[Closed] Being a fatty now socially acceptable

[i]TSY, I would guess that you would lose weight and gain fat.

[/i]
That can happen, Taubes's referral to other peoples work which lead them to conclude that the fat accumulation process can appear to work independantly to the body's functional requirements, giving rise to processes such as gluconeogenesis.

Would mean that the body can make and store fat from the food you've consumed then consume skeletal muscle and organs to fuel activity.

Ah !, bollocks, I've got that all wrong.
Ignore me !.

Just move more and eat less, oh and count calories like your pancreas does.

Damn, I owe myself a fiver now 😕

yeti, you need to watch more 'supersize vs superskinny' for that answer. as you well know most of the skinny ones live on sugar. stalk one of the skinny ones then chase them for exactly the amount of time it takes to burn 3000kcals

[i]So at best you'd lsoe muscle and some fat, at worst you'd lose lots of mucle and no fat[/i]

This had been demonstrated in independant research, as referred to in that Taubes video of [i]total spin[/i].

What did the professor tell us at the end of that 15 min video ?.

the western world is very demanding of our health sevices and unfortunately most people expect to be fixed with a tablet so they dont have to change anything they're used to or stop doing whatever they please.

can appear to work independantly to the body's functional requirements,

We are just getting silly now

I was listening whilst typing... the Doc seems to be hypothesising about someone who's sedentry anyway?

Even the iDiet allows for sugars around exercise?

[i]eat what you like[/i]

Yeti eats whatever he likes.

[i]I was listening whilst typing... the Doc seems to be hypothesising about someone who's sedentry anyway[/i]

Ok, so now, what I'm going to do is point out that you are asking for answers to your questions, but not really paying attention to the answers.

Junkyard.
You're just not getting it.
You're not alone though.
😉

[i]Even the iDiet allows for sugars around exercise?

[/i]
So ?, whos saying anything about iDiet ?.
Forget the iDave diet.

This is the thread for the first law of thermodynamics and move more, eat less.
another £5 to me

EDIT.
Oh, btw TSY, I asked you about that Taubes video.
I'm not convinced you [i]watched[/i] it, did you 😉

no, this thread is about whether being fat is socially acceptable, then we moved onto CG's situation and i posted a fantastic post thats been lost amongst you lot arguing about the same old thing over and over again.

foools, you're missing my wisdom.

[i]foools, you're missing my wisdom.[/i]

Phil.
Actually I have read your posts here, I like most of what you've written.
🙂

^^^ I was being a bit satirical, while waiting for the ruling on whether " Chunky " in place of " Lard ass " is socially acceptable.

Your post was indeed very good phil and to answer the OP, being fat is socially acceptable to other fatties, thinnies will still point and laugh!

Junkyard.
You're just not getting it.
You're not alone though.

You cannot breach the first law of thermodynamics* hence the repeated mockery

* if you can there is a noble prize waiting for you

Maybe I listened to it whilst working Solo... Powerpoints are boring at the best of times... let alone whilst at work 😀

What isn't Junky getting though... enough sugar?

He's lean. I'm lean. Edukator is lean. Jota is lean when he wants to be.

I mentioned iDiet... because of sugar... because of the insulin response that we are all aware of. I mention this because of the first rule of thermodynamics. I mention this because the lean people I know generally move more and eat less. I mention this because the fat people I know don't.

TSY.

JY is trollin cos hes still got a sorre ring from the Empire thread.
So he's rocked up here with an [i]agenda[/i].

JY, I'm not sure what your Q was, but your take on the Lustig video was obtuse to the point where I can't really spare the time to drag you through it all.
If you want to play games, go ahead.
I will just ignore you.
😀

[i]I mentioned iDiet... because of sugar... because of the insulin response that we are all aware of. I mention this because of the first rule of thermodynamics. I mention this because the lean people I know generally move more and eat less. I mention this because the fat people I know don't.

[/i]

And waving your arms and legs about, or starving yourself.
Moving more, eating less
WOOHOO, another £5 for me
Is what you're all about.
So, that being as it may.
I can't help but notice that you never seem to post much about hormones, you know, insulin, glucagon, etc, etc.
Leptin resistance, blah, blah.
These things are ignored by the move more, eat less group.
yet these hormones and processes are there and doing their thing.
How do you reconcile the presence and activity of our digestive systems, with the simple mantra of move more, eat less.

That was a tenner there, I'm getting the hang of this

These things are ignored by the move more, eat less group.
yet they are [s]there and doing their [/s]thin

Maybe it's because we're not fat or we've lost weight through this route and eat what we want so don't need to naval gaze and worry about hormones?

