lot of people have to live to maintain their weight. Which is why it is terribly irritating when well meaning people say things like 'Oh, just drop the cream cakes and take the stairs occasionally, that's all I had to do to lose weight' or 'Come on, join in, a treat once or twice a week won't do you any harm'.

Yeah, life's a bitch. There are no `treats' of that kind in my life. I don't even eat cake at Christmas.

On the other hand, I find it hard to understand why my students have such difficulty passing examinations. After all, all you have to do is a bit of study, right? That's all I did! In other words, the fact that -- because I am a middle-aged, hypothyroid, desk jockey -- maintaining my weight is such a pain in the arse, hasn't made me any more sympathetic to other people's different problems. Lord, have mercy [Hot and Hormonal]

quote:

It is interesting, I think, that I've read a lot recently saying that a strong, active network of friends is one of the greatest indicators of likely good health and good life expectancy. Given that so much eating is social, it makes me wonder whether maintaining a social life at the expense of gaining a few pounds is actually better for your health.

Maybe; the problem is whether one could limit it to a few pounds. Because I travel a lot on business, social eating and drinking has the potential to be a huge problem for me (and for many others, I guess). If I could eat socially and only gain a few pounds, I would. It's the few stones that worry me more [Smile] My rule is that I just don't do it.

Incidentally, concerning the question ``How do we teach our children about weight management?''...

I think it is important to teach children (and maybe adults) that appetite is a bad indicator of food needs. Since the human body is well adapted to survive periods of scarcity, over-eating when food is plentiful has a survival advantage. We are all descended from people (and maybe apes) who like to eat more than they need.

What this means is that (sadly) for most of us, calorie-counting is a more reliable guide to our food intake than our own bodies are. Once we get past childhood, weight management for many (most?) of us will inevitably equate to a good deal of hunger, a good deal of the time [Frown]

Ultimately, people need to know that weight control is a cost-benefit decision. Both the costs, and the benefits, will vary from person to person and from time to time. It is utterly unreasonable to condemn those people for whom the costs outweight the benefits, and very few of us will get the benefits without the costs,
 
Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
quote:
I think it is important to teach children (and maybe adults) that appetite is a bad indicator of food needs. Since the human body is well adapted to survive periods of scarcity, over-eating when food is plentiful has a survival advantage. We are all descended from people (and maybe apes) who like to eat more than they need.
If that were really true, children would not have to be trained, from the youngest possible age, to ignore their appetites. And yet they are trained to keep eating long past the point of hunger, so as not to "waste food". It seems that most tiny children are trained in this way. It seems to be the norm.

Then, having gone to great lengths to train them to force down their food, we call it "natural". Children do not have to be trained to do things that come completely naturally to them.

This might have made sense throughout most of history, when people could not take an abundance of food for granted. In that context, it made sense to eat as much as possible in one sitting, so you could get through the next indefinite period of scarcity without starving.

It is also certainly the case that the more food is put in front of people, in terms of portion size, the more they will eat.

And yet few people, presented with unlimited quantities of the foods they like, will keep eating and eating until their stomachs rupture. Some animals will do this, but humans won't. What makes them stop? Why is it "natural" to force down your food to a certain point, but not beyond it?

Unusually, my grandmother didn't force her children to eat everything on their plates. In turn, my mother didn't force me. As a result, I'm not tempted to eat more than I'm hungry for. My mother and I are both considered extremely thin by most other people (I'm a UK size 10 above the waist and a 12 below, which most people describe as "stick insect".)

And even people who are tempted, know the difference. My father starved when he was a child, and sometimes as an adult, and a normal portion size for him was two or three meals' worth. He considered it a sin to waste food, and psychologically, also, he needed to overeat in order to feel safe. Quite often he expressed discomfort and stress, and fear that he would not be able to finish every bite of the colossal servings he dished out for himself. He would have to make himself eat it all. Only towards the end of his life did he begin to feel safe enough to leave anything on his plate. Needless to say, he was obese. I would describe his behaviour as a natural psychological reaction to early (and later) life-threatening experience. But if anyone is really going to insist that it was wholly biologically "natural" for him to overeat so grossly, despite great discomfort, I don't agree.

Yes, our appetites are not an infallible guide, because our appetites grow with what they feed on. That doesn't mean our appetites are to be ignored as resolutely as they are. Many cultures - not this one - have customs which regulate when and how to eat, so eating habits are not left to appetite alone.

In those cultures, eating is a social experience - well, in cultures that don't hate and fear food as most English-speaking cultures do, eating really is a social experience. Mealtimes aren't errands to be gotten over with and fitted in between other chores, they are gatherings of family and friends, interacting with each other, eating slowly over a period of time. In this context, mealtimes in company cause people to eat less.

