Stereotypes in L&D forum.

Post Reply New Topic

I can get a kilo of tomatoes here for a price of a Pringles. I guess that any Mediterranean/middle-eastern diet would be very expensive in the US.

I agree with above poster. Vegies are cheaper than junk food. for less than $2 in summer, I can feed myself 4 lunches with a head of brocolli.

In winter you have different vege at that price.

Last edited by hale_bopp on 18 Apr 2011, 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Selectively quoting one study, eh?

"Leptin is related with obesity and its metabolic disorders. However, new relation ships have been described; inflammatory bowel disease, cancer, bone formation, asthma and so on. In conclusion, despite the great advances in our knowledge of leptin physiology, many areas of investigation remain. " deLuis, Leptin and Obesity, Minerva Med. 2009 Jun;100(3):229-36.

"At both ages (7 and 10 years), BMI and obesity were highly heritable (0.60–0.74) and only modestly influenced by shared environmental factors (0.12–0.22)." Haworth et al, Childhood Obesity: Genetic and Environmental Overlap With Normal-range BMI
Obesity (2008) 16 7, 1585–1590.

It's all over the medical literature. Obesity *is* much more than lack of self-discipline, whether you want to believe it or not. Like I said, I believe it because I've been convinced by what I see in the literature. BTW, there is even evidence that our choices are influenced genetically...how do you like that?

"Family and twin studies have reported that 30–70% of the variation in human physical activity is inherited (5,6,7,8), and a few association and linkage studies have implicated candidate genes that might explain small, but significant, portions of that variation(9)." Dishman, Gene–Physical Activity Interactions in the Etiology of Obesity: Behavioral Considerations, Obesity (2008) 16, S60–S65.



Got numbers?

~Kate

It's an open forum, but some specific comments are obviously directed at certain individuals.

I've just read your contribution to another thread. You're obviously not having your best day. I'm big enough to take anything, but I respectfully suggest not using folks on WP as a punchbag. And I strongly suggest we end the discussion on this thread now. If you must respond you can PM me.

I wouldn't call calling out sexist and insulting comments "using people as a punchbag".

Yea, but eating a head of brocolli isn't much tasty and fun .


There's something about those new world's salad recipes I really don't like, all those mayo/mustard-based (and cheese? Seriously?) dressings don't make them really healthy , killing the whole concept of salads.

The only dressing used for the transitional salad recipes was always: olive oil+lemon + garlic.

Neither is eating a kilo of tomatoes. Most vege here is a lot cheaper than a takeaway meal and it can feed people for a lot longer, same with olive oil.

I can't stand Mayo and mustard in salad. I was brought up on middle eastern style salad.

Nah, I'm not buying it. The internet is an endless wasteland of theories and counter-theories. If I could be bothered I could probably find 50 different websites that argued that Hitler was still alive. If obesity is not caused by poor lifestyle choices then the vast majority of doctors are wrong. And organizations like Weightwatchers might as well pack it in then? How come nearly everyone who sticks to a weight loss plan DOES lose weight? And why has obesity risen so dramatically over the past 50 years? It's obviously because of the change in Western diet over that time, coupled with kids being more sedentary (e.g. computer games, instead of playing outside). The correlation between these lifestyle changes and obesity is beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not saying that genetics doesn't play a role; it does. That's why maybe 5% of Americans were obese 50 years ago - genetics. But genetics doesn't explain 30-35% being obese. And EVERY obese person I know eats a ton of food, drinks gallons of beer and does no exercise. It's just ridiculous for them to claim that they're not in control of their weight.

And in reference to someone else on this thread - poverty DOESN'T cause obesity. That's another lame excuse. There was much more poverty in the US/UK 100 years ago, and virtually no obesity. When I was dieting a few years ago to lose 20 pounds I spent much less money on food than when I was getting fat. UK Students - who generally don't have much money - aren't overweight by and large. However, office workers in their 20s and 30s - who have more money - are much more likely to be obese. I know quite a few people who were slim when they were students, and then put on weight when their lifestyle became more sedentary, and they had more money to spend on food.

Obesity is a serious problem, and I genuinely sympathize with people in that situation. But the only way to help them is get them to face up to the truth. In the vast majority of cases they're eating too much crap, and not exercising. Rectify these things and they will almost certainly lose weight, like this amazing woman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v3gB9IwMFk

I don't have to find numbers re. chubby chasers as you brought them up, but if it's more than 1% of the male population I'll faint with shock.

Also, "Junk food" need to be more defined, I am certain that it's usually referred to the American junk food.

I am almost certain that the american junk food is worse than any local junk food, Falafel is considered a junk food in the mideast for example but it's nothing more than cooked fava beans and chickpeas (instead of ...fatty red meat in a burger) , and the main dressing of a falafel sandwich/meal is sesame-based (instead of mayo/mustard/bbq sauce). Same for Shawarma sandwiches (chicken or lamb) that includes only sesame sauce and veggies (no mayo no cheese). There's no contest really as which is less healthy.