I cannot move more unless I eat more.

I also think that Junky is pointing out how offensive you can be to others when discussing things on a forum BTW.

These things are ignored by the move more, eat less group.

OK - given that I can control my weight, tell me why they should be of any great concern to me

I mentioned iDiet... because of sugar... because of the insulin response that we are all aware of. I mention this because of the first rule of thermodynamics. I mention this because the lean people I know generally move more and eat less. I mention this because the fat people I know don't.

Maybe cause and effect are the other way round? Perhaps the fat people eat more and move less [i]because[/i] they're fat? Perhaps the skinny people eat less and move more [i]because[/i] they're skinny?

Or, perhaps the greed and sloth have the same cause as the fatness and they're [i]not[/i] the cause of the fatness at all?

Some people remain skinny [i]despite[/i] eating lots and moving little. So, perhaps there are people who become fat [i]despite[/i] moving a lot and not eating much?

OK - given that I can control my weight, tell me why they should be of any great concern to me

Perhaps you could control your weight more effectively by learning about them?

perhaps there are people who become fat despite moving a lot and not eating much?

I'm not fat I have big bones. 😈

A wise man (of this parish) once said:

"We're all different"

(between mouthfuls of cheesecake)

Some people remain skinny despite eating lots and moving little. So, perhaps there are people who become fat despite moving a lot and not eating much?

YES!!!! back to the basal metablic rate 😀

Perhaps you could control your weight more effectively by learning about them?

It's good now, causes me no hardship, I have no need for anything that claims to be more effective

JY is trollin cos hes still got a sorre ring from the Empire thread.
So he's rocked up here with an agenda.

Is this how you always "debate"?
Ignore the points,gentle attacks, mockery and evasion

I will just ignore you.

If you do reply please claim your noble Prize re thermodynamics rather than your £5

I also think that Junky is pointing out how offensive you can be to others when discussing things on a forum BTW

YES!!!! back to the basal metablic rate

And the basal metabolic rate is regulated by what?

[i]Maybe it's because we're not fat or we've lost weight through this route[/i]

TSY.
Now I know you haven't seen that video.
You're missing the new info you are being offered.
You're remaining stuck and entrenched in your opinion based on our personal experience.
You do not appear to be considering what new research is teaching some people.

[i]OK - given that I can control my weight, tell me why they should be of any great concern to me

[/i]

Well, how about this, now I've a question for the move more eat less brigade.

I have been conducting a personal experiment.
For the last two weeks I have introduced an [b]additional[/b] activity while maintaining the same dietary intake.
In the good weather I have been riding to work instead of taking the car.
I eat the same, do the same amount of gym.
I weight the same.
Yet I have moved more.
I haven't been counting cals as this has been demonstrated to be total bunkum.
So, whats going wrong, eat less, move more'ers ?.
Why, after moving more, on the same amount of food, do I still weigh the same ?.

It's good now, causes me no hardship, I have no need for anything that claims to be more effective

So, don't learn about them?

Q. And the basal metabolic rate is regulated by what?

A. Activity levels.

What do I win?

So, don't learn about them?

That was the point I was making
Solo was criticizing the 'eat less, move more' followers for not wanting to learn about them
I was merely saying I didn't want to as I had no need

glad we're in agreement

And the basal metabolic rate is regulated by what?

everything 😀 hell, even getting your heart-rate up by imaginging deadlydarcy in lycra will increase your BMR!

Why, after moving more, on the same amount of food, do I still weigh the same ?.

Some people dont get it you got a sore rear end from some thread or other yadda yadda yaddaI am going to ignore you.

Surely you are satisfied with the reply and answer?

PS the real reason is because you are so god dam awesome you alone can break the rules of thermodynamics and you can actually create energy.

May i worship you ?

Was that helpful? 😉

Leaves thread as it will be a few more pages of this

What do I win?

A year's supply of sugar.

Right.

Think I'm going home now.

So, if I'm not back.

Thanks to all for their input, such as some of it was....

Have a good weekend folks 😉

TSY.
Now I know you haven't seen that video.
You're missing the new info you are being offered.

Solo - I have... but I've obviously missed something. Why don't you write it out for me so that there is no room for confusion?

Also - are you 100% positive that your dietary intake has been the same? Are you sure you've maintained the same level of intensity in the gym... have you moved less in the rest of your life? I thought we weren't allowed to use ourselves as examples...

