• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

Mainly the never ending posts that read like novels that deny Newtons theory of energy in equals energy out.

I can quote them, but because they are so long it would probably take up about 4 pages
 
cullennz said:
Mainly the never ending posts that read like novels that deny Newtons theory of energy in equals energy out.

I can quote them, but because they are so long it would probably take up about 4 pages
Click to expand...

Really ? I haven't seen that. what I have seen is:

  • Some people saying that some people have faster metabolisms than others (true), that this is responsible for their weight control issues (maybe, but I've not seen evidence of a diagnosis) and may be responsible for the obesity epidemic (I've not seen evidence to support this)
  • That the calories in some foods are more easily accessible than in others (AFAIK true)
  • That some foods are more satiating than others so that n calories of Food A will keep somone fuller for longer than n calories of Food B (AFAIK true)
  • That although it is true that if you consume fewer calories than you expend then you will lose weight and if you consume more you will gain weight (AFAIK true) it's a little more complicated than that because.....
  • ....it's difficult to accurately determine energy out
  • ....it's notoriously difficult for people to accurately estimate energy in (both under and over estimates)
  • ....the simple "eat less lard arse" message glosses over a lot of societal and individual issues when it comes to people's relationship with food

I failed to manage my weight effectively for many years due to a combination of poor education (not really realising what foods were high calorie and in particular how small changes can make big differences), bad portion control and a failure to understand how even comparatively large amounts of exercise really cannot offset chronic over-eating in an otherwise largely sedentary lifestyle.

I was able to lose weight, and to maintain the vast majority of that weight loss, by following a WeightWatchers plan. It worked for me because:

  • It aligns with my slightly nerdy analytical and controlling personality
  • Mrs Don was doing it to so I was able to get plenty of support from her
  • It turns out that I have a strong abstemious streak which I needed to prompt into action
  • It turns out that I don't tend to comfort or boredom eat
  • I was highly motivated by not wanting to be "fat at 30"

I'm not going to automatically criticise someone for not being thin because I have no idea what hurdles they have to overcome in their weight loss challenge.
 
The Don said:
Really ?
Click to expand...

Probably only two examples in the entire thread, but yeah, there's a subculture.

One label for that subculture is HAES - "Health At Every Size". It's hard to nail down their tenets, but it appears to be shifting from merely the claim that obesity is not harmful to the claim that obesity is a healthier condition.

Here's a Canadian peer of mine's posting on this topic: [The Problem with Health at Every Size]

Like myself, he comes across diet topics from a strength and conditioning exposure, rather than from genuine qualifications, so his intention is similar to mine: convey what appears to be the professional consensus for obesity management.
 
bit_pattern said:
Pointing out that calling people "stupid fatties" is counterproductive to the goal of reducing obesity is not "normalising" the condition.
Click to expand...

Dear oh dear, I think you need to read your own posts. You have said an awful lot more than that.
 
blutoski said:
Like myself, he comes across diet topics from a strength and conditioning exposure, rather than from genuine qualifications, so his intention is similar to mine: convey what appears to be the professional consensus for obesity management.
Click to expand...

Related... if you are interested in the dialogue of specialists such as RDs or MDs who specialize in obesity management from a 'science based' perspective, I recommend a blog site called [Weighty Matters].

It's a Canadian site, so some of the subjectmatter is localized (such as expressing concerns about Pizza Hut sponsoring the Canadian Cancer Society) but usually those local issues parallel identical problems in other countries.
 
blutoski said:
Probably only two examples in the entire thread, but yeah, there's a subculture.

One label for that subculture is HAES - "Health At Every Size". It's hard to nail down their tenets, but it appears to be shifting from merely the claim that obesity is not harmful to the claim that obesity is a healthier condition.

Here's a Canadian peer of mine's posting on this topic: [The Problem with Health at Every Size]

Like myself, he comes across diet topics from a strength and conditioning exposure, rather than from genuine qualifications, so his intention is similar to mine: convey what appears to be the professional consensus for obesity management.
Click to expand...

I've looked into the HAES movement.

There's so much bad rationalization, delusion, denial, and woo there. I'm not sure if it's more sad or funny.

http://thisisthinprivilege.tumblr.com/ also falls into that category.
 
rustypouch said:
I've looked into the HAES movement.

There's so much bad rationalization, delusion, denial, and woo there. I'm not sure if it's more sad or funny.

http://thisisthinprivilege.tumblr.com/ also falls into that category.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and it's another datapoint in my gradual alienation from organized skepticism - quite a few of my skeptical colleagues in Vancouver are HAES advocates.

