Post: #51

Lemko, I don't think that's true. They were simply eating different foods back when manufacturing jobs were plentiful in this country. There was no junk food, no fast food, etc. Smoking was also more common. After the widespread availability of these things you could even see blue collar workers ballooning. My father was one of them.

You really don't burn a ton of calories from physical activity unless you're running an hour or so a day. Even then, a single doughnut can negate the calories you burned.

Post: #52

(06-23-2015 08:42 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Lemko, I don't think that's true. They were simply eating different foods back when manufacturing jobs were plentiful in this country. There was no junk food, no fast food, etc. Smoking was also more common. After the widespread availability of these things you could even see blue collar workers ballooning. My father was one of them.

You really don't burn a ton of calories from physical activity unless you're running an hour or so a day. Even then, a single doughnut can negate the calories you burned.

This is why I've always been more passionate and interested in calorie intake vs calorie output (and the main reason why I made this thread about consumption of food and not physical activity). I've always believed that the two's ratio relating to their overall effect on human health is roughly 70/30 percent.

It makes me shake my head when some soccer mom goes to the gym to run on the treadmill for 30 minutes a day and yet she consumes shit foods throughout the day and then wonders why she's not a skinny, attractive woman like the ones on the covers of all those magazines she reads. What you put into your body is more important than what you do with you body.

But obviously for the best results...

Post: #53

(06-23-2015 11:39 AM)Goldhawkstar Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 08:42 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Lemko, I don't think that's true. They were simply eating different foods back when manufacturing jobs were plentiful in this country. There was no junk food, no fast food, etc. Smoking was also more common. After the widespread availability of these things you could even see blue collar workers ballooning. My father was one of them.

You really don't burn a ton of calories from physical activity unless you're running an hour or so a day. Even then, a single doughnut can negate the calories you burned.

This is why I've always been more passionate and interested in calorie intake vs calorie output (and the main reason why I made this thread about consumption of food and not physical activity). I've always believed that the two's ratio relating to their overall effect on human health is roughly 70/30 percent.

It makes me shake my head when some soccer mom goes to the gym to run on the treadmill for 30 minutes a day and yet she consumes shit foods throughout the day and then wonders why she's not a skinny, attractive woman like the ones on the covers of all those magazines she reads. What you put into your body is more important than what you do with you body.

But obviously for the best results...

Agreed. I remember when I first started focusing on living healthier, when I looked up how many calories are burned by different activities and saw how low all the numbers where compared to the amount of calories in one candy bar or softdrink. It's very easy to completely negate almost any cardio workout with one snack afterwards.

Post: #54

It is and I have to blame some of that on ignorance but also deception. The calorie burner display on most treadmills and ellipticals are completely wrong and overestimate a lot.

Post: #55

I don't think caloric intake and output are as important as portion sizes, which is the real culprit in the US. Europeans aren't as fat because they eat smaller. Simple.

Post: #56

(06-23-2015 12:16 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I don't think caloric intake and output are as important as portion sizes, which is the real culprit in the US. Europeans aren't as fat because they eat smaller. Simple.

A smaller portion = less calories, typically

Post: #57

Today, the Los Angeles Times and other outlets are reporting that more Americans are obese than merely overweight. Their main points are:

* Two-thirds of U.S. women and three-quarters of U.S. men are overweight or obese, study says

* Overall, there are more obese American adults than overweight American adults

* African American men and women were most likely to be 'extremely' obese."

OK, so maybe we have a bigger problem than I thought. While I still don't think charging parents with child abuse is the answer, I think some sort of mechanisms have to be put into place, legally-speaking.

Some changes should include altering our food supply back to what it was before 1985 (i.e. no corn syrup), mandatory recess for kids, and perhaps even allowing restaurants to refuse to serve the obese and business to refuse to hire them (because obesity is, after all, a lifestyle choice, like drug use).

While I don't like the government invading the private sphere and telling us how to raise our kids, I think it should be involved when it comes to the public sphere.

If the government started allowing health insurers not to cover the obese and allowed a weight limit for movie theaters and planes, that would send a message. And it would be non-invasive to the people who don't need the government butting into their business.

Post: #58

(06-23-2015 12:16 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I don't think caloric intake and output are as important as portion sizes, which is the real culprit in the US. Europeans aren't as fat because they eat smaller. Simple.

