The stupid explodes: obesity now a disability

Nah, I think I'll go with "genes trump psychology". There are just too many actions that psychology only helps temporarily. "... recognize we are what we do. Right now." Sure, but genes will take back their lost territory later.

There are all kinds of programs to treat addictions, all with the same very high recidivism rate. Basically none work, all are countered by genes. Alcohol and drug addictions are influenced by genetic variations in dopamine and other brain chemical enzymes. Food habits the same, plus biochemicals related to diabetes/sugar levels.

Another data point- Bulimics loose weight, and are obviously crazy. Brain chemicals, dude.

Most of us are wired for satisfaction by eating. The ones who are not, are the defective ones. Control those related bio chemicals, and you've got something.
 
casebro said:
Nah, I think I'll go with "genes trump psychology". There are just too many actions that psychology only helps temporarily. "... recognize we are what we do. Right now." Sure, but genes will take back their lost territory later.

There are all kinds of programs to treat addictions, all with the same very high recidivism rate. Basically none work, all are countered by genes. Alcohol and drug addictions are influenced by genetic variations in dopamine and other brain chemical enzymes. Food habits the same, plus biochemicals related to diabetes/sugar levels.

Another data point- Bulimics loose weight, and are obviously crazy. Brain chemicals, dude.

Most of us are wired for satisfaction by eating. The ones who are not, are the defective ones. Control those related bio chemicals, and you've got something.
Click to expand...

One attack doesn't exclude the other. I do think there's some benefit in behavioral therapy for treating anorexia. Which makes me wonder if we could view obesity in the same way. Would it be shaming if I recognized someone as being overweight and asked if they were getting help for the condition?

So far, it seems like the proper response from me is to simply ignore someone's weight, because doing otherwise is "shaming." There ought to be a middle ground. I can show concern for someone with other, obvious diseases - why not obesity?

"My sister lost weight by going on a mostly vegan diet under the supervision of that clinic on Main Street. Do you want a copy of the diet or the address of the clinic?"

"Shut up. You're fat shaming!"
 
The growth of obesity as a disability continues, with the Auckland Hospital Board ruling that a morbidly obese worker is allowed to use a disability carpark.

(Don't bother with the asthma as a disability, the obesity exacerbates asthma)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/798...ced-out-of-adhb-job-due-to-inadequate-parking

Nice to see her blame "genetics". What a cop-out load of crap - of course it's bloody genetics that cause you to put the fat on, but the mountains of lard exist because you feed the damned things!

Non-stop, by the look of it.
 
blutoski said:
I'm starting to get better access to my old site's sql database. Here are more on the same topic:
  • Church, T., Thomas, D., Tudor-Locke, C., Katzmarzyk, P., Earnest, C., Rodarte, R., Martin, C., Blair, S., & Bouchard, C. (2011). [Trends over 5 Decades in U.S. Occupation-Related Physical Activity and Their Associations with Obesity] PLoS ONE, 6 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019657

    blutoskitorial: the above study is well done; just ignore their fallacious conclusion. 100 calories per day cannot explain 'the majority' of weight gain. maybe 17%, though.



  • Wilkin, T., Mallam, K., Metcalf, B., Jeffery, A., & Voss, L. (2006). [Variation in physical activity lies with the child, not his environment: evidence for an ‘activitystat’ in young children (EarlyBird 16)] International Journal of Obesity, 30 (7), 1050-1055 DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803331

    blutoskitorial: the phenomenon called 'activitystat' is not completely proven, but very well supported by evidence - it is why registered dieticians are not concerned about the impacts of eliminating physed from K-12 public education... kids seem to just have a fixed amount of daily exercise they can perform, and they will accommodate



  • Luke, A., Dugas, L., Ebersole, K., Durazo-Arvizu, R., Cao, G., Schoeller, D., Adeyemo, A., Brieger, W., & Cooper, R. (2008). [Energy expenditure does not predict weight change in either Nigerian or African American women American] Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89 (1), 169-176 DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.26630

    blutoskitorial: the goal with this one was to control for both genetics and exercise - the dominant difference between these cohorts was clear... nether genetics nor exercise are as important as the 'environment' as a contributor to obesity levels; the best explanation is that we have absorbed marketing messages to eat more into our cultural values



  • Lara R Dugas, Regina Harders, Sarah Merrill, Kara Ebersole, David A Shoham, Elaine C Rush, Felix K Assah, Terrence Forrester, Ramon A Durazo-Arvizu, & Amy Luke (2011). [Energy expenditure in adults living in developing compared with industrialized countries: a meta-analysis of doubly labeled water studies The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition], 93 (2), 427-441 : 10.3945/​ajcn.110.007278

    blutoskitorial: conclusion does follow from the data analysis... this is consistent with other findings that we are about as 'active' as previous generations, just different activities (ie: less on-the-job activity, but considerably more sports)



  • Westerterp, K., & Speakman, J. (2008). [Physical activity energy expenditure has not declined since the 1980s and matches energy expenditures of wild mammals] International Journal of Obesity, 32 (8), 1256-1263 DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2008.74

    blutoskitorial: there's more than one thing going on here... two key conclusions, both independently replicated over and over... firstly, the more overweight a person is, the worse they are at estimating their caloric intake, and the direction of causality seems to flow that way (first obesity, followed by poor estimation of caloric intake); secondly, that there may have been a slight increase in average energy expenditure since 1982 (this is consistent with Church et al above, in that Church was only examining occupational energy expenditure, not taking any account for non-occupational exercise), but our caloric intake has increased much faster;



  • Swinburn, B., Sacks, G., & Ravussin, E. (2009). [Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity] American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90 (6), 1453-1456 DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28595

    blutoskitorial: this is calories in calories out, and attempting to see if independent approaches to estimates match up... they do. in this study, they worked backwards by calculating the food produced, destroyed, imported, exported, and therefore how much Americans must have eaten, year over year, subtracted the total energy in BMR and exercise, and the increase each year it is almost exactly the amount of energy in Americans' adipose tissue that has accumulated in that period.
Click to expand...

A new one on the same topic (the topic being whether "just exercise more" is good advice for weight management):

  • [Lay theories of obesity predict actual body mass.] McFerran B, Mukhopadhyay A., Psychol Sci. 2013 Aug;24(8):1428-36. doi: 10.1177/0956797612473121. Epub 2013 Jun 5.
    Abstract: Obesity is a major public health problem, but despite much research into its causes, scientists have largely neglected to examine laypeople's personal beliefs about it. Such naive beliefs are important because they guide actual goal-directed behaviors. In a series of studies across five countries on three continents, we found that people mainly believed either that obesity is caused by a lack of exercise or that it is caused by a poor diet. Moreover, laypeople who indicted a lack of exercise were more likely to actually be overweight than were those who implicated a poor diet. This effect held even after controlling for several known correlates of body mass index (BMI), thereby explaining previously unexplained variance. We also experimentally demonstrated the mechanism underlying this effect: People who implicated insufficient exercise tended to consume more food than did those who indicted a poor diet. These results suggest that obesity has an important, pervasive, and hitherto overlooked psychological antecedent.
    Click to expand...

Blutoskitorial: education should emphasize that obesity cannot be combatted by exercise, it is primarily an effect of calorie consumption, and must be addressed that way.

ETA: Also worth mentioning: whether a person believed the solution was exercise versus eating less was orders of magnitude better predictor of BMI than macronutrient ratio consumption.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
... it is primarily an effect of calorie consumption, and must be addressed that way..
Click to expand...

I do believe that was the very first point made - the only way to gain weight is that calories in are higher than calories out.

Physics rules.
 
blutoski said:
A new one on the same topic (the topic being whether "just exercise more" is good advice for weight management):


Blutoskitorial: education should emphasize that obesity cannot be combatted by exercise, it is primarily an effect of calorie consumption, and must be addressed that way.

