weight loss and its issues

Post Reply New Topic

the government can draw sketchy conclusions and make questionable decisions based on limited and outdated information. government decisions != credible research.

most *people* are sedentary. and being sedentary is a greater risk factor for diabetes and other health issues than a person's weight.

http://www.bioinfo.in/uploadfiles/13155 ... _1_JPR.pdf

i don't have issues, i just believe in considering facts over urban myths.

my point still stands - you cannot LOOK at a person's body and make an accurate judgement of their health or lifestyle.

oh, i definitely feel better from eating saturated fat. protein... not so much. i can take it or leave it. but that sounds interesting. i don't really eat fast food - i have won awards for work that has come from my kitchen (county fair), and i value making proper meals.

i don't actually need or want to lose any more weight at this point, i am happy to be healthy and to maintain my size.

no..... i didn't ever say that - our nations have massive health issues, which i repeatedly state. but obesity is an inaccurate target - the target is unhealthy eating and not exercising (which i have said approximately 10 times in the thread).

just quoting your post because i want its awesomeness to carry on to the next page.

[edit]We've taken this to PM, perhaps this has gotten out of hand. Time for me to cool off and tackle this with a level head, I shouldn't have lost my composure.

Last edited by Shau on 17 Jul 2012, 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

edit: no point in this discussion

Wow, this is my third attempt to add my two cents and I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned because it's a little intense in here and I haven't read every post, but here it goes;

The addiction to food would have to be the hardest one to master....simply tobacco, alcohol, drugs etc are something the body doesn't need to survive. We have to eat every day to be able to thrive, so the addiction is forced upon you daily, you can't get away from it, add to that the human biological and cultural/social etc. factors that differ from person to person, is it any wonder that one size does not fit all?

I simplified my 'lifestyle' change by not going 'cold turkey' and working on one element at a time.... portion size, then exercise, then carb control, then up the exercise, then sugar control etc. over a few month period and allowed each element to become the habit instead of overwhelming myself and now it's just so easy....for me.

Bottom line is if you are an overweight person and are happy in your skin then power to you, if your not happy in your skin then no matter what other people say it's only you that can make the change, and that can only happen when you are finally so sick of yourself that the desire to do something about it outweighs staying unhappy in your skin.And there is no one way to do that that works for everybody, you have to find your own 'way'.

Personally, it is the best thing I've ever done, I'm fit and strong and don't crave the 'bad' foods at all, which surprises me because I thought that would take willpower, but it doesn't, I do however salivate when I get to the vegi isle at my local produce outlet...is the weird?

Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories was a revelation for me. Your paragraph above is the essential message of the book. I used to think of obesity as a simple problem of too many calories in and not enough out. After reading the book, I realized that it really is a problem of too many calories in...to the fat cells and not enough out.....of the fat cells. And that what controls what goes into and comes out of the fat cells is hormones and that what controls the hormones is what we eat as well as how much and also when. And that if you tinker with the "what" and the "when", the "how much" will self-regulate. It's nowehere near as simple as "eat less/ exercise more" and some critics say it is needlessly complex. But I've found this level of information to be very helpful in my own personal self experiment.

For people interested in the deep biochemistry of it all, here are 3 blogs that go very far into the science.

This one focuses on leptin:

http://jackkruse.com/why-dietary-biochemistry/

This one focuses on insulin, with a strong slant towards picking apart studies:

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/ ... 0hungry%3F

This one focuses on exercise with good explanations of cortisol:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/articles

It's a lot of hormones to keep track of. But I have found that the more I know, the easier it is to make truly informed choices.

i agree wholeheartedly!

Thank you very much for the information, Janissy.
Am reading.

Well, let me add some cents in on hormones. I do believe this fact wholeheartedly, that if your hormones are screwed, yeah, no matter what you do before correcting them, you're kinda screwed. And it's not usually people's faults per se. But, in life, I've unfortunately, though it's not a good attitude for your self esteem, but I've taken the attitude they teach you in motorcycle rider class. "Everything is your fault." Car pulls out in front of you and you crash? Your fault for not anticipating it. It's a tough tough way to live, but it's the only way to adapt and overcome this cruel world.

As far as hormones themselves, many things are just as a result of new technology, it's a bit similar to say, Rome, and how they used lead sugar in wine and lead pipes. Nobody really knew better, and people went nuts because of it. We can see these kinda things all throughout history. Nowadays, it's thing like plastics. Lots of plastics contain estrogens, everything is packed in plastic nowadays. Soy, another thing, too much soy gives estrogen. Then there's the issue of genetically modified food, we're eating so many things that have not been in the food supply before now. So in our case, though we do have some more scientific testing than the Romans did, we have more things we're trying at once, with humans as the lab animals. We've already found so many new innovations in food wrong, and we're gonna find more as time goes on. And while I'd like to think it's a big vast conspiracy of food makers (and sometimes it is) it's mostly done out of good intentions (like high yield wheat) at first, and we find out it's wrong.

But, what do we do about it? You can either wait for society to change, which you cannot really control one way or the other, or you can change. Just like with the motorcycle example, if the car looks inattentive and swervy, you can't do anything about the other car, you can only anticipate and prepare for it's movements, even if it's the other car's fault, if it crashes into you, you're dead, there's no time for judging who's "right" or "wrong" only time to survive. And this is what you must do with food nowadays.

What I am getting at is, adaptation. Adapt and overcome. That is how you do things in life. In essence life is a game of problem solving. You're given problems, and you must find ways to overcome them. Obesity is one of these problems given to people. And obesity many times comes from said hormone imbalances. But again, adaptation comes into play here. My mother, she has fibromyalgia, she got labs done, and the labs said her DHEA hormone level was low. I've been telling my mother forever to try some DHEA, as it's available OTC here in the States, and it's supposed to be very good for people with fibromyalgia. She's just like "oh, it's too expensive." It's a $7-10 bottle of pills. I've told her to try taking in extra protein (I've even bought some protein powder and have told her to drink some, no go either) and SFAs (SFAs and cholesterol are actually converted into hormones in your body, and I believe many of the problems today can be attributed to less than normal SFA intake compared to historical diets) in her diet (ie, eggs), etc, no go, just rice and pasta and stuff like that. She'll buy Minute Rice, though, for $5 a box, whereas the same amount of regular white rice or parboiled white rice is like a dollar. That there is an example of failure to adapt. It's not that I'm judging my mom morally, my mother is a very nice woman, but she's almost intentionally failing to adapt.

How does this relate to societal views? It's not that they're being judged morally for being bad, it's that they're being judged for failure to adapt. That is why our society favors people in good health, not because of their moral superiority or anything like that, but when you look for a potential mate, you're looking at their adaptability level. Why? You don't want to have offspring that are going to poorly adapt, too. In my case, my mother's poor adaptation skills during my teenage years when I had less free agency affected me greatly. But that is the answer why fat people are judged, it's not really personal, it's just your adaptation is judged. It's like this in everything in life, if you don't have a job or income you're judged, if you have poor hygiene you're judged, if you have bad social relations, you're judged, because it all falls under the realm of adaptability. It's not a judge of a person's character, it's a judgement of their adaptability.

Anyway, Lexian, specifically about finding out how to make your hormones work for you, that takes a LOT of study and trial and error. For example, I found out I was probably suffering from adrenal fatigue, and so I started taking my 4000mg or so of vitamin C again, but this time spaced out throughout the day, and I've been able to cut my cups of coffee down to one in the morning and that's all. In some ways, the bodybuilding ethos if you will (not that I'm really a bodybuilder) is learning how to manipulate your body to make it do what you want, and in my thoughts, doing it in the most efficient way possible. This takes the same amount of study as you'd put into any skill.

But yeah, I'm done adding cents now, haha.

"Adaptation" in your bit being used interchangeably with "the ability to not be fat",
which is arguably an extremely recent thing to aspire to.

Soften it all you like, the underlying premise is that even if it's hard for some people to lose weight,
they should want to.

Subjective values being projected onto other people, who are then judged for not upholding them.


I hope your mother eventually finds the answer to her pain.
My mother has had migraine headaches for years, flown all over the world seeking answers/treatment/advice, taken numerous real-deal prescription pain medications,
and absolutely refuses to investigate possible diets that could help.

I differentiate strongly between the state of being in pain and the state of taking up more space than society at one moment deems proper.

For the record, I'm certainly not a "fat hater" or something by any means.

That's Vasily Alexeev. He was a super heavyweight Olympic lifter in the 70s. I have all the respect in the world for him. Aesthetically, sure, he looks like crap, but he was a genius and could outlift almost everyone in his time. I'd never choose to be as huge as him, but I gotta respect the man. Even in women's case, Jang Mi Ran of South Korea, she's beating the old men's records of the 70s era. Those people have balls of steel, especially since they're more or less intentionally fat. So, you know, I can see the other side, yes, some people can be bigger and still be healthy.

As far as subjective values, well....everything in life is subjective then. I don't see how it's subjective to want people to look the same as they did 50 or 100 years ago, and not all look like sumo wrestlers. I just want things sorta back to normal. I want things to look the way they did in pictures of my grandparents and parents. That's all.

I did say that Georgia's was an extreme example, and I am surprised that you so readily dismiss the misery, indignity and life-threatening nature of her predicament. Sadly, it is likely that there are, and will be, others in her predicament as obesity levels continue to rise and obese individuals become even heavier. I mentioned her as part of my response to your stated belief that obesity on its own does not cost society anything.



Wheelchairs are standard, not specialised, equipment in any hospital in this country. By specialised equipment I meant wheelchair, beds, scanners etc which are required for people who are so large that they cannot fit into the standard equipment or so heavy that standard equipment would collapse under their weight. Our National Health Service has had to incur additional expenditure to accommodate larger individuals who need hospital treatment, whether that is as a result of illness or injury. Someone who is otherwise healthy may require treatment as a result of say, a car accident, and hospitals incur additional costs if that person cannot be cared for in the usual way and using the usual equipment because of their size.



I didn't mention the size of caskets or coffins as being an issue - because it is not. Coffins are made to fit the individual inside them and height is not an issue. However, I dare say that families may have to pay more for a coffin which has to be specially reinforced to ensure that the deceased doesn't fall through it - and I have heard of that happening.

The problems I referred to arise when the individual is so obese that their coffin is too heavy to be lifted by the undertakers and pall bearers, or to be lowered into the grave by the gravediggers. If the coffin is too wide it will not fit on the catafalque or into the cremators. In Scotland over the past couple of decades our weight and girth has increased at a rate not matched by any increase in our height. Our crematoria can cope with tall people, but only the very recently constructed, or modified, ones can cope with very obese people.



Yes, I was aware that thin people can be unhealthy. We have had medical facilities in this country for some centuries now, long before we had the obesity levels that we have now. However, for the reasons I've stated above, obese people do cost more, just by being heavier and wider. Although you seem to deny that obese people are at higher risk of developing a range of ailments, that is the case in Scotland and there is a substantial healthcare cost associated with obesity.



This discussion isn't about alcohol consumption and the costs associated with that.

You know, smokers, drinkers, and heroin addicts can be active and healthy too, for a time. Some of them even die of causes unrelated to their habits, but that doesn't mean to say that we don't make efforts to prevent young people becoming addicted to those substances and try to help those who are. Excess and potentially harmful consumption of anything, even food, is not healthy and is not good for the individual or wider society.

^^^you're cherrypicking which thinbs you want to consider "specialised", Marcia. many groups, including "little people" or elderly people, can require specialised equipment but people don't complain about the cost. how about the cost of teenagers who are allowed use ATVs/trampolines/snowmobiles? those are leading causes of accidents, yet are fully preventable. there is just no getting around the fact that EVERY group can cost extra money for the health care system if you view it the right way. just because some of the infrastructure was already in place doesn't make it any less of a "special" cost.

aspies and auties frequently have extra health problems and may need special guidance or therapy for mental health issues. those are also "specialised" services. and rates of autism are rising, so i suppose it is also an epidemic.

interesting potential causes for the rise in obesity rates (all of these factors except one changed in recent times):

• regulated indoor temperatures
  this one is interesting. as a child, my home and school were always colder - along with other people's houses - with the temperature set to 69'F to save money. now, every place is warmer in winter. and AC is much more common
• lack of sleep
• high rates of smoking cessation
• industrial chemicals
• overweight people tend to pick overweight partners, leading to larger kids
• age of mother during pregnancy (nobody knows why this is a factor)
• epigenetics (changes in genetic expression due to parents' lifestyle prior to having children
• differences in gut bacteria

source was this video.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgnbRK8pij8&[/youtube]

he has some sources for his information, which he links to. i looked up some of the info and he was kind of overstating some of it and skimming over the detailed results. but nonetheless, food for thought.

also interesting was the study he cited. children were divided into 2 groups for 3 years: one group ate as usual (badly) and got very little exercise as always; the other group started to eat 2 healthy meals a day at school and got the recommended exercise for their age group. the results: no reduction in BMI from the healthy group. this study was replicated with similar results. the surprised researchers were quick to blame the remaining meal and the unregulated time away from school, stating that more changes would need to be made in the children's lifestyle to effect weight loss. the jury is still out on that.