Leaves thread as it will be a few more pages of this

Typical JY that one...flouncy flouncy flouncy

Q. And the basal metabolic rate is regulated by what?

A. Activity levels.

But that doesn't explain all the skinny people who don't exercise but eat lots. Or the people who are fat despite watching what they eat and exercising.

they've both flounced.

back to the OP then, i think it is socially acceptable, when high street fashion is geared towards people with big bellies instead of slim bellies its a big clue.

adverts featuring 'real women'... FFS, are slim women not real women also??!?!?!

EDIT - thyroid levels play a part, as does most of the endocrine system, stress also, disease, cancer, location, ambient temperature... anything that effects the body's homeostasis and will make the body adapt to try to maintain itself on a level.

A year's supply of sugar.

Is the next competition for a picture of you in lycra to help me burn it off?

EDIT: It seems I only need imagine, I'm all set.

getting your heart-rate up by imaginging deadlydarcy in lycra will increase your BMR!

Why, after moving more, on the same amount of food, do I still weigh the same ?.

I haven't read the rest, so may be falling into a cunningly laid trap, but..
My weight varies a kilo or so on a daily basis, so the tiny loss of weight that may have occurred by exercise may have produced may have been masked by this greater variation.
The onset of excersie and the repair of muscle may increase fluid levels within the muscles.
The muscles themselves may have gained mass.
The choices the body makes on it's default hydration levels may have changed.

But that doesn't explain all the skinny people who don't exercise but eat lots.

Mike do they really exist? The only people that I know that fit anything like this discription would also be described as having 'high nervous energy' or 'stressy'. They may not exercise but are constantly moving... fingers strumming, knees jiggling...

Is the next competition for a picture of you in lycra to help me burn it off?

😆

Nah matey, you can have one of those anytime you like shweeetie 😉

bump

'high nervous energy' or 'stressy'. They may not exercise but are constantly moving... fingers strumming, knees jiggling...

thyroid, anxiety, speed, interview coming up, needs the toilet.

But that doesn't explain all the skinny people who don't exercise but eat lots.

Or the people who are fat despite watching what they eat and exercising.

>But that doesn't explain all the skinny people who don't exercise but eat lots.

Mike do they really exist?

Nice to meet you.
I know things will change as I age.

The only people that I know that fit anything like this discription would also be described as having 'high nervous energy' or 'stressy'.

add into that cigarette's, coffee, drugs etc...

[i]Mike do they really exist? The only people that I know that fit anything like this discription would also be described as having 'high nervous energy' or 'stressy'. They may not exercise but are constantly moving... fingers strumming, knees jiggling...

[/i]

Must log out and go home to pay bills

TSY.
You're really clutching at straws now.
My Ex could eat cheese and choc for England an never put weight on.
And she sat about alot.
Mike is right, those people really do exist.
And their existence totally explodes the eat less move more myth, the alter of which you worship at.
Sorry dude.

I'm really going now.

Bye, bye.

add into that cigarette's, coffee, drugs etc...

Left over steak and kidney pie with a big wedge of of crusty white bread for lunch, hope you idavers enjoy you beans or whatever as much

Woah woah WOAH!

that's old fashioned speak for stop a horse

[img] [/img]

LOL Solo - worshipping at alters?

Shame you couldn't stick around to tell me what I'd missed from Taubes.

If those skinny types do exist... don't they explode all your theories too? Just a thought.

Or are there some exceptions to the average person? You know the type... the ones who don't need to scrutinise their hormone levels to achieve a happy weight.

flouncy flouncy flouncy

Is anyone really scrutinising their hormone levels? Personally I have cut out wheat, rice, potatoes etc and eat more veg and pulses to replace it. If I eat these things not on a cheat day or for exercise purposes I accept it may be detremental to fat loss. My activity levels have dropped as I'm struggling with commuting/child care issues, but I haven't gained any visable fat.

flouncing is well known to raise your metabolic rate.

*reports junky for cheating the system*

Good point and how many calories have I lost through gentle sobbing and rocking back and forth?

cannabis raises the heart rate, why not roll up a 'cannabis cigarette' as i believe you kids call them nowadays and relax? its the best way to lose weight by relaxing.

It's the little things that make the difference.
"Aggregation of marginal gains" as Dave Brailsford puts it.

So now I leave my Rustler's burger at the other end of the bench, and every time I need a bite, have to scoot my caster chair over, then scoot back again.

So now I leave my Rustler's burger at the other end of the bench, and every time I need a bite, have to scoot my caster chair over, then scoot back again.

that, is dedication. i do something similar, its genius really but i dont like to boast about how damn clever i am: i keep the fridge in the kitchen, and the TV/sofas in the lounge.

amatuer
my kitchen is upstairs and my living room* downstairs

* working class for lounge iirc

living room? thats posh for lounge, or 'laahhhhhnge' as we call it below the british equator.

does living in a house instead of a bungalow increase your BMR? think it does.

EDIT - i have no idea why i typed lounge instead of living room, i've always called it a living room! might as well have typed couch instead of 'sofa' *slaps self across the face*

freeundred

i'll freehundred you in a minute!
[img] [/img]

Don't 300 me.

[img] [/img]

Solo - Member

My Ex could eat cheese and choc for England an never put weight on.
And she sat about alot.
Mike is right, those people really do exist.
And their existence totally explodes the eat less move more myth, the alter of which you worship at.
Sorry dude.

They cannot alter basic physics - its an energy balance -to remain slim they are using those calories somehow.

There must be a calorie imbalance to later weight - simple basic science.

yes some diets may make this easier of harder but the basics remain there.

They cannot alter basic physics - its an energy balance -to remain slim they are using those calories somehow.

Perhaps their piss is full of sugar?

The key is, they're not storing the calories as fat. So, why not?

They cannot alter basic physics - its an energy balance -to remain slim they are using those calories somehow.

The problem is that your model seems to be woefully inadequate, does it not?

Otherwise why was the gf not fat?

Simply putting the fat in your stomach does not guarantee it enters fat stores.

the argument was that insulin levels affect whether you convert calories to fat and therefore you eat more because you still feel hungry.

it said if you eat 2000per day and need 2000 but insulin suddenly makes you store 500 then you need to eat more to not feel hungry etc.

you are right though you still eat more than you consume and you cannot store fat long term if you are not eating an excess as you would also consume the fat

Perhaps their piss is full of sugar?

They should bottle that.

you cannot store fat long term if you are not eating an excess

Unless your BMR changes or your actual work out put during exercise changes. Or your work output stays the same but your efficiency changes.

AND SO ON

It's not just insulin, it's about 20 hormones.

Otherwise why was the gf not fat?

Because she didn't exist?

The key is, they're not storing the calories as fat. So, why not?

super hot underbeard leading to energy loss through heat.

They should bottle that.

[img] [/img]

Molly any of those changes you mention would mean you are suddenly consuming in excess of what you're burning??

They would, yes.

But then there might be changes that mean you store less of what you eat. Like a change in insulin response.

Are you suggesting a reason or model that violates the laws of thermodynamics then molgrips?
She somehow magically removed the energy she consumed? or did she just consume what she used?
AS TSY notes you have stated reasons that later how much you burn but they have not altered the relationship between what you consume and what you eat.

Are you suggesting a reason or model that violates the laws of thermodynamics then molgrips?

Of course I'm bloody well not.

A human body is not a simple heat engine.

What you eat isn't necessarily all made available for exercise.

And the energy you 'use' is a massive variable, NOT just dependent on how much exercise you do.

so basically i haven't seen a single post that disproves the 1st law of robotics, calories out against calories in. but we've established the already known by anyone who studied biology at GCSE level fact that the rate at which the body burns calories is effected by pretty much anything.

right.

How can you store energy[ put on weight] if the energy of what you eat is less than the energy you use?

We all know how this happens and the interactions between many lifestyle and other factors is complicated but that fact is true and simple
you need to eat more than you use to put on weight..ther emay be many reasons why people do this but this is the cause of weihht gain

EDIT: Sorry trying to keep up with you molgrips

I dont disagree Phil

It's not just insulin, it's about 20 hormones.

Right, I think we're all clear on insulin and sugar now. Which other ones? What's the best food to eat to promote glucagon production?

How can you store energy[ put on weight] if the energy of what you eat is less than the energy you use?

This question is left unanswered...

They cannot alter basic physics - its an energy balance -to remain slim they are using those calories somehow.

Or just pooping them out the other end..
Sawdust has plenty of calories in it, but I doubt I'd get fat on it.
Although that's somewhat facetious response, it wouldn't seem unreasonable to assume that some people have stomachs and intestines that are poorer at extracting energy from food than others. Hence the possibility of some skinny people being able to stuff themselves and stay slim.

How can you store energy[ put on weight] if the energy of what you eat is less than the energy you use?

You can't.

But it's a useless oversimplification.

Philc is right - it is calories in v calories out, but both values are wildly affected by so many factors that it's POINTLESS TO KEEP GOING ON ABOUT IT

it wouldn't seem unreasonable to assume that some people have stomachs and intestines that are poorer at extracting energy from food than others. Hence the possibility of some skinny people being able to stuff themselves and stay slim.

Exactly. Our gut fauna vary a lot, which is why some people can't eat much X it gives them wind etc etc.