But at the same time - somewhat on topic actually - another batch of antiscience skeptics is in the fat-shaming camp, which is another crackpot worldview in my opinion. And in the opinion of James Fell, the author of the website I linked to a couple posts up: [How NOT to Motivate People to Lose Weight]
 
The Don said:
Really ? I haven't seen that. what I have seen is:

  • Some people saying that some people have faster metabolisms than others (true), that this is responsible for their weight control issues (maybe, but I've not seen evidence of a diagnosis) and may be responsible for the obesity epidemic (I've not seen evidence to support this)
  • That the calories in some foods are more easily accessible than in others (AFAIK true)
  • That some foods are more satiating than others so that n calories of Food A will keep somone fuller for longer than n calories of Food B (AFAIK true)
  • That although it is true that if you consume fewer calories than you expend then you will lose weight and if you consume more you will gain weight (AFAIK true) it's a little more complicated than that because.....
  • ....it's difficult to accurately determine energy out
  • ....it's notoriously difficult for people to accurately estimate energy in (both under and over estimates)
  • ....the simple "eat less lard arse" message glosses over a lot of societal and individual issues when it comes to people's relationship with food

I failed to manage my weight effectively for many years due to a combination of poor education (not really realising what foods were high calorie and in particular how small changes can make big differences), bad portion control and a failure to understand how even comparatively large amounts of exercise really cannot offset chronic over-eating in an otherwise largely sedentary lifestyle.

I was able to lose weight, and to maintain the vast majority of that weight loss, by following a WeightWatchers plan. It worked for me because:

  • It aligns with my slightly nerdy analytical and controlling personality
  • Mrs Don was doing it to so I was able to get plenty of support from her
  • It turns out that I have a strong abstemious streak which I needed to prompt into action
  • It turns out that I don't tend to comfort or boredom eat
  • I was highly motivated by not wanting to be "fat at 30"

I'm not going to automatically criticise someone for not being thin because I have no idea what hurdles they have to overcome in their weight loss challenge.
Click to expand...

Thank you Don! That very nicely and succinctly pointed out all of the points I have made. None of those points have been addressed, with the exception of the first one by Tatyana:


Some people saying that some people have faster metabolisms than others (true), that this is responsible for their weight control issues (maybe, but I've not seen evidence of a diagnosis) and may be responsible for the obesity epidemic (I've not seen evidence to support this)

I haven;t prvided any sources for this, simply because I do not have a lot of time. But if you use a bit of logic, you would come to a very well-educated guess about metabolic differences that cannot be changed.

"Metabolism" is just simply "how much energy your body burns through various chemically-induced activity." Breathing, for instance, contributes to your metabolic rate. As does contracting muscles.

Given that, it is definitely true that people have more or less bone density than others. An individual can have some minor control over their bone density by consuming more calcium. But they cannot, in fact, change the overarching skeletal structure.

A person with denser bones, means their skeleton will weigh more. If your skeleton weighs more, it will require more energy to lift your arm by contracting your muscle. Your metabolic rate will be higher than someone else with lower bone density.
 
Last edited:
From video. Jonah Lomu had the bone densityequivalent to a mack truck and ran faster than most 100 meter runners with people in the way
 
Nihilianth said:
I haven;t prvided any sources for this, simply because I do not have a lot of time.
Click to expand...

Lucky.

Nihilianth said:
A person with denser bones, means their skeleton will weigh more. If your skeleton weighs more, it will require more energy to lift your arm by contracting your muscle. Your metabolic rate will be higher than someone else with lower bone density.
Click to expand...

Or, it might just be that fat people grow heavier bones because they have to support more: http://www.healthstatus.com/health_...ame-size-how-much-does-it-affect-your-weight/

Either way, it's a red herring. The extra calories required to lift a dense-boned arm against an "ordinary" arm will be negligible.
 
It is all a bit irrelevant really. Just move your bones/arms a bit more. She aint rocket science
 
My family is big boned. Never broken one. Apart from my small to against a door. Even playing rugby, rugby leagu, cycling, tae Kwon Do.

Im not lardy.

There is something nagging me in the first paragraph as to why
 
cullennz said:
From video. Jonah Lomu had the bone densityequivalent to a mack truck and ran faster than most 100 meter runners with people in the way
Click to expand...



Yes but not that many 17 stone (230 lb) people had 28" waists...

I think it is safe to say that he was an outlier even amongst professional athletes, where BMI breaks down.

I have heard a fair number of people who dismiss BMI on the grounds that it doesn't work for athletes, which is missing the point but I wonder if waist measures could avoid this.
 
I chose him on purpose. His kineys failed and he could no longer to proper excersize.

And got fat
 
Your average world class sumo wrestler would out do your average 200 meter runner in fitness. I would almost put money on it
 
None of the appeals to metabolism address the underlying issue.

Does anyone doubt that I can make a cow fat or thin depending on how much I feed the cow? And, without knowing beans about cow metabolism?

The questions are more about the psychology in play, in a context of a freely available, and nearly limitless, food supply.
 
Very good example. Is it (probably name wrong) Wagu that just beer and no exercise
 
cullennz said:
I chose him on purpose. His kineys failed and he could no longer to proper excersize.

And got fat
Click to expand...

I wondered if you had. It happens to a lot of people when their activity level drops and they don't reduce their food intake *enough* to compensate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom