|
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know. Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject. Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain. On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously. I think this should do. Decent study by a reliable news source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?) And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%. This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there. I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics. Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting. And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up. Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that. If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
I'm one of those people who eat whatever I want and never gain weight. I always thought it was just a faster metabolism, good genetics. Then one day I actually started keeping track of how much I ate, and it was really not as much as I thought. Even though I ate crappy food, the portions of crappy food were always small, and my meal portions were small as well.
|
sweet. now i get to park in the disability spots and take the disability lanes.
|
On June 21 2013 07:13 datcirclejerk wrote:
I never caught the disease of obesity. I caught the disease of personal responsibility, most likely from my parents. It's even worse, I assure you. I force myself to work and suffer every day instead of just being a lazy slob, making excuses for myself, and getting free shit from the government. When will society help those of us who suffer from the disease of personal responsibility?
Do you not see any irony or factors undermining the point you are trying to make here?
Most people here are arguing about genes/lucky metabolism. You, instead, seemingly unknowingly, are saying that you are lucky to have good parents. Many people don't.
Be thankful and count your blessings. Intelligence, modesty, and compassion are clearly not among them.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 21 2013 06:23 nukeazerg wrote:
Eating less doesn't work neither does increased exercise. Scientific peer review says there is no compelling data to support these ideas.
pretty sure both eating less and increased exercise both work.
generally you get thinner as you are starved to death or worked to death...
how practical they are is another matter however
|
Technically malnutrition is already classified as a disease, and almost all obese people are malnourished.
Not really a surprise, pretty stupid for either of them to be classified as a disease to me though.
|
Finally I can go around calling fat people sick and not be harassed by PC people
|
On June 21 2013 07:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know. Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject. Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain. On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously. I think this should do. Decent study by a reliable news source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?) And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%. This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there. I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics. Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting. And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up. Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that. If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. Would "not extracting calories from the food" qualify as a black hole? A partially efficient metabolism is perfectly plausible.
If you've got incomplete catabolism then you've got a LOT of problems, especially when you start shitting out food that hasn't been broken down.
On June 21 2013 07:41 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know. Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject. Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain. On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously. I think this should do. Decent study by a reliable news source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?) And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%. This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there. I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics. Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting. And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up. Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that. If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night." I'm one of those people who eat whatever I want and never gain weight. I always thought it was just a faster metabolism, good genetics. Then one day I actually started keeping track of how much I ate, and it was really not as much as I thought. Even though I ate crappy food, the portions of crappy food were always small, and my meal portions were small as well.
Same, and now I'm trying to put on weight to get to a reasonably healthy level, and I realise just how hard it is for someone used to running on 1100~ calories to more than double your daily intake consistently.
|
On June 21 2013 07:41 VasHeR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 07:13 datcirclejerk wrote:
I never caught the disease of obesity. I caught the disease of personal responsibility, most likely from my parents. It's even worse, I assure you. I force myself to work and suffer every day instead of just being a lazy slob, making excuses for myself, and getting free shit from the government. When will society help those of us who suffer from the disease of personal responsibility? Do you not see any irony or factors undermining the point you are trying to make here? Most people here are arguing about genes/lucky metabolism. You, instead, seemingly unknowingly, are saying that you are lucky to have good parents. Many people don't. Be thankful and count your blessings. Intelligence, modesty, and compassion are clearly not among them.
Part of the reason many people don't have good parents is because the concept of personal responsibility has died in society. You victimizing them only exacerbates that trend. I don't see the irony, but thanks for the insults, they really help your argument.
|
On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know. Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject. Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain. On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously. I think this should do. Decent study by a reliable news source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?) And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%. This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there. I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics. Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting. And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up. Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that. If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night."
There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
|
On June 21 2013 07:50 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 07:41 VasHeR wrote:On June 21 2013 07:13 datcirclejerk wrote:
I never caught the disease of obesity. I caught the disease of personal responsibility, most likely from my parents. It's even worse, I assure you. I force myself to work and suffer every day instead of just being a lazy slob, making excuses for myself, and getting free shit from the government. When will society help those of us who suffer from the disease of personal responsibility? Do you not see any irony or factors undermining the point you are trying to make here? Most people here are arguing about genes/lucky metabolism. You, instead, seemingly unknowingly, are saying that you are lucky to have good parents. Many people don't. Be thankful and count your blessings. Intelligence, modesty, and compassion are clearly not among them. Part of the reason many people don't have good parents is because the concept of personal responsibility has died in society. You victimizing them only exacerbates that trend. I don't see the irony, but thanks for the insults, they really help your argument.
I was born in a log cabin I built myself. Why can't more people be like that?
|
On June 21 2013 07:41 datcirclejerk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know. Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject. Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain. On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously. I think this should do. Decent study by a reliable news source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?) And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%. This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there. I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics. Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting. And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up. Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that. If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night." I'm one of those people who eat whatever I want and never gain weight. I always thought it was just a faster metabolism, good genetics. Then one day I actually started keeping track of how much I ate, and it was really not as much as I thought. Even though I ate crappy food, the portions of crappy food were always small, and my meal portions were small as well.
Mh you guys really got me thinking. And I think you're right. I mean, I do eat a lot 3 times a day plus some snacks, but all in all it's mostly vegetables. Today was like 4 bacon stripes, 3 eggs, ~150gr of chicken, fistfull of almond. Some rice and a shitton of veggies. Almost no exercice since a week now, lost around 3-4kgs. I'm gonna up the quantities and see how that goes, especially as my wrist will soon be healed (fina-fucking-lly).
Time to crush that belief about metabolism I guess.
Edit : oh wow, almost a blog post that is >< Guess by detailing what I ate I am asking those who know about how much calories that is.
|
lol i thought it was declared already a disease
|
On June 21 2013 07:49 RockIronrod wrote:
From an article I linked earlier:
In 1967, a medical researcher, Ethan Sims, carried out an experiment at Vermont state prison in the US. He recruited inmates to eat as much as they could to gain 25% of their body weight, in return for early release from prison.
Some of the volunteers could not reach the target however hard they tried, even though they were eating 10,000 calories a day. Sims's conclusion was that for some, obesity is nearly impossible.
Here the calories are tracked, and enough time passes for some people to become obese. There's some less-than-anecdotal data for you.
|
On June 21 2013 04:09 Littlesheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 04:06 Fruscainte wrote:On June 21 2013 04:03 iamahydralisk wrote:On June 21 2013 03:56 Fruscainte wrote:On June 21 2013 03:52 Stress wrote:
To me a disease is something that is out of your control, such as huntington's or parkinson's, and in the case of being obese if you have a glandular disorder. The vast majority of obese people have no glandular disorder, they are obese because of lifestyle choices. This is just watering down the subject since every year it seems more and more people are becoming overweight due to a lack of care and self-control. I'm going to have to agree here. It's a mental condition if anything. I had experience with this, and it really is nothing more than that. You know you shouldn't eat that food. You know it's bad for you. You know if you don't eat it you'll be under your caloric intake for that day and you'll be on the right track but your brain just fucking forces you man. It's honestly a terrible experience, and a lot of physically fit people who've never had to deal with being obese/overweight will never understand that. It takes an incredible amount of mental fortitude to lose weight because for the first couple of weeks it genuinely feels like you are starving yourself even if you're still taking in 3000 calories per day and your body becomes so accustomed to it you start to freaking break down at times.I don't know how they got to the conclusion that this is a disease, but anything to provide more awareness is good in my book as far as I'm concerned though. Basically everyone who's ever dieted or changed the way they eat (a lifestyle change, not necessarily a diet) has experienced the part of your post that I bolded. Maybe not to the point that obese people do (hard to say), but the point I'm trying to make is, almost everyone has experienced that feeling at one point in time or another, and that perhaps a lot of physically fit people have the most willpower of all because they manage to stay fit. Just food for thought. Oh I understand this. My brother started on the opposite side of the spectrum from me. He was skinny as fuck and worked his way up to getting pretty damn fit. I can tell you this much having been on both a cut and a bulk plenty of times, eating more and working out is much, MUCH easier than eating less and working out. They're both difficult and mentally excruciating but man. I don't believe that putting the cake down is harder than shoving it down your throat when you're not hungry, day after day. Ive had to force myself to gain weight while working out and its one of the hardest things in the world, fat people are just lazy and will make anything seem hard.
Fat people just eat more than thin people, how is that being lazy?
I know a lot of fat people who regularly go to the gym, but fail to lose weight because after the gym they shove down a truckload of food, essentially making the gym useless even though it still does build muscle.
And really on topic, if you want to lose weight, you don't have to cut down all that much on your eating.