What we are eating is also important. The amount of carbs and sugar that the average American eats on a daily basis is unbelievable. This is important because even smaller "portion sizes" of high sugar and high carb foods can include a fuck ton of calories.

This isn't to detract from your point about portion size, it's to compound it. Not only are they eating larger portion sizes, but those larger portions are filled with more calorie-heavy foods, making it twice as bad.

If they were stuffing their faces full of huge portions of baked chicken and fried veggies, that would be one thing... but they are stuffing themselves with huge portions of glazed donuts, double-cheese pizzas and battered French fries.

Post: #59

(06-23-2015 01:41 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  Imagine a world where fat people can get fired just because their boss finds them disgusting, or that kids are denied places in school because of their farcical rotundity, or they are denied tenancies, and they find themselves generally alone and excluded. That'd force them to fix themselves, by medical intervention if necessary.

Some bars in my area are discovering a loophole when hiring waitresses/servers. Instead of hiring them as a 'waitress', they're hired as a model so they can be discriminated/fired based on looks.

Post: #60

That's how Hooters have operated for years I believe.

Post: #61

(06-22-2015 12:53 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  There are other factors here too, but criminalizing what parents feed to kids is like trying to cure the symptom while ignoring the disease. The government created this mess through bad policy and a misguided obsession with "equality in the workplace." The people shouldn't be penalized.

People should take responsibility for their behavior. They absolutely should be penalized. But they aren't, and that's the problem. They don't bear the increased cost of poor health on the healthcare system. A morbidly obese person bears the same cost burden as a healthy gym goer.

If hip replacements, bypass surgery, scooters, disability, and the rest of the raft of free stuff your health insurance premiums/NHS contributions/tax dollars are paying for were no longer doled out unthinkingly, things would change.

If overweight people were charged more for healthcare, things would change. The most companies in the States for example can do to trim their risk pool is offer gift cards in a feeble attempt to sign employees up for healthcare screening. Care to guess who responds to these incentives?

Decisions have consequences. Consequences change behavior.

Except when government acts to remove the consequences.

Post: #62

(06-23-2015 12:16 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I don't think caloric intake and output are as important as portion sizes, which is the real culprit in the US. Europeans aren't as fat because they eat smaller. Simple.

It's mostly this. A buddy who visited the US said his mind was absolutely blown at the portion sizes. American culture is obsessed with the value mentality, getting the biggest bang for their buck. And while there's nothing wrong with that, the portion sizes are simply excessive for a meal most of the time. Companies also know that their customers will flock to the biggest and cheapest portion size so they have 0 incentive to actually moderate their portions, they just slap a ton of food on a platter in order to attract customers. And it works. If people would just eat out but leave 1/4 or 1/3 of the food on the platter, you'd suddenly get the European experience, but still cheaper.

Also as someone else said earlier in the thread, using sports to balance out your calorie intake is a very stupid way of going about losing/maintaining weight. What's easier, not eating a 400cal candy bar that'll leave you hungry after an hour or to eat the candy bar but then go and run on the treadmill for an hour? Do sport activities to stay healthy, not to lose weight. Adjusting your food intake is by far the easiest way to go about things.

I'm also not buying the whole "different foods" thing. Yes sure your stuff is full of pecticides and growth hormones and corn syrup and whatever, but a 400cal piece of chicken is still 400 calories in US as well as in the EU. Just keep track of calories and you'll be fine and dandy

Post: #63

(06-23-2015 08:25 PM)CH-Toronto Wrote:  Some bars in my area are discovering a loophole when hiring waitresses/servers. Instead of hiring them as a 'waitress', they're hired as a model so they can be discriminated/fired based on looks.

Haha that's awesome. So if start a law firm, can I hire a fully male work place by recruiting everyone as a "male model", but that "you must be able to practice law also"?

