|
Poll: How much has your weight changed?My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child. (16) 52% I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa (15) 48% 31 total votes Your vote: How much has your weight changed? (Vote): My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child.
(Vote): I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa
I just do disagree with the apparent message of this thread. People are born at vastly different weights and depending mostly on not their ethics but on the diet their parents gave them as an infant, stay in line with that.
|
The apparent message of this thread is: fat people are fat by choice
You somehow convinced yourself that there is a hidden message that's not there: skinny people are skinny because they workout
|
I stopped growing since I was fifteen? I'm 23 now, and when I buy beer, people tell me, "I can't sell beer to a thirteen year old." I show them my ID, and sometimes they will accept it. Still same weight from all those years ago... Though, I can eat 3k calories daily and sit around doing nothing. (have done this before, though I don't like to anymore)
I'm not skinny by choice. My metabolism is just too fucking fast. It'd be awesome to not look like a 13 y.o.
|
As someone who went from being rolling in dough rolls to losing majority of it, I find it ever insulting whenever anyone attempts to claim that they have "tried" to lose weight. Like the OP says, the actual number of people with legitimate excuse in which they are simply UNABLE to effectively lose weight even with a proper process and method are infinitely small.
While it is certainly true that other people have an easier time on maintaining certain weight boundaries (likewise, I find it difficult to remain non-obese without profusely watching what I eat and exercising regularly), there is almost no cases in which it is simply not humanly feasible to obtain a more healthier and fit body.
TL;DR shut the fuck up fatty and go run
|
On November 02 2012 00:15 APurpleCow wrote:
Low-carb vs high-carb has almost no effect on weight loss. While it's true that eating a lot of carbs makes your body more likely to store fat, the thing is that if you keep calories constant and go from a low-carb to a high carb diet, you must also decrease your fat intake.
Yea, I agree, I was simply trying to illustrate the difference between a standard american diet (high fat, high carb, obviously bad) with the efficiency of some sort of ketogenic diet... The examples were semi-random based on the obvious context of popular Low-Carb diets and the "Standard" American Diet. It's not hard to never have to starve yourself, spend 15hrs/week in the gym, "eat less" or count calories if you simply had the proper diet.... I dunno just the same point of eating a less calorie dense diet instead of obsessing... yadayada
|
Yea, I agree, I was simply trying to illustrate the difference between a standard american diet (high fat, high carb, obviously bad) with the efficiency of some sort of ketogenic diet... The examples were semi-random based on the obvious context of popular Low-Carb diets and the "Standard" American Diet. It's not hard to never have to starve yourself, "eat less" or count calories if you simply had the proper diet let alone spend 15hrs/week in the gym.... I dunno just the same point of eating a less calorie dense diet instead of obsessing... yadayada
That's true for some, but not true for a lot. Many fat people feel a lot of hunger on a 1500-2000 kcal/day whether their diet is ketogenic or not.
|
On November 02 2012 00:15 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities. Bullshit. The majority difference between skinny people and fat people, at least in younger populations, is mostly due to genetics. Most skinny people have low appetities, high NEATs (up to 800-1000kcal/day), and some even get less calories from foods than fat people. Most skinny people have about has hard of a time gaining weight as fat people do losing weight. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fat people cannot lose weight if they try. I'm just saying that it's wrong to imply all people that aren't fat have worked hard at it. Show nested quote +also OP, My friend mentioned that if you eat less (like you are talking about) it slows down your metabolism therefore not even helping you out in the long run. As soon as you stop working out, you gain all the weight back because you slowed your metablolism. Have you encountered this problem? Broscience. Metabolism downregulates by a maximum of about 200kcal, which is easily compensated for. The reason people gain weight back after a diet is because they go right back to their unhealthy lifestyle that they had before the weight loss. Show nested quote +I personally know workout-type people that hit the gym almost everyday, are ripped or are working towards getting ripped, doing their calorie counting, and their protein shakes etc... I also know average people that are able to eat 3000+ calories a day and not gain any weight whatsoever. Does that make them good or bad, or proactive or lazy? No, that's just their lifestyle that they want. Yes, those people eating 3000+ calories a day must have high NEATs and get less calories from their food (assuming, of course, that they actually DO eat 3000+ calories/day). That doesn't mean you can't lose weight. It just means you have to work harder at it. Show nested quote +I'm 5'9" and 240 lbs (pics for reference 1, 2). Medically, I have no problems, and none of my tests have ever indicated an issue (though I've never asked to be checked regarding a genetic component) and in general, I've been told my health is better than a lot of "average" people. I'm not defined in the least, and that leads to a lot of people's assumptions about my composition as well as others.
It was a nice post, and hopefully it motivates some people, but it's not always that simple. For 99.99% of people, it IS that simple. Want to lose weight? Create a caloric deficit. Trivially true by conservation of energy. If you ate 1500 kcal/day, I guarantee you you'd lose weight. Show nested quote +Hmm, I don't really disagree with anything you say however I think you're over estimating the role of exercise... I'm certainly no health expert but from what I remember from health class like a decade ago, if your body is processing carbohydrates for energy and never uses the fat stored on your body you, how can you use it? Isn't the key here to induce some form of fat-utilization by the body?
I mean sure, if you exercise you will burn carbohydrates and run out and then burn fat, and thus lose weight assuming the calorie burned/gained ratio allows.... So just a "proper" diet can "easily" lose weight... and I don't mean diet like Jenny Craig, I mean diet like, culturally. Hence the popularity of low carb diets as well... but it's like you said it's really all about life-style changes and discipline. I don't disagree or anything, I just think the emphasis on excercise and protein for muscle building it's own paradigm aside from simply being "healthy person" Low-carb vs high-carb has almost no effect on weight loss. While it's true that eating a lot of carbs makes your body more likely to store fat, the thing is that if you keep calories constant and go from a low-carb to a high carb diet, you must also decrease your fat intake.
I haven't implied that at all. Fat is a relative term. At ~12%, imo, I'm fat. When I say fat, I actually mean obese (as defined, which I think is like 25% BF). What I've said isn't bullshit at all. IN FACT, everything else you said is basically exactly what I said. But it seems you like to nitpick, and you want to show how much you know, so you pulled the one sentence you could find disagreement in to show how superior your knowledge is to everyone here. I actually do the same thing all the time, because I'm a narcissist and I want everyone to awe at me. The truth is though, I don't know that much. You may know more than me, couldn't care less, but nitpicking on something because you're inferring something that I haven't said is not worthwhile discussion.
Otherwise, I agree with what you've said.
|
On November 02 2012 00:24 Scholera wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 00:22 Cambium wrote:On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote:
I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No...
I've always been the same basic weight. I've done lots of gaming and almost no excercise to hours of excercise every day with very little food, gone from vegan diets, to lean fish diets etc depending mostly on my ethical stance and my weight has never really changed.
I always have been a guy with a bit of a beer belly but still being able to suck it in and see my ribs. And the skinny/fat guys I've known for a long time have been like that since they were kids.
If it's such a simple decision based thing, why did nothing change from me playing almost only MMO to me playing almost only sports and switching to a lean vegan diet from my previous cheese based one? skinny doesn't mean fit you are reading this blog from the wrong side: he's saying fat people are fat (mostly) by choice, and those who stay fat shouldn't whine about it. Skinny means fitter than being fat. To a fat person, a skinny person is fit and to only like 5% of the population who is actually fit is a skinny person viewed as unfit. I'm saying stop being so holier than thou. Chances are, your the way you are because of the portions and diet your parents gave you in your formative years, not because you're so much better as a person.I think the writer of this has a warped view because he used to be fat and changed. Probably over 66% of people stay in line relative to the weight they had when they were born and 90% or so with their relative weight as a small child. And then maybe 10% were skinny and got fat because of being so super lazy or were fat and did "omg im gonna change my life and bla bla bla" got fit. I know very lazy skinny people and hardworking fatter people.
Another person inferring things that aren't there.
Habitual causes for being fat are no reason to stay fat if you're unhappy being fat. The majority of people fall into a magical world where Calories aren't Calories, and it takes magic to lose fat. It's the reason that "SIX FAT BURNING SECRETS" sell so well. It's the reason that people on low carb forums tell a person that if they stop using one small creamer in their coffee each day that they'll begin to lose weight again, and even go as far as to suggest they use whole cream instead (as if cream doesn't contain the same sugar as milk, right? But they do it anyway).
People wishing to live in a world of magical substitutes for hard work and dedication to losing weight (which hard work can be defined in any way you'd like, changing a lifetime of bad habits is hard work, imo). They want magic bullets, and secrets. Skinny people have them, and they aren't willing to share them. If this wasn't true, all the fad diets of the world wouldn't exist. It's why the supplement industry pushes the type of advertising that they push down our throats: It's why most of these worthless supplements exist in the first place.
The basis of it is that many people do not want to accept responsibility for being fat. If your parents taught you bad eating habits, then learn new ones. There is a world of information available to us that we can use to teach ourselves about anything we desire to learn about. Most people aren't willing to go find it. Fat people lose tons of weight all the time, but fail to realize that losing weight isn't a destination goal. Once you're there, you don't get to go back to your old ways. It's a mistake a lot of people make. It's at least part of the reason the whole myth of massive metabolic slowdown is still so widely talked about when it comes to Calorie restriction.
That's the cold, hard truth. Spend a few weeks on some fitness forums, or some nutrition forums.. you'll quickly find that most of the out of shape (skinny, or fat, or skinny-fat) people fall into this zone. Most people's fatness is based on habitual problems, not genetics.
|
I haven't implied that at all. Fat is a relative term. At ~12%, imo, I'm fat. When I say fat, I actually mean obese (as defined, which I think is like 25% BF). What I've said isn't bullshit at all. IN FACT, everything else you said is basically exactly what I said. But it seems you like to nitpick, and you want to show how much you know, so you pulled the one sentence you could find disagreement in to show how superior your knowledge is to everyone here. I actually do the same thing all the time, because I'm a narcissist and I want everyone to awe at me. The truth is though, I don't know that much. You may know more than me, couldn't care less, but nitpicking on something because you're inferring something that I haven't said is not worthwhile discussion.
Otherwise, I agree with what you've said.
That's a really cool veiled ad hominem attack and stuff.
I think the coolest part, though, is that throughout the entire post you disagreed with nothing I said, so the entire reason you posted was to make it seem like nothing you said was wrong or misleading, as you're too narcissistic to accept that, while trying to make yourself appear above your own narcissism and superior to mine.
No, but seriously, you conflated skinny people with fit people in the first sentence of your OP, then stated that the majority difference between fit people and fat people wasn't genetics. Did you necessarily mean that skinny people are generally skinny because they worked at it? No, but it was extremely unclear and heavily implied. You could have simply stated that this was a semantic disagreement.
But yes, the reason I only disagree with statements that I, you know, disagree with is because I feel a need for TLers to be in awe of my superior knowledge. In the future, I'll pull out sentences that I agree with and argue with those in order to work on my narcissism.
|
On November 02 2012 01:03 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +Yea, I agree, I was simply trying to illustrate the difference between a standard american diet (high fat, high carb, obviously bad) with the efficiency of some sort of ketogenic diet... The examples were semi-random based on the obvious context of popular Low-Carb diets and the "Standard" American Diet. It's not hard to never have to starve yourself, "eat less" or count calories if you simply had the proper diet let alone spend 15hrs/week in the gym.... I dunno just the same point of eating a less calorie dense diet instead of obsessing... yadayada That's true for some, but not true for a lot. Many fat people feel a lot of hunger on a 1500-2000 kcal/day whether their diet is ketogenic or not.
Yea, I mean ketogenic wass mostly just an example, and there are obviously lots of variables and they vary for each individual. If we all agree calorie restriction is the goal for weight loss, then it's just a matter of how you go about that.
I mean, I just have a hard time believing someone eats 2,000 calories worth of say...... Beef and green vegatables only for and still being hungry after the say... 2months... I mean there will be obvious cravings and psychological hunger, and a whole list of struggles during some period of transition... Obviously the example has a long list of nutritional flaws and maybe some hyperbole, but I dunno :D you tell me?
edit: maybe i'm just advocating a hard line method instead of what most people who are having a hard time will be motivationally capable of... Of course I can only speak of my own personal experience, and that of those around me.......over the last 10 years my diet and lifestyles have changed very wildly a few times, and I've seen drastic weight changes as well.
|
On November 02 2012 00:42 DigiGnar wrote:
I stopped growing since I was fifteen? I'm 23 now, and when I buy beer, people tell me, "I can't sell beer to a thirteen year old." I show them my ID, and sometimes they will accept it. Still same weight from all those years ago... Though, I can eat 3k calories daily and sit around doing nothing. (have done this before, though I don't like to anymore)
I'm not skinny by choice. My metabolism is just too fucking fast. It'd be awesome to not look like a 13 y.o.
Yeah, that happens. My brother is a lot like this. I've worked with him, and watched what he ate for months. It's a pretty outrageous amount of food that he was eating... an amount I'd easily have gained five pounds on in a single month, yet he struggled to gain two lbs. I wonder how accurate your 3k count is, but the point stands that some people have incredibly high NEAT (which I mentioned in the OP), and you're probably one of them. Most people don't though. Most people simply underestimate what they eat. I've seen quotes on studies that people over/underestimate their intake/output by up to 50%... like they think they're eating 50% more or less than they actually are, or burning 50% more Calories than they actually are. When those people are put on strict, laboratory controlled regiments, unsurprisingly, they lose weight (and I assume would also gain weight).
I like the way that Dave Tate put it the best. If you're having difficulty gaining weight I want you to follow this diet. Every morning go to McDonald's and get 2 breakfast sandwich meals (highest Caloric totals), and ask for extra mayo on the sandwich. Ask for mayo packets as well. Eat all of them in one sitting, and add a packet of mayo to each hashbrown. For the drink, get a large soda, regular sugar, none of that diet shit.
For lunch, go to a Chinese place. The real shit with MSG in it, and eat until you feel sick.
For dinner, order a large pizza with all the toppings that you like on it. Tip the guy nicely, you'll be ordering more pizzas this week. Go to the cabinet, grab some olive oil. Dump half the bottle on the pizza, then eat the entire fucking pizza.
Snack in between meals as well. In a month, come back and tell me you can't gain weight.
That's obvious hyperbole, but the point is, if you eat enough, you'll gain weight. For some, it may take more than for others, but everyone can gain weight, just as everyone can lose weight (it WILL be harder for some, no one said it would be easy... I used fucking drugs that cause inefficient ATP creation FFS, believe me, I KNOW how hard it is to lose weight... there's a reason I went there).
On November 02 2012 00:32 Scholera wrote:Poll: How much has your weight changed?My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child. (16) 52% I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa (15) 48% 31 total votes Your vote: How much has your weight changed? (Vote): My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child.
(Vote): I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa
I just do disagree with the apparent message of this thread. People are born at vastly different weights and depending mostly on not their ethics but on the diet their parents gave them as an infant, stay in line with that.
I was somewhat skinny when I was like 5 years old. Got fat pretty quickly by 8-10 years old. Continued to get fat throughout school (I played BW and ate hostess cupcakes all day/night), and then lose 20 lbs with a bunch of random fad diets after high school. I got fat again when I played Halo 2 a lot, for the same reason as when I played BW. Then I did P90X, stripped away most of my fat, and all of my muscle. Then I did GFH bulking and got fat, but also packed on some respectable muscle. Now I'm back to being, what I consider, skinny fat. It's been a wild ride, but I finally have a plan to make this a lifelong thing, because I finally realized that weight loss isn't a destination goal, it's about making permanent lifestyle changes that I can live with for the rest of my life.
|
On November 02 2012 00:15 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities. Bullshit. The majority difference between skinny people and fat people, at least in younger populations, is mostly due to genetics. Most skinny people have low appetities, high NEATs (up to 800-1000kcal/day), and some even get less calories from foods than fat people. Most skinny people have about has hard of a time gaining weight as fat people do losing weight. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fat people cannot lose weight if they try. I'm just saying that it's wrong to imply all people that aren't fat have worked hard at it.
I agree with a lot of what else you wrote but find this questionable. Your literally implying that some people burn essentially 50% more calories throughout the day than other people. I don't care how much fidgeting you do, there is no way that's accounting for that kind of difference in energy expenditure. We are talking 25 miles of biking or 8-10 miles of running here.
Skinny people that remain skinny usually do it from diet. In probably 90% of the people I have paid attention to that are naturally slim, they just don't eat as much as they think they do. I've seen skinny guys knock down 2,000 calories in one sitting and think "holy shit, this guy can eat like THAT and still be slim" only to observe that they are next to the nothing the rest of the day besides some grazing on carrots and apples. He thought he was eating a ton because of that massive lunch and constant grazing, but in reality we are talking maybe 2300-2500 calories; which is not that crazy.
Gaining weight is hard for them because they think they eat alot already and don't realize they aren't eating that much. Actually gaining weight is easy, eat 500-1000 calories more per day than you already are, as most skinny people are pretty much in maintenance anyway. There is absolutely nothing challenging about doing that. I have yet to meet someone who consumes upwards of 3,000 calories a day with minimal exercise that doesn't gain weight...it just doesn't occur.
As far as appetites go I think that's as much behavioral as anything. When I'm running 70-80mpw, I usually will be eating between 3500-4000 kcal a day. When I take a few weeks off at the end of a season I now only need 2000 kcal or so to remain at the same weight/fufill energy requirements. However, I'm used to eating almost twice as much. I literally do have a craving for food and feel like I am not eating enough. If I stop and pay very close attention I realize I'm not actually hungry, but just craving food, though the difference in extremely subtle. The takeaway here is that these two are hard to distinguish. If your parents were negligent and got you used to eating more than you need, its very easy to almost feel hungry eating a more appropriate amount of food.
Also, keep in mind that what you eat plays a big role too. It's pretty easy to knock back 1,000+ calories of Reese's and still feel ravenous, whereas if I ate 1,000 calories of carrots I would feel bloated and stuffed to the gills.
On November 02 2012 00:32 Scholera wrote:Poll: How much has your weight changed?My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child. (16) 52% I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa (15) 48% 31 total votes Your vote: How much has your weight changed? (Vote): My general bodyfat physique has been consistent with as a small child.