Calculate how much you eat per day, usually, say you eat 3000calories/day, first just reduce it by 200 or something, and drop the amount you eat by a few hundred every week, go to the shop AFTER you eat, so you won't be hungry in there and be tempted to buy more stuff. It will take some time, and picking up gym does help by a great deal if you stick to your calorie amount, when you think about it, it doesnt even require much discipline.
If you have trouble, just have your friend throw all the sweets and sodas and candies in the carbage for you and check regularly if you're slipping, it's much easier when somebody's looking out for you.
You will want to start eating again, you will think "Being fat can't be THAT bad now can it?" and well honestly it's not all that bad, it's up to you, but losing weight improves your self-esteem and makes you feel... Lighter, and if you just can, get someone to either diet with you, or even more preferably someone who has lost weight and knows how hard disclipline can sometimes be to help you. I've been there, it helps, alot.
Also, you will need to want to lose weight, back before I started, my parents were pushing me for it and everytime they tried to talk to me about it I would say "Why? I don't mind being fat." Because I really didn't give a shit about how much I weighted, until I got my first girlfriend and wanted to look good for her, and in the process of doing that realized that it also helps me.
|
On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know. Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject. Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain. On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously. I think this should do. Decent study by a reliable news source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?) And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%. This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there. I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics. Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting. And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up. Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that. If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night." There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works.
Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy?
Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite.
I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
|
Northern Ireland26221 Posts
Hm, will wait to see the actual impact of this classification before passing too much judgement.
Instinctively, I am rather against this. Obesity is, like somebody else put it, an observable condition that may be caused by a shitload of differing underlying medical conditions or lifestyle choices. To classify it as a disease seems strange, in that it could standardise something and how it is treated, when it's not a good candidate for such broad strokes being applied.
Additionally, I see this as potentially an extension of what's happening with the US system and mental health conditions and the prescription drug culture. There is rife overdiagnosis of mental health problems, and subsequently drugs intended to regulate such conditions, because there is a commercial imperative in various parts of the overall system to over-medicate.
|
Obesity is a disease and the cure is healthy diet, exercise, and a heaping tablespoon of willpower!
Declaring obesity a disease probably won't do anything except let obese people say "It has nothing to do with the choices I make, it's a disease!"
I'm not trying to rag on overweight people, but I really don't see how this is going to be beneficial in any way.
|
On June 21 2013 08:07 SnipedSoul wrote:
Obesity is a disease and the cure is healthy diet, exercise, and a heaping tablespoon of willpower!
Declaring obesity a disease probably won't do anything except let obese people say "It has nothing to do with the choices I make, it's a disease!"
I'm not trying to rag on overweight people, but I really don't see how this is going to be beneficial in any way.
It's beneficial to the political correctness industry, which now has a new victim group to profit from.
|
On June 21 2013 08:00 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 07:51 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 07:34 RockIronrod wrote:On June 21 2013 07:12 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:58 Heavenlee wrote:First link is about how different people get varying levels of increased maximum oxygen uptake from aerobic activity. Not really relevant to genetics of obesity except that some people who can get better maximum oxygen uptake might find running easier? I don't know. Not sure what the second link is about. None of those are related to the subject. Third is on HIIT training, which is a form of cardio meant for optimal fat burning. It's a temporary metabolic boost from a specific type of aerobic exercise. Nothing to do with genetic difference in weight gain. On June 21 2013 06:57 Arghmyliver wrote:On June 21 2013 06:42 Heavenlee wrote:On June 21 2013 06:26 LegalLord wrote:On June 21 2013 06:14 Heavenlee wrote:Since you're making the claim, please show some scientific proof that there is such a significant genetic/metabolic difference in a significant part of the population that it puts some people "on third base" compared to others. Unless you have a metabolic disorder or some congenital birth defect, I find it hard to take that metaphor remotely seriously. I think this should do. Decent study by a reliable news source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7838668.stm Not to sound pedantic, but that's a BBC article with no peer-reviewed journal citation that says the results of 10 people where some of the subjects didn't meet the required caloric intake or ended up vomiting out a significant portion of the food...with varying levels of exercises (at least it was supposedly under a certain limit). And they didn't all eat the same types of food. And the people who didn't eat enough didn't gain much weight..and one of the people who did gained weight but their body fat percentage went down (based on, what type of body fat measurement? is this article trying to claim that since they all supposedly ate ice cream and other junk---and all different types---this person put on 5.7kg of lean mass in 4 weeks instead of fat?) And while excess calories can lead many people to put on body fat, one volunteer in the study defied convention by putting on a lot of weight (4.5kg) while his appearance didn't seem to alter. Instead of fat, the weight had gone on as muscle as the volunteer's metabolic rate had risen 30%. This conclusion is just..It appears that the BBC is claiming someone put on 5.7kgs of muscle in a month eating ice cream and not exercising. Interesting source there. I was a band kid/ nerd who did little to no exercise for like seven years of school and ate like a champ (once put down a foot long sub, the accompanying bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in a single meal as a 120 pound seventhgrader). I've eaten multiple baconators in a sitting. I didn't take PE till my senior year of high school. While I was a scrawny bastard and therefore had like little to no upper body strength, I could immediately run a 6.5 min mile. I'm not necessarily proud of it, but I have an unfair advantage in this area and I wouldn't know how to explain it other than good genetics. Being able to binge and not gain weight based on anecdotes isn't what I'm looking for. You can be easily overestimating how much you ate (which the majority of people who consider themselves hardgainers do), or you could easily have eaten that in one meal but you didn't eat like that consistently enough to cause weight gain. Eating a foot long sub, a bag of chips, and a pound of fudge in one sitting (what, 2500 calories max? Like 700 + 300 + whatever the fudge is), assuming the often-quoted figure of like 3500 calories to gain a pound of fat, assuming a BMR of around 2000, would gain you about 1/3rd of a pound of weight. Which could have easily been lost by not eating your maintenance for a couple days. Let me know if you happened to do that for multiple meals of the day on a consistent basis, that'd be interesting. And still, assuming you could eat 5000 calories and not gain a pound, you could easily just be one in a million. Not enough for me to take any sympathy that the general non-obese public have some massive genetic leg-up. Yeah I ate like that (maybe not quite that much every meal) for like a decade. Keep in mind that I also had breakfast and dinner that day too. I don't do it now just because I know my weight isn't necessarily indicitive of like my cholesterol and I don't want a massive heart attack. But imean, I could suck in and wrap my hands around my entire waist even while I was doing that. If you truly ate highly above your calorie maintenance level and didn't gain weight, you either had worms or a black hole in your digestive tract. More than likely you didn't eat nearly as much as you thought you did, or you didn't eat consistently enough to gain weight (one day of 5000 calories and a week of 1200~). Genetics have little do to with this outside of actual medical problems like hyperthyroidism, and anyone who claims "muh metabolism" on either doesn't understand how metabolism actually works, or how energy works. It's a lot easier to blame genetics than it is to not drink a bottle of coke with every meal, and it feels better to say "I eat so much but never put on weight" than it is to say "I barely eat at sustainable levels every day but I splurged these few times in a month and didn't jump 30 kilos over night." There were points where I was actively trying to gain weight because girls didn't want to go out with a guy who was skinnier than them with literally no effort. I was literally eating until I felt nauseous just to impress people or maybe gain weight faster than my 5 lbs per year of grade school average. Nowadays I eat when I'm hungry and try to stay on top of my Vits and essentials. If that's not enough calories or whatever I'm not really interested. If you think everyone is an identical machine that needs exactly X calories for Y weight gain maybe it's you who doesn't know how energy works. Did you ever actually count your calories or did you just kind of assume they were a lot because you felt queasy? Do you think the energy just disappears or something? Either it goes to you and it's not enough maintenance level so it all gets stored and none gets stored as fat or it's going to a parasite. I'm in the exact same spot as you for some of the same reasons, but I actually did count my average calorie intake and it wasn't nearly as much as I thought it was, and what I do need to put on weight at a healthy pace sickens me because I'm not used to eating that much in a day.
Sorry I misread your post. You didn't specify a caloric intake, instead using the term "maintenance level" which is a bit loaded if you consider that obviously I wasn't consuming above my "maintenance level" assuming this is your threshold for weight gain. No one who isn't gaining weight would be right? But lets assume everyone's body consumes energy at different rate. What I'm saying is - the quantity and composition of the food I was eating would have made some people overweight. I knew people that couldn't drink milkshakes without working extra on the treadmill to burn it off. Consider that now, I eat considrably less in terms of quantity but I didn't lose any weight. Even without extra empty carbs. Does that mean I have a white hole in my intestine? Or did my tapeworm die?
|
Northern Ireland26221 Posts
'Political correctness industry', as you put it is creating the conditions of 'tolerance' that cultural shifts towards an abdication of personal responsibility.
Big pharma and the food industry are going to love it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