Post: #64

(06-24-2015 08:03 AM)NO_LIMIT_CRACKA Wrote:  I'm also not buying the whole "different foods" thing. Yes sure your stuff is full of pecticides and growth hormones and corn syrup and whatever, but a 400cal piece of chicken is still 400 calories in US as well as in the EU. Just keep track of calories and you'll be fine and dandy

Calories are not calories - it is an approximate measuring stick and nothing more. 400 calories in vegetables and fruit is not 400 calories in a Mars chocolate bar. It becomes even worse when you account for mid- to long-term usage of such foods as the body starts metabolizing healthy foods completely different than unhealthy ones as is shown clearly in the dietary models of raw vegans and even 80-10-10ers. Those people have caloric intakes of 4000-6000 calories, but have bodies similar to pro athletes. I dare everyone to prove to himself a daily regimen of apples and oranges vs junk food of the same caloric value and see for himself how his body reacts.

In fact that caloric fallacy is one of the moronic cornerstones of the mainstream nutritional bullshit. It is followed in the idiocracy olympics by diet plans like eat-half or claims that no matter your food intake, your body is going to take all necessary nutrients out of the food - no supplements necessary.

Calorie counting is at best an approximate thing. You can stuff your face with fat-free baked potatoes, greens, nuts and some fruits without gaining weight. On the other hand a diet of junk food, sugary soda, unhealthy meat and sweets will add to your waistline even if you consume by far less calories than in the first example. Then you actually have people on the Dr. OZ show who claim that they are doing a lot and starving themselves - some of them may actually not lie. They just mistakenly followed mainstream nutritionist advice.

Post: #65

(06-24-2015 01:53 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 08:03 AM)NO_LIMIT_CRACKA Wrote:  I'm also not buying the whole "different foods" thing. Yes sure your stuff is full of pecticides and growth hormones and corn syrup and whatever, but a 400cal piece of chicken is still 400 calories in US as well as in the EU. Just keep track of calories and you'll be fine and dandy

Calories are not calories - it is an approximate measuring stick and nothing more. 400 calories in vegetables and fruit is not 400 calories in a Mars chocolate bar. It becomes even worse when you account for mid- to long-term usage of such foods as the body starts metabolizing healthy foods completely different than unhealthy ones as is shown clearly in the dietary models of raw vegans and even 80-10-10ers. Those people have caloric intakes of 4000-6000 calories, but have bodies similar to pro athletes. I dare everyone to prove to himself a daily regimen of apples and oranges vs junk food of the same caloric value and see for himself how his body reacts.

In fact that caloric fallacy is one of the moronic cornerstones of the mainstream nutritional bullshit. It is followed in the idiocracy olympics by diet plans like eat-half or claims that no matter your food intake, your body is going to take all necessary nutrients out of the food - no supplements necessary.

Calorie counting is at best an approximate thing. You can stuff your face with fat-free baked potatoes, greens, nuts and some fruits without gaining weight. On the other hand a diet of junk food, sugary soda, unhealthy meat and sweets will add to your waistline even if you consume by far less calories than in the first example. Then you actually have people on the Dr. OZ show who claim that they are doing a lot and starving themselves - some of them may actually not lie. They just mistakenly followed mainstream nutritionist advice.

One of my friends was proudly telling me and everyone else before last summer break that the next time we saw him, he was going to be fit, having lost so much weight from his then-overweight-and-on-the-verge-of-obese body. But when the next school year started back up and I saw him, nothing had changed.

He actually was one of my three roommates last school year, and he told me that he had developed this diet where he eats the same foods that he eats, only he halves the portions. So he'd always tell us with raised eyebrows "If we end up getting a pizza, I'll stop myself after two slices. It might be difficult, but it's gonna pay off in the end."

Needless to say, that didn't work out for him. He didn't lose a single pound and it didn't take long before he gradually dropped his 'halving' diet - I started seeing him down entire Domino's pizzas in single sittings.

He ended up dropping out half way through the year because "his depression came back".

Post: #66

(06-24-2015 02:39 PM)Goldhawkstar Wrote:  He actually was one of my three roommates last school year, and he told me that he had developed this diet where he eats the same foods that he eats, only he halves the portions. So he'd always tell us with raised eyebrows "If we end up getting a pizza, I'll stop myself after two slices. It might be difficult, but it's gonna pay off in the end."

Needless to say, that didn't work out for him. He didn't lose a single pound and it didn't take long before he gradually dropped his 'halving' diet - I started seeing him down entire Domino's pizzas in single sittings.