(Vote): I used to be skinny as a kid now I'm fat or vice versa
I just do disagree with the apparent message of this thread. People are born at vastly different weights and depending mostly on not their ethics but on the diet their parents gave them as an infant, stay in line with that.
And activity their parents modeled for them, but yes, fucking negligent ass parents are a HUGE part of the problem (don't get me started on this). In the US we have 20% of children who are obese. Sickening.
However, by the time the kid is HS age or older, the fact of the matter is he is continually to stick with the shitty model his parents gave for him. There is no reason he cannot change his behavior, diet, and activity.
I'm not saying it's easy or he is being lazy; but he is definitely making a choice to stay the way he is.
|
I agree with a lot of what else you wrote but find this questionable. Your literally implying that some people burn essentially 50% more calories throughout the day than other people. I don't care how much fidgeting you do, there is no way that's accounting for that kind of difference in energy expenditure. We are talking 25 miles of biking or 8-10 miles of running here.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9880251
Study on 16 non-obese volunteers. Fed them +1000kcal day, range in NEAT was -100 to +690.
"NEAT proved to be the principal mediator of resistance to fat gain with overfeeding. The average increase in NEAT (336 kcal/day) accounted for two-thirds of the increase in daily energy expenditure (Table 2), and the range of change in NEAT in our volunteers was large (−98 to +692 kcal/day). However, most importantly, changes in NEAT directly predicted resistance to fat gain with overfeeding (Fig. 1C), and this predictive value was not influenced by starting weight (24)."
"The maximum increase in NEAT that we detected (692 kcal/day, volunteer 5) could be accounted for by an increase in strolling-equivalent activity (25) by about 15 min/hour during waking hours. "
|
On November 02 2012 01:12 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 00:15 APurpleCow wrote:The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities. Bullshit. The majority difference between skinny people and fat people, at least in younger populations, is mostly due to genetics. Most skinny people have low appetities, high NEATs (up to 800-1000kcal/day), and some even get less calories from foods than fat people. Most skinny people have about has hard of a time gaining weight as fat people do losing weight. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fat people cannot lose weight if they try. I'm just saying that it's wrong to imply all people that aren't fat have worked hard at it. also OP, My friend mentioned that if you eat less (like you are talking about) it slows down your metabolism therefore not even helping you out in the long run. As soon as you stop working out, you gain all the weight back because you slowed your metablolism. Have you encountered this problem? Broscience. Metabolism downregulates by a maximum of about 200kcal, which is easily compensated for. The reason people gain weight back after a diet is because they go right back to their unhealthy lifestyle that they had before the weight loss. I personally know workout-type people that hit the gym almost everyday, are ripped or are working towards getting ripped, doing their calorie counting, and their protein shakes etc... I also know average people that are able to eat 3000+ calories a day and not gain any weight whatsoever. Does that make them good or bad, or proactive or lazy? No, that's just their lifestyle that they want. Yes, those people eating 3000+ calories a day must have high NEATs and get less calories from their food (assuming, of course, that they actually DO eat 3000+ calories/day). That doesn't mean you can't lose weight. It just means you have to work harder at it. I'm 5'9" and 240 lbs (pics for reference 1, 2). Medically, I have no problems, and none of my tests have ever indicated an issue (though I've never asked to be checked regarding a genetic component) and in general, I've been told my health is better than a lot of "average" people. I'm not defined in the least, and that leads to a lot of people's assumptions about my composition as well as others.
It was a nice post, and hopefully it motivates some people, but it's not always that simple. For 99.99% of people, it IS that simple. Want to lose weight? Create a caloric deficit. Trivially true by conservation of energy. If you ate 1500 kcal/day, I guarantee you you'd lose weight. Hmm, I don't really disagree with anything you say however I think you're over estimating the role of exercise... I'm certainly no health expert but from what I remember from health class like a decade ago, if your body is processing carbohydrates for energy and never uses the fat stored on your body you, how can you use it? Isn't the key here to induce some form of fat-utilization by the body?
I mean sure, if you exercise you will burn carbohydrates and run out and then burn fat, and thus lose weight assuming the calorie burned/gained ratio allows.... So just a "proper" diet can "easily" lose weight... and I don't mean diet like Jenny Craig, I mean diet like, culturally. Hence the popularity of low carb diets as well... but it's like you said it's really all about life-style changes and discipline. I don't disagree or anything, I just think the emphasis on excercise and protein for muscle building it's own paradigm aside from simply being "healthy person" Low-carb vs high-carb has almost no effect on weight loss. While it's true that eating a lot of carbs makes your body more likely to store fat, the thing is that if you keep calories constant and go from a low-carb to a high carb diet, you must also decrease your fat intake. I haven't implied that at all. Fat is a relative term. At ~12%, imo, I'm fat. When I say fat, I actually mean obese (as defined, which I think is like 25% BF). What I've said isn't bullshit at all. IN FACT, everything else you said is basically exactly what I said. But it seems you like to nitpick, and you want to show how much you know, so you pulled the one sentence you could find disagreement in to show how superior your knowledge is to everyone here. I actually do the same thing all the time, because I'm a narcissist and I want everyone to awe at me. The truth is though, I don't know that much. You may know more than me, couldn't care less, but nitpicking on something because you're inferring something that I haven't said is not worthwhile discussion. Otherwise, I agree with what you've said.
Haha I like it!
Anyway, might wanna mention that it's actually really hard to make a lifestyle change with regards to the things you eat simply because of the control over those things being externalized. There are financial motivators to the equation as well, like, for example, a meal eaten at a McDonalds being vastly cheaper in time and money than buying the ingredients at a store and making it yourself. It so happens that these foods are also high in caloric count, which is something that can't be controlled either. Financially conscious people do have difficulty making lifestyle changes from eating fast food meals to eating home cooked and healthy ones. In addition, the fact that you pay the same amount of money for a Big Mac, fries, and a coke as you do for just a Big Mac and fries makes it harder for people to rationalize not getting the coke; it's a better deal despite it adding on a lot more calories. That would bring you to the annual increase in the average portion size of meals in the US, and how high it has gone up from what it was in the 70's, 80's, or 90's.
|
Wow, great post, which exactly expresses my opinion on this topic.
It´s helpfull that you also were fat in the past so you really have the insight, which i don´t have.
Sometimes it feels like it´s same thing with playing starcraft, often you don´t feel like you have the time, but in reality you just feel to lazy.
|
On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote:
I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No...
.
a lot of parents feed their kids procesed foods, fast food and other garbage from a young age
|
On November 02 2012 02:03 tehemperorer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 01:12 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On November 02 2012 00:15 APurpleCow wrote:The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities. Bullshit. The majority difference between skinny people and fat people, at least in younger populations, is mostly due to genetics. Most skinny people have low appetities, high NEATs (up to 800-1000kcal/day), and some even get less calories from foods than fat people. Most skinny people have about has hard of a time gaining weight as fat people do losing weight. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fat people cannot lose weight if they try. I'm just saying that it's wrong to imply all people that aren't fat have worked hard at it. also OP, My friend mentioned that if you eat less (like you are talking about) it slows down your metabolism therefore not even helping you out in the long run. As soon as you stop working out, you gain all the weight back because you slowed your metablolism. Have you encountered this problem? Broscience. Metabolism downregulates by a maximum of about 200kcal, which is easily compensated for. The reason people gain weight back after a diet is because they go right back to their unhealthy lifestyle that they had before the weight loss. I personally know workout-type people that hit the gym almost everyday, are ripped or are working towards getting ripped, doing their calorie counting, and their protein shakes etc... I also know average people that are able to eat 3000+ calories a day and not gain any weight whatsoever. Does that make them good or bad, or proactive or lazy? No, that's just their lifestyle that they want. Yes, those people eating 3000+ calories a day must have high NEATs and get less calories from their food (assuming, of course, that they actually DO eat 3000+ calories/day). That doesn't mean you can't lose weight. It just means you have to work harder at it. I'm 5'9" and 240 lbs (pics for reference 1, 2). Medically, I have no problems, and none of my tests have ever indicated an issue (though I've never asked to be checked regarding a genetic component) and in general, I've been told my health is better than a lot of "average" people. I'm not defined in the least, and that leads to a lot of people's assumptions about my composition as well as others.
It was a nice post, and hopefully it motivates some people, but it's not always that simple. For 99.99% of people, it IS that simple. Want to lose weight? Create a caloric deficit. Trivially true by conservation of energy. If you ate 1500 kcal/day, I guarantee you you'd lose weight. Hmm, I don't really disagree with anything you say however I think you're over estimating the role of exercise... I'm certainly no health expert but from what I remember from health class like a decade ago, if your body is processing carbohydrates for energy and never uses the fat stored on your body you, how can you use it? Isn't the key here to induce some form of fat-utilization by the body?
I mean sure, if you exercise you will burn carbohydrates and run out and then burn fat, and thus lose weight assuming the calorie burned/gained ratio allows.... So just a "proper" diet can "easily" lose weight... and I don't mean diet like Jenny Craig, I mean diet like, culturally. Hence the popularity of low carb diets as well... but it's like you said it's really all about life-style changes and discipline. I don't disagree or anything, I just think the emphasis on excercise and protein for muscle building it's own paradigm aside from simply being "healthy person" Low-carb vs high-carb has almost no effect on weight loss. While it's true that eating a lot of carbs makes your body more likely to store fat, the thing is that if you keep calories constant and go from a low-carb to a high carb diet, you must also decrease your fat intake. I haven't implied that at all. Fat is a relative term. At ~12%, imo, I'm fat. When I say fat, I actually mean obese (as defined, which I think is like 25% BF). What I've said isn't bullshit at all. IN FACT, everything else you said is basically exactly what I said. But it seems you like to nitpick, and you want to show how much you know, so you pulled the one sentence you could find disagreement in to show how superior your knowledge is to everyone here. I actually do the same thing all the time, because I'm a narcissist and I want everyone to awe at me. The truth is though, I don't know that much. You may know more than me, couldn't care less, but nitpicking on something because you're inferring something that I haven't said is not worthwhile discussion. Otherwise, I agree with what you've said. Haha I like it! Anyway, might wanna mention that it's actually really hard to make a lifestyle change with regards to the things you eat simply because of the control over those things being externalized. There are financial motivators to the equation as well, like, for example, a meal eaten at a McDonalds being vastly cheaper in time and money than buying the ingredients at a store and making it yourself. It so happens that these foods are also high in caloric count, which is something that can't be controlled either. Financially conscious people do have difficulty making lifestyle changes from eating fast food meals to eating home cooked and healthy ones. In addition, the fact that you pay the same amount of money for a Big Mac, fries, and a coke as you do for just a Big Mac and fries makes it harder for people to rationalize not getting the coke; it's a better deal despite it adding on a lot more calories. That would bring you to the annual increase in the average portion size of meals in the US, and how high it has gone up from what it was in the 70's, 80's, or 90's.
I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
On November 02 2012 02:09 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote:
I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No...
. a lot of parents feed their kids procesed foods, fast food and other garbage from a young age
Very true. I know plenty of people with kids who let their kids have McDonald's once a week or less. While I know other parents who eat out at fast food restaurants every night of the week, and the majority of their food is frozen pizza and snack cakes. Which kids are fatter? I know that my n=1 experience doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I also doubt that my experience is unique.
|
Was 160 in high school. 3 years later I was 270. Now I'm 190.
And I have to say that personally, what the OP said rings true. When I finally switched over to trying to lose weight I made time. I crammed in exercises regardless of how I felt. When I was fat I felt like I had been given a raw deal in life, and if I had a different X, then I could lose weight. But once I was committed, I just made it work.
|
I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good.
For the most part you are right, but 3 big mac meals or whatever $5 worth of food at mcdonalds on average most likely is more calorie dense, so it's not quite as you say (calorie/$)... There is also the opportunity cost and mundane nature of buying bulk and eating the same thing every day..... That said, I totally agree... The real myth is that to eat healthy you have to spend a lot of money. To eat perfectly, perhaps.
Albiet your Wal-Mart Prices are alittle higher than I'd imagine, and I'd also wager a Big Mac Meal is closer to $6 though McDouble Cheeseburgers are still 99cents :D
|
On November 02 2012 02:55 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 02:03 tehemperorer wrote:On November 02 2012 01:12 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On November 02 2012 00:15 APurpleCow wrote:The difference in the majority of fit people and fat people is not some magical combination of genetics that give them ridiculous level NEAT (Non-exercise Associated Thermogenesis --although those people exist, and we all hate them), and it's usually not from drug/steroid usage; it's the choices they make: it's priorities. Bullshit. The majority difference between skinny people and fat people, at least in younger populations, is mostly due to genetics. Most skinny people have low appetities, high NEATs (up to 800-1000kcal/day), and some even get less calories from foods than fat people. Most skinny people have about has hard of a time gaining weight as fat people do losing weight. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that fat people cannot lose weight if they try. I'm just saying that it's wrong to imply all people that aren't fat have worked hard at it. also OP, My friend mentioned that if you eat less (like you are talking about) it slows down your metabolism therefore not even helping you out in the long run. As soon as you stop working out, you gain all the weight back because you slowed your metablolism. Have you encountered this problem? Broscience. Metabolism downregulates by a maximum of about 200kcal, which is easily compensated for. The reason people gain weight back after a diet is because they go right back to their unhealthy lifestyle that they had before the weight loss. I personally know workout-type people that hit the gym almost everyday, are ripped or are working towards getting ripped, doing their calorie counting, and their protein shakes etc... I also know average people that are able to eat 3000+ calories a day and not gain any weight whatsoever. Does that make them good or bad, or proactive or lazy? No, that's just their lifestyle that they want. Yes, those people eating 3000+ calories a day must have high NEATs and get less calories from their food (assuming, of course, that they actually DO eat 3000+ calories/day). That doesn't mean you can't lose weight. It just means you have to work harder at it. I'm 5'9" and 240 lbs (pics for reference 1, 2). Medically, I have no problems, and none of my tests have ever indicated an issue (though I've never asked to be checked regarding a genetic component) and in general, I've been told my health is better than a lot of "average" people. I'm not defined in the least, and that leads to a lot of people's assumptions about my composition as well as others.
It was a nice post, and hopefully it motivates some people, but it's not always that simple. For 99.99% of people, it IS that simple. Want to lose weight? Create a caloric deficit. Trivially true by conservation of energy. If you ate 1500 kcal/day, I guarantee you you'd lose weight. Hmm, I don't really disagree with anything you say however I think you're over estimating the role of exercise... I'm certainly no health expert but from what I remember from health class like a decade ago, if your body is processing carbohydrates for energy and never uses the fat stored on your body you, how can you use it? Isn't the key here to induce some form of fat-utilization by the body?
I mean sure, if you exercise you will burn carbohydrates and run out and then burn fat, and thus lose weight assuming the calorie burned/gained ratio allows.... So just a "proper" diet can "easily" lose weight... and I don't mean diet like Jenny Craig, I mean diet like, culturally. Hence the popularity of low carb diets as well... but it's like you said it's really all about life-style changes and discipline. I don't disagree or anything, I just think the emphasis on excercise and protein for muscle building it's own paradigm aside from simply being "healthy person" Low-carb vs high-carb has almost no effect on weight loss. While it's true that eating a lot of carbs makes your body more likely to store fat, the thing is that if you keep calories constant and go from a low-carb to a high carb diet, you must also decrease your fat intake. I haven't implied that at all. Fat is a relative term. At ~12%, imo, I'm fat. When I say fat, I actually mean obese (as defined, which I think is like 25% BF). What I've said isn't bullshit at all. IN FACT, everything else you said is basically exactly what I said. But it seems you like to nitpick, and you want to show how much you know, so you pulled the one sentence you could find disagreement in to show how superior your knowledge is to everyone here. I actually do the same thing all the time, because I'm a narcissist and I want everyone to awe at me. The truth is though, I don't know that much. You may know more than me, couldn't care less, but nitpicking on something because you're inferring something that I haven't said is not worthwhile discussion. Otherwise, I agree with what you've said. Haha I like it! Anyway, might wanna mention that it's actually really hard to make a lifestyle change with regards to the things you eat simply because of the control over those things being externalized. There are financial motivators to the equation as well, like, for example, a meal eaten at a McDonalds being vastly cheaper in time and money than buying the ingredients at a store and making it yourself. It so happens that these foods are also high in caloric count, which is something that can't be controlled either. Financially conscious people do have difficulty making lifestyle changes from eating fast food meals to eating home cooked and healthy ones. In addition, the fact that you pay the same amount of money for a Big Mac, fries, and a coke as you do for just a Big Mac and fries makes it harder for people to rationalize not getting the coke; it's a better deal despite it adding on a lot more calories. That would bring you to the annual increase in the average portion size of meals in the US, and how high it has gone up from what it was in the 70's, 80's, or 90's. I think this is a myth that needs to be destroyed. A single Big Mac meal is what? $5 or so? Six pounds of chicken is roughly $12 at Wal-Mart. A head of lettuce is $1.50, add in some more vegetables, and maybe you're at $5 worth of veggies. Salad dressing of your choice = $2.50 (for the off brand stuff). 2 lbs of sirloin tip is $12. Liquid egg whites are $3.88/carton (large carton), and eggs are like $1.50. So now we're at roughly $30. If you want to throw in some potatoes or something, it's a couple dollars more, let's say you find some crap you want for another $5 (a bag of shredded cheese and marinade), and then you buy a snack food for another $5. That's roughly $40, and I can eat for the entire week (this is actually my meal plan, basically, for most weeks), 3 meals a day. For $40 I get 2 2/3 days of eating at McDonald's. The difference is that I have to cook this food, and at McDonald's it's already there, and it tastes SOOOO good. Show nested quote +On November 02 2012 02:09 QuanticHawk wrote:On November 02 2012 00:19 Scholera wrote:
I don't really agree with this at all.
You see kids at 8 years old with a fit stomach and skinny physique and another kid at 8 years old who is obese. I'm sure these kids have vastly different work ethics right? No...
. a lot of parents feed their kids procesed foods, fast food and other garbage from a young age Very true. I know plenty of people with kids who let their kids have McDonald's once a week or less. While I know other parents who eat out at fast food restaurants every night of the week, and the majority of their food is frozen pizza and snack cakes. Which kids are fatter? I know that my n=1 experience doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I also doubt that my experience is unique.
Great job, now do the math for a family of 4. Also, make sure you factor in what part of the country you live in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