Mealtimes in company also cause me to eat less, but for different reasons. For one thing, I'm usually the only one who waits for everyone else to be served, so often everyone else has gobbled down entire platefuls of food before I get a single bite. I'm also careful not to finish a particular course much earlier or much later than others, so I hardly ever get more than a couple of bites before everyone else is done. I take small bites (stops you choking if you're conversing with others) over against the big chipmunk-cheeked chunks that my companions take. And when they've eaten every scrap and sopped up every last drop of residue from every one of their own plates, my neighbours eye up what's on my plate, and they stake their claim on it. Then they say, "oh I'm stuffed, replete, I feel sick," - implying and sometimes stating that their enjoyment is directly proportional to the amount of food consumed. Quite often, they spend the rest of the evening groaning with discomfort.

Meanwhile, I quite often leave social meals feeling hungry, and have to satisfy my hunger when I get home, because I haven't had the opportunity to eat enough, faced with my companions' headlong rush to stuff down as much and as fast as possible. And this is often despite the fact that the dinner plates are frequently filled right out to the edges, and piled up high in a hillock. It amazes me how enormously most people eat. I realize that no-one wants to hear stuff like that, but the hell with it.

And I don't have similar experiences in France or Italy, just in England. In English-speaking cultures, "loving your food" means eating as much of it as possible. Would anybody accuse the French of not loving food? It's just that their version of loving their food involves actually tasting it, and enjoying it with friends. It involves eating like civilized humans, not feeding like animals. Not coincidentally, they have a much lower obesity rate. Not coincidentally, their obesity rate is increasing as Anglo-Saxon eating habits creep into their culture.

In this culture we don't love food, we hate and fear it. We analyze our mortal enemy and reduce it to its chemical components, trying to find a formula to endure the act of gastronomic unpleasantness[1] without suffering the damage we know in our hearts to be its inevitable consequence. We try to isolate the one chemical in the Mediterranean diet that makes those other people so well and happy, so we can turn it into a pill that we can take instead of descending into the decadence of actual meals. We assume that God and/or nature are cruel, and that what nourishes us destroys us. Like Puritans, we assume that a healthy diet is one utterly devoid of pleasure.

And when we look down at the flabby tummies and load-bearing hips that result from this frenetic merry-go-round of gluttony and neurotic deprivation, we tell ourselves we need to do more of the same! If we just do it all one more time, this time the story will end differently!

[1] Analogous to Harry Enfield's "act of marital unpleasantness" endured by Mr. and Mrs. Cholmondeley-Warner.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
In English-speaking cultures, "loving your food" means eating as much of it as possible. Would anybody accuse the French of not loving food? It's just that their version of loving their food involves actually tasting it, and enjoying it with friends. It involves eating like civilized humans, not feeding like animals.

We must move in different circles. I cannot remember being at a social meal conducted as you describe. So which of us is typical/atypical?

Nor is it the case that my ideas have been formed by furrin parts - cooking and sharing food was always been my main mode of socialising, long before I could afford to travel.
 
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
[QB]
quote:
I think it is important to teach children (and maybe adults) that appetite is a bad indicator of food needs. Since the human body is well adapted to survive periods of scarcity, over-eating when food is plentiful has a survival advantage. We are all descended from people (and maybe apes) who like to eat more than they need.
If that were really true, children would not have to be trained, from the youngest possible age, to ignore their appetites. And yet they are trained to keep eating long past the point of hunger, so as not to "waste food". It seems that most tiny children are trained in this way. It seems to be the norm.

But my experience is that children don't have to be trained to eat past the point of hunger -- so long as they like the food. My kids need absolutely no encouragement to eat chocolate (or sugary fruit, or pasta), for example. Left to their own devices, they will cheerfully eat it until they are ball-shaped.

On the other hand, it takes some effort to get them to eat spinach. But they need spinach (etc) -- I know that, but they don't. Not yet, anyhow.

This, it seems to me, is just evolution again. We need spinach, but in times of scarcity our need for energy-rich foods is more pressing. A skinny person can survive a long time without spinach, but not for very long without calories. So, historically, people who got the same satisfaction from stuffing their heads with spinach as others did from stuffing their heads with (say) sugary fruit would have had fewer descendants.

quote:

It is also certainly the case that the more food is put in front of people, in terms of portion size, the more they will eat.

I agree, but I don't think that's a result of the way we are brought up to think of proper meal-time behaviour. I think it's the result of a million years of natural selection.

quote:

And yet few people, presented with unlimited quantities of the foods they like, will keep eating and eating until their stomachs rupture.

No -- there is no evolutionary advantage to eating until you're so stuffed that the lions get you. Assuming that food has historically mostly been scare, evolution will favour those individuals who eat enough to survive until the next meal -- maybe days away -- but no so much that they get eaten themselves.