Strangely most Westerners are overfed and malnourished in terms of nutrients. Halving that amount of food will deplete the body of more essential vitamins and minerals and thus create depressions and other states which can be reversed by nutrition. His diet before was not giving him enough vitamins and minerals, so half of it is going to do a worse job.





For good nutritional advice there was this show YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT that ran in the UK, Germany and Austria. Note the blatant fat shaming - some of the fatties on the show lost 30-40 pounds in one month while never being hungry. They just ate the right kind of foods.

Post: #67

(06-24-2015 01:53 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(06-24-2015 08:03 AM)NO_LIMIT_CRACKA Wrote:  I'm also not buying the whole "different foods" thing. Yes sure your stuff is full of pecticides and growth hormones and corn syrup and whatever, but a 400cal piece of chicken is still 400 calories in US as well as in the EU. Just keep track of calories and you'll be fine and dandy

Calories are not calories - it is an approximate measuring stick and nothing more. 400 calories in vegetables and fruit is not 400 calories in a Mars chocolate bar. It becomes even worse when you account for mid- to long-term usage of such foods as the body starts metabolizing healthy foods completely different than unhealthy ones as is shown clearly in the dietary models of raw vegans and even 80-10-10ers. Those people have caloric intakes of 4000-6000 calories, but have bodies similar to pro athletes. I dare everyone to prove to himself a daily regimen of apples and oranges vs junk food of the same caloric value and see for himself how his body reacts.

In fact that caloric fallacy is one of the moronic cornerstones of the mainstream nutritional bullshit. It is followed in the idiocracy olympics by diet plans like eat-half or claims that no matter your food intake, your body is going to take all necessary nutrients out of the food - no supplements necessary.

Calorie counting is at best an approximate thing. You can stuff your face with fat-free baked potatoes, greens, nuts and some fruits without gaining weight. On the other hand a diet of junk food, sugary soda, unhealthy meat and sweets will add to your waistline even if you consume by far less calories than in the first example. Then you actually have people on the Dr. OZ show who claim that they are doing a lot and starving themselves - some of them may actually not lie. They just mistakenly followed mainstream nutritionist advice.

You can still get fat stuffing yourself with healthy food. I've managed it. You just get a fat a whole lot faster stuffing yourself with unhealthy food. I think the issue with healthy food is fat people confuse the long term health benefits with being low calorie. You can make yourself fat slathering coconut and olive oil on everything, you're just less likely to also have heart disease compared to having slathered shortening and margarine instead.

Post: #68

Having lived in poor places prior, people are fucking poor and retarded. They think spending 7 dollars on junk food is cheaper than 25 on good quality chicken at Costco

Post: #69

(06-24-2015 06:31 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  You can still get fat stuffing yourself with [too many calories of] healthy food.

Fixed this for you. That's not groundbreaking news though. Eat a caloric surplus, no matter how you got it: get fatter. There has been a guy on reddit who lost like 15kg or more eating only pizza. Sure he felt miserable and was unhealthy doing it and often had hunger pangs because pizza isn't really satiating for long, but hey, he lost weight, which yet again proves the simple formula: calories in=calories out. Eat less calories than you're burning off during the day, no matter what you eat, you're bound to lose weight. It's really quite simple

People really need to start separating 2 very related but completely disconnected concepts in the brain once and for all to stop the confusing arguments: "eating healthy" and "eating properly for your weight loss/gain goals". "Eating healthy" means stuff like: get enough protein from good sources, get enough fat from good sources, get your vitamins from veggies and fruits, eat enough fiber, drink enough water, don't overdo it on salt etc. etc. "Eating properly for your weight loss/gain goals" simply means: count your calories. Want to lose weight? Eat less cals than you burn. Want to gain weight? Eat more cals than you burn (while ideally getting enough protein). And that's about it. So statements like "Oh but I eat healthy!" are completely irrelevant non-information when we're talking about matters of weight.

Post: #70

Those obesity statistics are going to be all over the place. When I went to my doctor, she chuckled and said I was "overweight" according to the BMI Stat even though it's more muscle than fat.

How many athletes get lumped into the overweight category because of some arbitrary database search by a researcher somewhere? Most likely it's a small percentage but still.

Post: #71

I have to lift these farm animals up, I commend your stand against this epidemic.