No carbs before Marbs!
[img] 
[/img]
I'm afraid your academic credentials (or lack of) don't give your arguments any weight at all in this context, Toys. Being pragmatic and objective you can't fault Haggis. However, pragmatism and objectivity are like a red rag to some. Things as simple as "consume less calories than you burn and you will lose weight" are completely lost on some academic high achievers.
You must have been away the day they did reading at school then "edukator", as I clearly wrote this:
You have not heard my education theory yet, I just asked a question, you musta applied your own interpretation. I'm degree, msc, well paid. And about 5 stone overweight.
As far as I know, there is no relationship between level of education and fatness/notfatness, or with fatist attitudes.My point was to illustrate something about how fattism comes about and its effect, but seeing as none of the fatist types have replied to my question, I have not been able to demonstrate it yet.
I'm pretty sure what's important is a balanced diet. No surprise there then? Not too much fat, not too much carbs. To instantly equate that with no fat, no carbs, is ludicrous. Why that would be almost as mad as claiming that most people are overweight because of some genetic disorder which has suddenly in the past two or three generations overwhelmed the human race.
This post is so full of straw men it's hard to know where to start.
[i]it's hard to know where to start.[/i]
Then don't. I rarely do these days. Theres so much blind, dogged, adherence to the flawed paradigm of calories in Vs calories out, that the truth, under pinned with research spanning 100 years. Won't break people's misplaced trust and belief in opinions given by biased physicians.
Bascally theres waaay more carbs in our dietary environment, than ever before in the history of man kind. Our body's are not evolved to deal with consuming 2/3s of your 2K cals a day, as carbs. But hey-ho.
CARRY ON !
EDIT:
[i]No carbs before Marbs![/i]
And if you go to Blackpool, you may lose sight of your tool ?
This post is so full of straw men it's hard to know where to start.
Well do please try because I would love to be educated.
You're just making up extreme versions of peoples' arguments then dismissing them as ludicrous.
To instantly equate that with no fat, no carbs, is ludicrous.
Lucky no-one said that then.
Why that would be almost as mad as claiming that most people are overweight because of some genetic disorder which has suddenly in the past two or three generations overwhelmed the human race.
Lucky no-one said that either.
I suggest you read my contribution again, Toys. It's not an answer to your question. Strange that you claim to have posted the answer but keep asking the question. Another example:
I wonder how many of the eat less/do more crowd are high academic achievers and/or high earners?
The "context" here is a public forum and a subject far away from anything your MSc is in that's why Im' saying your academic credential (or lack of) give no weight to your arguments.
Smoking and alcohol long been recognised as a public health issue and the root of the cause taxed. Sodas are now also recognised as a public health issue and the cause taxed in some countries. Sugary drinks have a health tax on them where I live. Even if you like being overweight in the same way as some people like being smokers or drinkers there is a cost to society of their choices and people should be discouraged from eating and drinking the things that make them overweight and sometime diabetic. I would go further than current French legislation and ban the sale of drinks containing added sugar to anyone under the age of 18.
You obviously[s] can't read, or [/s]are just trolling, I have not claimed to have posted an answer anywhere.
Again I say clearly for your Troll like skull to get it in.
[b]1) I DO NOT BELIEVE, NOR HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW, THAT THERE IS ANY CAUSAL OR STATISTICAL LINK BETWEEN OBESITY AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.
2) I DO NOT BELIEVE , NOR HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW, THERE IS ANY CAUSAL OR STATISTICAL LINK BETWEEN BIGOTRY/FATTISM AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.[/b]
There is that clear enough?
Meanwhile, perhaps you could tell us what your level of academic achievement is? Then we can have a discussion about bigotry using peoples attitudes to academic achievment as an example/illustration of how bigotry comes about.
[i]people should be discouraged from eating and drinking the things that make them overweight and sometime diabetic[/i]
So, if you agree that excessive carbohydrate consumption has a casual effect on the development of obesity ( you refer to sugary drinks ). Then why do you not distinguish between carbs and the other two macros when you say:
[i]Things as simple as "consume less calories than you burn and you will lose weight" are completely lost on some academic high achievers[/i]
Either calories from carbs are metabolized by the body in the exact same way as protein or fat, or they are processed in a distinctly different manner, which then precludes one from just labelling all calories as being the same. Which then leads some to say that its as simple as, calories in Vs calories out, which is, of course, not accurate.
LOVL @
[i]Again I say clearly for your Troll like skull to get it in.[/i]
😆
Edit:
[i]Meanwhile, perhaps you could tell us what your level of academic achievement is? Then we can have a discussion about bigotry using peoples attitudes to academic achievment as an example/illustration of how bigotry comes about[/i]
Oh, please, PLEASE.... NNNoooooooooo !
😥
grum - The argument has been made more than once on this thread that the reason for an individual's obesity may be down to some genetic or other health issue. Whilst I agree with that I believe that the majority of cases of overweight and obesity are simply down to the population as a whole eating more and working/exercising less than two or three generations ago. If there was always a genetic cause to an individual's obesity then we would not be seeing the problem growing in the way we are - it would always have been there, the percentage of population who are obese would not be rapidly increasing. Would it?
Whilst I agree with that I believe that the majority of cases of overweight and obesity are simply down to the population as a whole eating more and working/exercising less than two or three generations ago
There is a difference between believe, and actual evidence/causal link. So where is your evidence that the majority of cases of obesity are caused by eating more/moving less?
As noted above, I have no evidence for this, but it seems reasonable to me. The primary example might be people who would have walked/cycled to work years ago, but nowadays mostly drive.Whilst I agree with that I believe that the majority of cases of overweight and obesity are simply down to the population as a whole eating more and working/exercising less than two or three generations ago.
I would disagree with this though on the basis that I think our diets [i]have[/i] changed significantly in the last few generations, specifically the increase in processed/junk foods and sugar (especially sugary drinks). Again, I have no actual evidence of this though. 🙂If there was always a genetic cause to an individual's obesity then we would not be seeing the problem growing in the way we are - it would always have been there, the percentage of population who are obese would not be rapidly increasing. Would it?
I would disagree with this though on the basis that I think our diets have changed significantly in the last few generations
That's what I was saying. The majority of cases are (as far as I am aware anyway) due to eating/exercise, not genetics or other disorders.
OK, in that case I agree with you 😀 It's probably not necessarily down to people being more wilfully greedy/lazy (although not saying that's never a factor) but more a general shift in the attitude of society towards how people get about/spend their leisure time and how/what people eat.
So where is your evidence that the majority of cases of obesity are caused by eating more/moving less?
Google "lifestyle obesity" for hundreds of papers, Toys.
[url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11194216 ]ncbi[/url]
[url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11683545 ]another[/url]
Good find "edukator", if I can draw something from the [url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11194216 ]abstract[/url] rather than reading the whole thing and fully understanding what it is about, look at this:
Further research, however, is clearly needed, because the rates of obesity in our country are escalating, and changing behavior for the long term has proven to be very difficult
Which essentially say's that telling people to move more and eat less does not appear to be working. I wonder why.
And from your 2nd paper ( [url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11683545 ]from way back in 2001[/url]) it directly contradicts what we know now, that eating fat does not make you fat.
To prevent obesity and diabetes there are grounds for recommending the combination of increasing daily physical activity level to a PAL-value of at least 1.8 and reducing dietary fat content to 20-25 energy-% in sedentary subjects, and to 25-35% in more physically active individuals.
Which just backs up what we said before that even the medical profession have been giving people the wrong message.
Can you find me any more please?
Would I be risking a flaming by suggesting it's because people just aren't listening (or are listening but not acting) despite it being sound advice?Which essentially say's that telling people to move more and eat less does not appear to be working. I wonder why.
Google "lifestyle obesity" for hundreds of papers
I googled "lifestyle obesity" and I didn't see hundreds of papers claiming that we're eating more, why would we be ? Change of diet seems to be a far greater cause. There were no MacDonalds in the UK 50 years ago.
Would I be risking a flaming by suggesting it's because people just aren't listening (or are listening but not acting) despite it being sound advice?
I don't do flaming, only discussion, unless you are a dick to me or someone else..
I dunno, again, where is the evidence that they are not listening? Maybe the evidence shows that it just does not work? Or that the advice is difficult to follow in one way or another?
There is a fair bit of evidence to show that modern foods are far less nutrient dense than they were in the past. I saw something that stated modern tomatoes have 1/7th the nutritional value for weight than they did just 50 years ago.
Even when you are trying to keep your meals healthy, produce is produced to maximize profits, made sweeter and juicer than it naturally would be. A process that has massively changed what we eat just since the 70's.
It's a tricky one to prove, I suppose, although tbh the academic side of this argument doesn't really interest me.I dunno, again, where is the evidence that they are not listening?
I guess my "evidence" would be the same way I know ridiculously skinny jeans or Mumford & Sons beards are fashionable; not because I have completed a research paper in the subject merely because I observe it to be so. I see butchers/greengrocers closing and junk food places popping up in their place. I see people piling their trolleys high with rubbish in the supermarkets and stuffing their faces as they walk along the street. I see people driving short distances rather than walking/riding. No-one I know who is obese is genuinely trying to lose weight; they all eat (and especially drink) too much and exercise too little.
I have no problem with people who are overweight, by choice or otherwise. Though as a former fatty myself I can tell you that my life improved in a huge number of ways when I managed to lose the weight so if I [i]were[/i] to suggest to someone they would be advised to lose it my motive would be purely altruistic rather than malicious.
I assume you're talking about micro rather than macro nutrients (which would not really affect how many calories it had)? Unless a tomato was simply 7 times bigger years ago?There is a fair bit of evidence to show that modern foods are far less nutrient dense than they were in the past. I saw something that stated modern tomatoes have 1/7th the nutritional value for weight than they did just 50 years ago.
Even so, you cannot be seriously telling me that an average snack from today (whatever that is, Greggs XL pasty or whatever) is less calorie dense than a snack from 50 years ago (apple or monster tomato or what have you)?
If people heed the advice it works. I suggest that if the deniers on this thread heeded the advice they would not be in the obese category of the body mass chart. History tells us that when groups of people are forced to live on limited calorie intake and maintain active lives there are very soon no obese or even fat people left in the population whatever their genetics or illnessses.
Toys. Its up to you, but I'd leave poor old Kato alone. Poor old Edukator is trapped in an old paradigm that he doesn't want to let go of. Its likely an age thing, which would also explain his uncharacteristic oversight of my question to him.....
Don't pick on the poor thing, he can't help himself. Instead, pity him.
Don't pick on the poor thing, he can't help himself. Instead, pity him.
Wise words.
We also do a lot less physical activity anyway - I think the health delusion book pointed out that we do the equivalent of a marathons (running not choc bar) less activity per week compared to those in the 70s.
Also apparently we also subconsciously associated fat people with disease.
Especially if they are really fat - all those germs festering under the rolls of fat.
I heard that on the radio, but not the bit about the rolls of fat - that's my supposition...
I had heard that food was less nutritious than it used to be, but because of nutrient-depleted soils rather than any nefarious plot.
History tells us that when groups of people are forced to live on limited calorie intake and maintain active lives there are very soon no obese or even fat people left in the population whatever their genetics or illnessses.
How do they feel though? And how does their athletic performance vary?
Even so, you cannot be seriously telling me that an average snack from today (whatever that is, Greggs XL pasty or whatever) is less calorie dense than a snack from 50 years ago (apple or monster tomato or what have you)?
I am saying that a tomato today has more sugars and less nutrients that 50 years ago.
I had heard that food was less nutritious than it used to be, but because of nutrient-depleted soils rather than any nefarious plot.
It is more that they have been selectively bred to taste sweeter and look more colourful, force grown to be plumper, and treated to look fresher for longer. The growers/supermarkets haven't set out to create produce that is deficient in nutrients, they just don't care that it is the side effect of the qualities they do want.
If people heed the advice it works. I suggest that if the deniers on this thread heeded the advice they would not be in the obese category of the body mass chart. History tells us that when groups of people are forced to live on limited calorie intake and maintain active lives there are very soon no obese or even fat people left in the population whatever their genetics or illnessses.
Exactly! For the deniers on here, try reading Stalingrad by Antony Beevor, or even his more recent The Second World War.
Is that when the German forces surrounded the Russian city and started shouting "oi fatty eat less and move more" thereby causing everyone in the city to lose weight and live happily ever after?
🙄
And they did airborne leaflet drops of hastily selected scientific journal articles that didn't actually back up what the Germans believed, but the Ruski's accepted their "evidence" prima facie without further critical thought, and all promptly dropped 10 kilo's.
At last, something positive about the Nazis - they helped people lose weight who otherwise wouldn't have managed.
I think will all now know what the solution to obese Britain is don't we ?
I think will all now know what the solution to obese Britain is don't we ?
Yep, aids! rarely see a fat aids victim, the link is obvious to anyone who has watched Philadelphia!
Wow! Is this still going?
I lost interest three days ago.
How do they feel though? And how does their athletic performance vary?
If the on form weight of endurance athletes is anything to go by peak, athletic performance is to be had in the middle to lower part of the "normal" body mass range even though the athletes are very lean. Below that performance goes down. Strength athletes clearly benefit from a few extra kilos though suffer if they try run very far.
As for how they feel, I've felt fine in the lower half of the normal range in Summer but in Winter feel cold and hungry so eat my way to the middle of the normal range.
I lost interest three days ago.
It hasn't quite got the appeal of the [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/dogging-and-social-ettiquette ]Dogging and social ettiquette[/url] thread has it ?
Good troll nevertheless though 🙂
I had almost forgotten that thread. Strangely, one of the guys on the Thursday night ride knows the lady in question. When he twigged who it was he said he would struggle to look her in the face at the school gates when collecting the kids
😯
Im back! did you all miss me?? 😀 😈
I love how you're all biting so hard at my comments. haha. Anyway i have in no way, shape or form a problem with working IN the oil and gas industry. Im merely explaining some of the realities behind it that some people might not be aware of so that they may possibly further understand where i am coming from.
This is a risky job that i do out here and i honestly love it. I actually get a kick out of knowing that not everyone can do it.
Out here we are hammered with safety safety safety. Yet some of the things oil companies do clearly bend the rules to suit themselves.
One of the reasons we have more fat people out here and partly why they did away with BMI testing in the offshore medical is due to an ageing workforce. They need people out here to do there work.
I know that this puts others and the fat folk themselves at risk.
The fatist in me gets pissed off with the fat folk out here when if one day i decide to have a cake after my dinner and the one i want isnt there and you look over the mess hall and see Bloater No1 that was squashing me on the helicopter sitting eating 2 bits of that cake with a load of custard. BECAUSE HE'S GREEDY AND NEEDS TO LAY OF THE PIES AND CAKES!!
Lets put it another way. There are kids in Africa cant even get a bowl of rice and we're pumping how many millions into the NHS each year to try and help these fat folk when we could be putting more money to someone who is genuinely unable to help themself.
But of course im a selfish, bigoted individual who doesnt sponsor any children in these countries or have any standing orders out of my bank accounts to a variety of charities each month for decent sums of money. Yep im just raking in the cash from the oil industry, thats right. A few comments on an internet forum and you people know everything about me.
So dont pull the moral high ground bu77shit with me you bunch of clowns. Haggis has left the building so get it right up ye 😆 😈 😛
Wait a minute, wasn't that the offshore hero, did he just pull up his skirt and flounce out the door?
[i]Wait a minute, wasn't that the offshore hero, did he just pull up his skirt and flounce out the door? [/i]
Not shore what was going on there, but that last post did make them sound competely bonkers. See what happens when chunky gets to the canteen first and steals [i]your[/i] cake ? So there, let that be a lesson for us and hopefully the last we see of that nutter.
n
cinnamon_girl - Member
Fatness is not always due to over-eating. Again, some nasty comments on here.
People are fat because they eat to much relative to the amount of exercise they do. AND most fatties I know agree with that. Even my mate who just died from obesity (or the effects to be more precise) always admitted that was why he was fat. I am afraid the amount of calories people need nowadays is considerably less than they needed in the past. Further more the average person is eating less than they used to but not enough less.
Clearly the food industry has to take some of the blame. I have always loved this example. Drink 250ml of orange juice with your breakfast, will it effect how much you eat for breakfast? In an experiment they gave children the equivalent in oranges which was 4 large oranges. None finished them and wanted breakfast. One child vomited before he could get to 4.
I have been doing that 5:2 diet for about a year in fact I started the day I saw the programme on the BBC. Had been in hospital for 6 weeks, Nottingham hospital to be precise where the food is great followed by 6 weeks of home help force feeding me full Monty breakfast. It was months after that before I could cycle again (a necessity when the nearest shop is 6 miles away and only 1 bus a week). I will never again be able to walk any distance but the diet will keep my weight under control ie near perfect for my height. Needed as I have decided to increase my beer consumption significantly as new landlord has turned pub round near me and it is the moral duty of everyone in rural areas to help keep local amenities going!!
Bollox ^
[i]People are fat because they eat to much relative to the amount of exercise they do[/i]
Ah, the very distillation of ignorance. You gotta luv it.
😕