This is why, I think, most people consistently eat somewhat too much. My belief is that people who are overweight don't get that way because they regularly and habitutally eat to bursting, but because they consistently eat just a bit more than they need.

Of course I am aware that there are some real porkers out there. I've certainly seen people put on a single plate an amount of food that would do me for a week. I don't know if this is the result of a healthy (historically healthy) biological drive gone awry, or some kind of pathology.

quote:

But if anyone is really going to insist that it was wholly biologically "natural" for him to overeat so grossly, despite great discomfort, I don't agree.

No: as I said, my feeling is that the ``natural'' thing is to eat somewhat too much, not grossly too much. There may be some other process at work that makes the one thing lead to the other in some people and not in others, or it may be a psychological disorder, as you suggest.

quote:

Yes, our appetites are not an infallible guide, because our appetites grow with what they feed on.

But do they? If they do, then I can see how there would be a natural progression from low-level overeating (which, I have suggested, is evolutionarily determined) to extreme overeating in at least some people.

quote:

Then they say, "oh I'm stuffed, replete, I feel sick," - implying and sometimes stating that their enjoyment is directly proportional to the amount of food consumed. Quite often, they spend the rest of the evening groaning with discomfort.

I know quite a few overweight people, but I know very few who eat like this. Unless you eat like this regularly, it doesn't make you fat. What makes you fat is eating a big sandwich when a small one would do, consistently and over a long period of time.

quote:

We assume that God and/or nature are cruel, and that what nourishes us destroys us. Like Puritans, we assume that a healthy diet is one utterly devoid of pleasure.

Neither God nor nature are cruel, but nature is indifferent. Nature does not care that we live in a time of plenty, with biological drives and metabolic processes that developed in a time of scarcity.

If you don't feel any need to eat more than you need to last you the next eight hours or whatever, I respectfully suggest that you are in the minority.

However, I tend to agree that, in the West, we have distorted a natural drive (to overeat somewhat) into something destructive and degrading. My contention is only that we ought to recognize the evolutionary origin of the problem, rather than exclusively blaming ourselves (except that we don't blame ourselves, we blame everybody else).

I think I want to be clear what I am not saying: I am not saying that, because something is a result of natural selection, it is therefore desirable, or unavoidable. I don't expect to be able to satisfy my natural drives (sex, warmth, etc) whenever I feel like it. So I don't expect to be able to satisfy my hunger whenever I feel like it. That's why I still weigh the same at 40-something as I did at 18.

I think many people find weight control difficult because they are falsely given to expect to be able to do it without cost. My contention is that evolution has not made this possible for most of us. Weight control in the modern world is `costly'. If this isn't the case for you, lucky you.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
It seems undeniably true that if you're gaining weight, then you are ingesting more calories than you are expending (excepting for the sake of argument a few rare medical conditions)

Rare? Find even one and you can probably win a Nobel Prize, and we can all go to Mars.
I thought there was some thyroid thing? And there are some drugs with weight gain as a side-effect, aren't there?

There are, but only because they massively decrease the calories expended.

Ken's just pointing out the rather fundamental principle of the conservation of energy.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
It seems undeniably true that if you're gaining weight, then you are ingesting more calories than you are expending (excepting for the sake of argument a few rare medical conditions)

Rare? Find even one and you can probably win a Nobel Prize, and we can all go to Mars.
I thought there was some thyroid thing? And there are some drugs with weight gain as a side-effect, aren't there?

There are, but only because they massively decrease the calories expended.

Oh, OK. Fair enough.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
All the small small children I know eat a little of what's on their plate and then get bored. Making them stay at the table and eat until they're full is very hard. My friend's child always ends up eating five bites, going to play and then about as dinner is done he watns to eat again. My cousin does exactly the same thing.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Doesn't it rather depend on how much they like it? Puttng them in front of a plate of chips gives rather different results to putting them in front of a place of cauliflower.

I drove to the shops to the sound of "No like godidower! Mummy and Daddy like godidower! Like chips." only the other day.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
With my cousin and my friend's child, both children won't even eat things they like for more than a few bites. With another friend who is a better mother, her child is involved in cooking and knows that she can eat as little as she wants but there are things called meal-times when one eats.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
That's my experience too, Gwai. There's the occasional kid who stuffs him-herself,and there's certain foods that are "grazeable" if you leave them out (so don't!) but most kids would be more than happy to drop it if the adults in their lives would get off their backs about "finishing" stuff.

At lunchtime,I will actively say to my charges, "You look like you're not hungry anymore; go ahead and pack up if your done." Nine times out of time they will do it, every once in a while one of them will say "I want three more grapes" and stick around to eat their three grapes, then pack up.