LOL...these aren't just random websites I'm getting these excerpts from: they are MEDICAL JOURNALS, where the doctors you claim are "right" go to GET their information! And where I got those studies, there are TONS more. There is no longer any question that obesity is not a moral failing of some sort. Otherwise, there would not be government and non-government money being poured into research on leptin, orexin, other neurotransmitter substances, genetics, determinants of physical activity, and other potential sources of treatment for obesity that don't hold people "at fault" for their obesity. No one argues that lifestyle has NOTHING to do with it, *but* your argument that it's all just a matter of pulling yourself up by the proverbial bootstraps and doing things differently has huge, gaping holes in it that you're not willing to even examine, even with the evidence spoon-fed to you.



I think poverty is a *contributor*, but not all there is to it. It costs less to eat at Mickey D's than it does to get good-quality food, that is true. But, good-quality food can be had at reasonable price if one shops well.



I'm kind of in a hurry, so I'll have to watch the video a bit later (family bugging me to get THEM dinner...LOL). You're the one claiming all but VERY VERY FEW men think overweight women are UNattractive, then expecting me to do your homework to prove you wrong...hmmm...mrf...maybe later, gator.

~Kate

We're going around in circles now really. The bottom line is that almost every overweight person can lose weight if they want to. We know this is true because of Weightwatchers, etc. Almost everyone who commits themselves to these programs succeeds. Therefore, if they can lose weight then it is THEIR fault that they're overweight. No-one's arguing that some people aren't more genetically predisposed, but it still comes down to the individual to take responsibility. I don't think that you're arguing that overweight people are passive victims, so our positions aren't at completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

Anyway, it's midnight here, so I'm going to bed. Goodnight!

In this obesity debate there's another big factor that hasn't been covered; obesity is also directly correlated with social factors. Numerous studies have been done to show that how much you eat is determined by external as opposed to internal cues, and thus can be highly influenced by the social context the person is in. I can list several examples:

One study had participants sit in front of a bowl of soup and eat it until they felt full. In one condition, the soup kept refilling itself via a hidden pipe the participant didn't know about, whereas in the other condition the person eating the soup had to ask a waiter to refill their bowl once it was emptied. In the pipe condition participants ate significantly more soup on average than in the waiter condition, implying that they were relying on visual indications to tell them when they were full as opposed to biological feelings of fullness.

Another study tested patients in a hospital who suffered short term memory loss. When it was lunchtime all the patients were given their normal lunch meal, and then sent back to their rooms. But then an hour later they were taken back out for lunch again as though they hadn't had it yet and given the exact same meal a second time. And then this was repeated a third and a fourth (I think it was) time. Obviously the patients had no memory of having eaten lunch before, but you would assume their biological hunger would have been satiated the first time and so they would know not to eat more due to feeling full? Wrong. All the patients ate at least 3 lunches and one patient ate 5 - thus they were relying on external cues to tell them they had eaten the right amount (they all thought they'd had one standard sized meal).

There have been studies done on portion size. In one, participants were allowed to eat as many lollies as they wanted, and were given either a small scoop or a large scoop, and the participants with the large scoop ate substantially more lollies. Studies have also found that manipulating the clock in the experimental room (so that it speeds up or goes slower) can influence how much people eat because they think it's closer to dinner time, either binning lolly wrappers or leaving them on the desk can influence how many lollies a person eats because if the wrappers are on the desk the person knows how many they've eaten and thus stop earlier (eating less), and so forth.

This is related to social factors because research has subsequently found that how much people eat is determined by how much their friends and family eat. Thus people become obese in clusters - as people who regularly eat together look to each other to determine when to stop eating. If biological cues are unreliable and cannot tell us when we have eaten the right amount, and people rely on misleading social cues, or misleading portion size cues (as restaurants and supermarkets across western societies have been selling food in overly large portions, and the portion sizes are steadily increasing) then it's very easy to see how so many people could become obese in such a short space of time.

Watch the animation linked on the right, it's truly amazing: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa066082

Agreed its just an excuse for fat and lazy people to keep eating processed junk.

Go to your Indian grocer and you can pick up a kilo of lentils for A $ 3 (even less in bulk)

If your to lazy to cook a can of pulses is like 80 cents , I'm not aware of any chocolate bars or crisps that sell below this price point.

I refuse to get caught up in this recurring argument, but every overweight/obese person should know that there is hope.

I like traveling, trying new places to eat, going to new places.

I have a very wide array of interests.

Would this qualify as interesting?

I wrote unsure. But this is my views.
A- Since AS is quite a wide spectrum we cant specify this here. But on the overall society has made the demand to start something imposed on the guy. The girl being the one to make the final decision. So in theory the guy has more to worry about. Also as many have said before for this same reason if a woman openly comes for a guy it implies an answer of yes to a question yet asked.

B- I forgot the question.

C- I disagree completely on a stereotype. It may work in the individual or may not work. But this is not something a stereotype will ever have complete.