Even I, at age 38, have to actively give myself permission to "waste food" I am not hungry enough to eat.
And we haven't discussed the idea of attatching affection to eating. My neph was beginning to put on weight when he was younger, and you could see what was going on:

Neph: I want another slice of pizza.
Sis: No, you've had four, that's enough
Mom: I am the nice one who really loves you,so I will slip you a slice of pizza when she's not looking.

So it really isn't as easy as cutting calories and increasing activity. I'ts slogging through all your decades worth of stuff around food and excercise so you have the perspective and strength to change your eating/ excercise habits. And it's deciding that you are worth the effort in the first place.
 
Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:
We need spinach, but in times of scarcity our need for energy-rich foods is more pressing.
Not only that: spinach tastes bitter, more so to small children. Since bitter vegetation is the most likely to be poisonous, and sweet vegetation the least likely, more people have a sweet tooth than not. Evolutionary advantage, innit. I'm not as dismissive of these things as I might have appeared to be. What I am saying is that the interplay between biology and culture in the 21st century, does not lead to disaster everywhere.

By pointing out that one of the first things we do to children is to override their natural appetites, I'm not suggesting that giving them carte blanche would lead inevitably to health and happiness. That is why I made what I intended to be a counterbalancing argument about customs and cultures that seem to do a better job of managing appetite than ours does. They may want to do it, but you don't let them, right? And if you were to give them carte blanche in an environment with no junk or fake foods, I do believe that it would take longer for your children to eat enough fruit to become ball-shaped than it would in this one, where snacking, eating confectionery, and eating between meals is particularly widespread. Not because of what you personally would or wouldn't let them do, but because of the presence of fake and corrupt foodstuffs in the environment that alter our tastes unless we make a conscious effort to avoid them.

As we all know, it's only in recent history that refined sugar has become so widely available. Yes, it is only natural that people will want to eat it. And there is more of it in the food supply than there has ever been, what with increased consumption of processed foods, the shelf-life of which is greatly increased by the presence of sugar. Since processed foods contain a lot of sugar, but very few ingredients with much nutritional value, you can easily eat 1000 calories' worth of junk food and be hungry again within a very short time. When this happens, your perception that you need more food is completely accurate - the problem isn't that you aren't taking in enough calories - it's that you aren't taking in enough food! And junk food comes in many fair disguises, often with the fake ID of a "healthier option!" logo.

Not only does this fill us with more calories while making us hungry, it trains us to have a much sweeter tooth than we otherwise would, and to eat food in larger quantities than we otherwise would.

It's plainly obvious that massive unhappiness comes out of the confusion and seeming inevitability that this plunges us into. However, with the right information, it is relatively easy and even enjoyable to attain a healthy weight without sacrifice or misery, outwith physical or psychological illness. I said, given the right information. But because of the miasma of confusion around us, it's nearly impossible for people to hear the right information when it's presented to them. No-one starts out as a glutton for punishment, but when everything and everyone shouts that punishment and illness and sacrifice and misery are the only paths to good health, no wonder people oscillate between saying "sod good health, I'd rather be happy" on the one hand, and submitting to the humiliation rituals of unqualified TV coprophiliacs on the other.[1] Between trying to do something that doesn't work on the one hand, and not trying to do something that doesn't work on the other. Trying to do something that does work would - no, come off it. What planet am I living on? Everybody knows there's no such thing, right?

[1] Camomile tea? Nein danke!!!!
 
Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
Karl, is it really a dichotomy between cauliflower on the one hand, and chips on the other?

Given a plate of homemade chipped potatoes fried in fresh olive oil, and a plate of shop-bought pallid grubs deep-fried in reheated lard adulterated with crankcase oil, which would your kidlets choose then? Is there any chance they would choose the homemade ones, which contrary to stereotype, actually is healthy?

Plus, there must be something in the vegetable kingdom that is not potato-based and nevertheless would still appeal to your kiddies. I would choose chocolate cake over calves' liver, but I would choose to have my fingernails pulled off over calves' liver so that doesn't really prove much about my overall food preferences.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
I'm already finding it really difficult not to pass on my conditioning to Little Nui. It is really difficult not to try to force, coax or harrass him into eating whatever arbitrary amount of food I've served up.

Even though I know intellectually that I can't actually force him (at this age), that he was perfectly capable of regulating his own appetite when breastfeeding, and that making mealtimes into a battleground isn't going to help either of us, I almost have to clench my teeth at times and mutter 'It doesn't matter if he doesn't eat it all. He won't starve. He's just not hungry and if he isn't hungry now, he'll be hungry for dinner'.

I am trying my hardest, and getting better, but it is really hard to keep calm and cheerful when inside all your conditioning is screaming that an unfinished plate == failure and an empty plate == a good eater and a good mother.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
Karl, is it really a dichotomy between cauliflower on the one hand, and chips on the other?

Given a plate of homemade chipped potatoes fried in fresh olive oil, and a plate of shop-bought pallid grubs deep-fried in reheated lard adulterated with crankcase oil, which would your kidlets choose then? Is there any chance they would choose the homemade ones, which contrary to stereotype, actually is healthy?
<snip>

There's a problem there. Olive oil isn't much use for deep-frying potatoes, because it isn't hot enough. Lard on the other hand fries much hotter which is necessary when making chips.

So they don't like either much. They would prefer home made chips but we haven't done those in years (the deepfat fryer comes out for donuts and puri) lots of pseudo-roast spuds using an absolute minimum of any oil.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
(side note to Telepath : If the others are gobbling everything down and I'm the last to finish a course or a meal -- too bad. I make them wait, or go on without me. It took me many years to learn to eat slowly. I'd probably weigh 400 pounds by now if I hadn't.)
 
Posted by Bittersweet (# 10483) on :
 
Kids will develop tastes for things that aren't chips if you don't assume they can only have "childrens" food.

Mine love sprouts for some reason...and chips are only really useful for ferrying things like hummus to the mouth, in their opinion...
 
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
Karl, is it really a dichotomy between cauliflower on the one hand, and chips on the other?

Given a plate of homemade chipped potatoes fried in fresh olive oil, and a plate of shop-bought pallid grubs deep-fried in reheated lard adulterated with crankcase oil, which would your kidlets choose then? Is there any chance they would choose the homemade ones, which contrary to stereotype, actually is healthy?

You know, when I was a kid, I would only eat cauliflower if it was covered in cheese sauce. I might have had better results if it had been roasted with olive oil and lemon, like I eat it now. (It doesn't taste "cabbagey".) Friends of mine report that their kids are ok with the roasties.
quote:
Plus, there must be something in the vegetable kingdom that is not potato-based and nevertheless would still appeal to your kiddies.
Indeed. We ate a lot of carrots (one of my picky nephew's early favorites) and green beans (nephew eats those too) when I was a kid. Since we usually put gobs of butter on them, they weren't low-cal, but we ate them [Biased] (and graduated to less-adulterated veg as we grew). There are also a lot of ways to cook potatoes that aren't fries/chips.

Charlotte
 
Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I am getting a lot of good ideas for low GI eating. Thx. [Overused]
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Interesting that a cup of real vanilla ice cream has a better GI rating than a cup of carrots.

So eating by Glycemic Index plans can't be bad.
 
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
And if you were to give them carte blanche in an environment with no junk or fake foods, I do believe that it would take longer for your children to eat enough fruit to become ball-shaped than it would in this one, where snacking, eating confectionery, and eating between meals is particularly widespread.

You're probably right. It's not much of a problem for my kiddies right now, because they aren't old enough to buy their own food, and there ain't no junk food in my house, uh-huh. Both my kids are as thin as butcher's pencils.

But it worries me how they will cope when I can't manage their food intake. Both my children have a marked attraction to sugary food; that's not a problem when the most calorie-dense sugary food they can lay hands on at home is an orange, but they have to be watched very carefully when there's chocolate around.

The problem, it seems to me, with letting your kids eat as much or little as they like at mealtimes is that (if they're anything like mine) they will pick the `nice' bits out of food, and leave the rest. What this means is that unless I serve up meals consisting entirely of green veg, they don't eat any green veg. They will eat any amount of pasta, even if it means scraping other stuff off it, and if there's any cheese around they will dissect a meal with surgical precision to find it. But they won't eat green veg except under compulsion.

quote:

Since processed foods contain a lot of sugar, but very few ingredients with much nutritional value, you can easily eat 1000 calories' worth of junk food and be hungry again within a very short time.

Indeed but, although refined sugar is a pernicious substance, the staple food of most cultures is quite calorie-dense too. In terms of calories per gram, bread isn't very different from sugar. And nuts are worse.

My point is that, even though modern processed food is shit -- and I never eat the stuff -- even `natural' food can be a problem in quite modest quantities.

quote:

However, with the right information, it is relatively easy and even enjoyable to attain a healthy weight without sacrifice or misery, outwith physical or psychological illness.

I don't think I suggested that weight control would necessarily be a misery -- merely that it comes at a cost. Whether you call that cost a `sacrifice' or not is a matter of semantics, I guess. I never eat cheese or nuts, for example, though I would like to. Is that a sacrifice? I don't know.

I don't think it's hysterical or alarmist to tell people that weight control might well involve periods of being more hungry than is entirely comfortable for them; or that some desirable foods should rarely be eaten, if ever.

I concede that instilling in people a fear and dread of food is not likely to be helpful. But I don't agree that only lack of information and the crappiness of certain popular foods stands between people and their ideal weight.
 
Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:
Indeed but, although refined sugar is a pernicious substance, the staple food of most cultures is quite calorie-dense too. In terms of calories per gram, bread isn't very different from sugar. And nuts are worse.
... [Eek!]

but...

Bread is bread... it isn't sugar.

Nuts are... well.. nuts. They are not sugar. They are, however, enormously nutritious and a really satisfying snack. You can get no end of Vitamin D (or is it some other vitamin, I forget) from a handful of yummy almonds. They make a good contribution towards the nutrients we need to build our bodies every day.

That you can run certain numbers against sugar and come up with favourable/unfavourable comparisons strikes me as a very foodophobic attitude. What matters is what you're eating when you're eating n calories.[1]

Cotton wool compares very favourably with both bread and nuts in terms of calorie content, in that it has few or no calories (to my knowledge; I could be wrong). It is also very filling. Some people find it to be an excellent tool for weight management for that reason. That doesn't mean cotton wool is good to eat, or even edible!

My opinion FWIW is that your kids' not liking green vegetables is nothing to worry about. Unless there are no fruits or vegetables that they will ever eat at all, and even then I'd suggest giving it time because tastes change. But what do I know! [Big Grin]

As to your point about people enduring hunger - I wasn't actually thinking of you specifically, it's just that I so often hear people say that the abject wretched sheer bloody agonizing horror of exercise and eating healthfully is Just! Not!! Worth!!! The!!!! ANGUIIIISSSHHHHH!!!!! And I don't think all of them are exaggerating, I think many of them really do experience it that way for one reason or another.

As to your recent point, yes, I agree, there is some hunger involved, especially in the process of rediscovering the appetite. That hunger a) soon goes, and b) is no big deal, frankly. In fact, getting hungry prior to one's next meal frequently enhances enjoyment of said meal! [Roll Eyes]

[1] Yes, I know that eating 3000 calories' worth of yummy nutritious almonds would not be a good idea. So yes, you do have to watch those portions. That still doesn't make sugar a contender in the fight against almonds.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
but...

Bread is bread... it isn't sugar..

[Razz]

yes it is!

Its starch which is made of sugar

Takes a little longer to digest of course
 
Posted by ananke (# 10059) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Takes a little longer to digest of course

Which is the crux - not only does the energy from bread last longer than sugar, it takes more energy to digest. Refined sugar goes high, then crashes.

I get to deal with this daily. All it takes now is to eat a sandwich made in the American way (sweet and refined) and I'll come crashing about two hours later. If it's a nice wholegrain, I'm right. I may get hungry a few hours later, but there isn't the huge blood sugar crash* that comes with sugar. Which is why there's no gummi in my house anymore, or white bread* or white rice or white sugar.

*This is something I've dealt with since I was a skinny little child - probably contributes to the weight because I'm subconciously scared of crashing so I eat more often than I need to. Which makes the problem worse. It's more under control now - particularly because I know what's happening rather than freaking out and reacting badly.
**Unless I'm lumped with oneof the relatives who only consume this shit - usually the ones who chuck tantys about having to eat vegetables.
 
Posted by Iole Nui (# 3373) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:

quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
However, with the right information, it is relatively easy and even enjoyable to attain a healthy weight without sacrifice or misery, outwith physical or psychological illness.


I don't think I suggested that weight control would necessarily be a misery -- merely that it comes at a cost. Whether you call that cost a `sacrifice' or not is a matter of semantics, I guess. I never eat cheese or nuts, for example, though I would like to. Is that a sacrifice? I don't know.

It sounds, though, like you are one of the unfortunate people who has to take more extreme measures than most to control their weight. I don't think that entirely invalidates Telepath's points.

It's not so much that losing or maintaining weight doesn't take effort and a certain amount of self-control, of course it does, but that the psychological baggage we currently hang on that effort actually makes it harder. The anglo-saxon determination to link enjoyment of food with sin for instance - in our secular society food is probably the only context in which sin is regularly mentioned - and self-denial with virtue, actually obscures the basic key fact that portion control and amount of calories eaten are the key to weight control. The best marketing tool food advertisers ever came up with was associating their most worthless products with forbidden fruit and guilty pleasures. The second best was painting their least tasty as 'healthy'.

Instead of focussing on calories in\calories out, we embark on unattainable feats of miserable, virtuous self-denial then when we (inevitably) fail, feel worthless and solace ourselves with huge amounts of the nutrition-free cheap crap that we've been taught to associate with pleasure.

If we could break away from the baggage, and enjoy food for what it is instead of hanging all sorts of symbolism on it, maybe we could actually eat sensibly, practise reasonable moderation, accept hunger as good spice, and take pleasure in what we do eat.

And, as an aside, I don't see any reason why for most people reasonable quantities of cheese and nuts can't be eaten as part of a good diet. I wouldn't presume to comment on your particular situation but for most people a stirfry made with cashew nuts, garlic and tasty spices, for instance, would be a healthier and lower calorie alternative to one made with cheap, factory farmed, hormone laden chicken and a sticky shop-bought sauce. If you haven't eaten too much fat in a day, a couple of oatcakes with a small amount of stilton is a perfectly acceptable snack, with more nutritional value than, say, a packet of crisps or a gallon of fat-free yoghurt that tastes of wallpaper paste, and is a lot more likely to leave you feeling satisfied.
 
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Telepath:
Nuts are... well.. nuts. They are not sugar. They are, however, enormously nutritious and a really satisfying snack. You can get no end of Vitamin D (or is it some other vitamin, I forget) from a handful of yummy almonds. They make a good contribution towards the nutrients we need to build our bodies every day.

Well...

Raw brazil nuts: about 6.5 calories per gram
Refined sugar: about 3.8 calories per gram
Raw pasta: about 3.7 calories per gram
Wolemeal bread: about 2.5 calories per gram

I agree that, if you need (say) 200 calories, eating 30g of nuts will be better for you than a Mars bar. But only because the nuts contain some nutrients along with the energy, and the Mars bar doesn't really.

But if I wanted to eat 200 calories, I'd be better off with a proper meal, albeit a modest one, contain a proper nutritive balance and some bulk, than either gnawing on nuts or Mars bars. And, failing that, I'd be better off with a couple of slices of bread, because at least it has some bulk to it, so it feels like I've eaten something.

My point is that, if your calorie requirements are low-ish, you're going to feel pretty empty a lot of the time if you make up your calorie quota from nuts, cheese, and the like, and even bread and pasta are troublesome in any quantity.

quote:

As to your recent point, yes, I agree, there is some hunger involved, especially in the process of rediscovering the appetite. That hunger a) soon goes, and b) is no big deal, frankly. In fact, getting hungry prior to one's next meal frequently enhances enjoyment of said meal! [Roll Eyes]

Quite. But a lot of people really seem to think that they should never experience any hunger. I'm not saying that proper weight management should involve grinding, debilitating hunger, but it should be normal to feel hungry before meals. Here's a converstaion I often have with my kids:

Kid: I'm huuuuuuuungry!
Me: Dinner's in ten minutes
Kid: But I'm hungry noooooooooow!
Me: Dinner's in ten minutes

I know a great many people who would instead say: ``Have an apple'' or ``Have a piece of cheese'', thinking that a healthier alternative to ``Have a Mars bar'' (as it probably is). But surely the `correct' attitude is: you should be hungry before a meal!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Ern,no, it's not a dichotomy between cauliflower and chips. It's just what the backslideret happened to be saying that day. Since he doesn't get chips very often, he's ever hopeful that he might get them if he reminds us often enough that he likes them. This is the way toddlers think.

Offered different types, he'd choose whatever looked most like the ones he had in his mind when he was thinking about them. Another way toddlers think is to eat with their eyes. Mine chooses vanilla over chocolate ice cream because the vanilla comes in a blue tub and the chocolate in a brown tub. He likes things to be blue whenever possible. "My have blue one" is one of his stock phrases (he uses "my" for all forms of the first person singular pronoun).

But I digress. My point was simply that kids seem a lot hungrier when they like what's on offer. It's Shepherd's Pie tonight, so he'll eat like a pig. Last night was pasta bake, which got "no like this" and a picking out of the pasta. The stupid thing is that the sauce wasn't that different from the filling of the shepherd's pie he'll eat like he's been started tonight, but as I say, they taste with their eyes.
 
Posted by Telepath (# 3534) on :
 
Iole Nui, [Overused]

quote:
The anglo-saxon determination to link enjoyment of food with sin for instance - in our secular society food is probably the only context in which sin is regularly mentioned
What follows may seem like a tangent for a while, but it's not. Please bear with me.

As an acne sufferer, I've observed things that lead me to conclude that acne is looked upon as an outward manifestation of inner impurity. When people were still embarrassed about sex, acne was popularly imagined to be caused by too much, ahem, self-love. Now that people are proud of sex and ashamed of eating, acne is popularly imagined to be caused by eating junk food and a variety of non-junk foods. Much of this advice, which is usually couched in terms both specific and vague, implicitly excludes almost everything except raw fruit and vegetables (without dressing), grilled chicken and fish, honey, herbs for flavour, and a few spices thought to have magical qualities.

To my knowledge, only shellfish and red wine have been shown to provoke acne, and you'd have to consume a lot of them. I mean a lot lot. Inconclusive single studies get seized upon and misreported in the press all the time, overlooking the fact that, even if the foods under discussion did worsen acne, that doesn't necessarily mean it would be a good idea to eliminate them from your diet.[1]

I feel sorry for the many bewildered acne sufferers who seek advice from dubious sources, only to be told that they must change what they eat before they can be helped. Parents routinely use this as a way to manipulate children into eating better. Of course the sufferers who submit to this cannot improve their acne for all their strenuous dieting, but since they will inevitably fall off the wagon from time to time, they can continue to take the blame for their condition. All the time they are being blocked from getting any effective treatment, as people who should be helping them look on with satisfaction at a teenager/vain woman/fill-in-the-blank who's only reaping what she sows.

I read one personal account from an acne suffer who became anorexic after following this kind of "advice"; I wonder how many more there are like her.

While on the one hand you have people telling you to diet your disease away, on the other hand you have people picking up on the old myth that a good shag will clear up your skin. The difference is that nowadays people will actually recommend that you do so... indiscriminately? At any rate, there don't seem to be nearly so many conditions attached to the latter kind of advice.

So I think that my adventures in acne have given me a good view of what society considers impure and sinful, as if we didn't know already.

Not that we don't have ample evidence from the existence of TV programmes like "You Are What You Shit", in which human beings are overidentified with their own fecal matter, which is publicly reviewed for its quality, and poor quality feces attributed to impurity in the victim's character as metonymized by their diets... eurgh. [Projectile] I don't think "evil" is too strong a word.


[1] OK, hypothetically if something had been proven to be causing your skin to become infected you would have a stronger-than-usual argument for not eating it... but it's still a decision to be weighed carefully against other factors.
 
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Iole Nui:
It sounds, though, like you are one of the unfortunate people who has to take more extreme measures than most to control their weight. I don't think that entirely invalidates Telepath's points.

I'm not sure. My calorie requirements are somewhere in the region of 1000 per day. I can't work it out with precision, because my weight isn't perfectly constant, and the amount I exercise varies with the weather [Smile] But it's somewhere in that region.

The only odd thing about that is that I'm 6'4". But I'm hypothyroid and I have a sedentary job, so it's not entirely surprising. My wife needs about 1500 calories per day, so what she eats isn't very different from what I eat.

But I don't think it's any more of a problem for me, eating 1000 calories a day with a requirement of 1000 calories, than someone eating 2000 calories with a requirement of 2000. I get hungry between meals, but I think everybody does (or, at least, should). I mildly regret not being able to have wine with meals, but my life doesn't revolve around the meal table so it's no biggy.

There is potentially a problem for people with low calorie needs, in that they tend to eat less food in general, and so are likely to eat less of stuff that is really essential, but doesn't contribute energy. For example, I take calcium supplements because I know my diet is deficient in it.

So on the whole I feel a bit unsympathetic towards people who claim that their weight problems come from having a low metabolic rate, or whatever. If you have a low metabolic rate, you need to eat less, but you don't need to eat less than you actually need. People in that situation need to be a lot more careful about what they eat, however, to ensure proper nutritive balance.

However -- and this is what pricks my guilt gland a bit -- maybe my restrictive diet is no problem for me because my life is so good in so many other ways? I'm a happily married family man, and I don't lack for friends, companionship, sex, money, or self-affirmation. Food is, and always has been, a very peripheral part of my life. I would miss sex, and even music, a lot more than I miss the food I can't eat. Perhaps if I were more dependent on the pleasures of the table things would be more difficult?

quote:

If we could break away from the baggage, and enjoy food for what it is instead of hanging all sorts of symbolism on it, maybe we could actually eat sensibly, practise reasonable moderation, accept hunger as good spice, and take pleasure in what we do eat.

I couldn't agree more.

quote:

I wouldn't presume to comment on your particular situation but for most people a stirfry made with cashew nuts, garlic and tasty spices, for instance, would be a healthier and lower calorie alternative to one made with cheap, factory farmed, hormone laden chicken and a sticky shop-bought sauce.

Indeed. There isn't a chance in hell of a sticky bottled sauce finding its way into my house. But skip the nuts and you can have a heap of something less calorie-dense. I guess it all depends on how much you need to feel in your belly to find a meal satisfying. I don't know about other people but, although I don't favour being ball-shaped after meals, I need a meal to push on my stomach walls a bit, if I'm not to feel hungry immediately afterwards.

But yes, this is a matter of preference -- physically less of something calorie-dense, or more of something else? I wouldn't presume to tell other people what they should prefer, and I imagine one would only find out by experience.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
OK, that's enough. The Hellishness of the rant that started this thread has fully dissipated, and the conversation has moved on. And on. And on.

At the start of this new page I feel the time is right for you all to head off to Purg and have a nice discussion about nutrition there. Or maybe All Saints to swap diet support. But not Hell. Not any more.

See ya.

Marvin
Hellhost
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0