ETA: Also worth mentioning: whether a person believed the solution was exercise versus eating less was orders of magnitude better predictor of BMI than macronutrient ratio consumption.
Click to expand...

None of this things are surprising...
 
The Atheist said:
I do believe that was the very first point made - the only way to gain weight is that calories in are higher than calories out.

Physics rules.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point of the paper. The paper is emphasizing that 'calories out' is not the problem. We're burning more calories than ever before, so the focus needs to be on curbing intake.

The reason this is a problem is that there are billions of dollars spent in misinforming the public about how we can eat anything you want because we can just exercise it off. The reality is that we can't exercise off the food they want to sell us.



rustypouch said:
None of this things are surprising...
Click to expand...

Well, it's surprising to about half the population, according to surveys. The prevailing public opinion is that exercise is important for weight management. This is not true.
 
blutoski said:
You're missing the point of the paper. The paper is emphasizing that 'calories out' is not the problem. We're burning more calories than ever before, so the focus needs to be on curbing intake.

....
Click to expand...

My take on the excerpt is that the psyches are different between the two groups. And my general concept is that it is all psychological. And the lack of psychologists being able to cure it means the "science" of psychology sucks.

Personaly, I did lose 60 pounds in three months by doing bust ass labor. Like Mr. Universe in training. Calories,<- was the same, calories -> were doubled. In, 3,000, out 6,000. Like running a marathon every day.

But the psyche let me put it all back on over the next 5 years. "I don't need that large of a serving", but I make it anyway. Food addiction I guess, and addiction programs have an 85% recidivism rate. Food addiction is probably worse.
 
blutoski said:
You're missing the point of the paper. The paper is emphasizing that 'calories out' is not the problem. We're burning more calories than ever before, so the focus needs to be on curbing intake.
Click to expand...

What an absurd statement. Of course calories out is half the problem. Whichever way you look at it, the fact stands, weight can only be gained through the calorific intake be higher than that used.

Whether exercise or limiting the intake is the answer is completely irrelevant; it's a simple arithmetic question - if the intake exceeds the output, weight gained, if the output exceeds the intake, weight lost.

Which does segue neatly back into what I said almost two years ago at the very start of the thread - the best way to lose weight is to stop putting food in.
 
The Atheist said:
What an absurd statement. Of course calories out is half the problem. Whichever way you look at it, the fact stands, weight can only be gained through the calorific intake be higher than that used.

Whether exercise or limiting the intake is the answer is completely irrelevant; it's a simple arithmetic question - if the intake exceeds the output, weight gained, if the output exceeds the intake, weight lost.

Which does segue neatly back into what I said almost two years ago at the very start of the thread - the best way to lose weight is to stop putting food in.
Click to expand...

Which is hard to do when you don't have the correct knowledge and adequate time to do so.
 
mijopaalmc said:
That assumes that you have time to spate.
Click to expand...

No not does not ... re-read my post or follow this time line ....

It assumes you stop eating ( a few meals a week) and use the TIME to excersize

.... 15 minute drive to McDonalds ... 4 minute line up ... 5 min wait for food ... 3 minutes adding salt and BBQ sauce to 40 piece Mc Nuggets ... 30 minutes "savouring" the "flavour FLAVE" ... drive home ... etc etc.

Time saved eating ... run around the block for 72 minutes.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Which is hard to do when you don't have the correct knowledge and adequate time to do so.
Click to expand...

Hard? Not very hard. There are more difficult things, such as selecting the correct channel for the 3 or 4 inputs on your TV, or placing a pizza order online.
 
As has been mentioned many times. You eat more than you burn you get fat and some bad stuff happens to your body

What I don't think has been mentioned

You burn more than you eat for too long and some extremely bad stuff happens to your body.

No one wants a body eating itself
 
Yeggster said:
No not does not ... re-read my post or follow this time line ....

It assumes you stop eating ( a few meals a week) and use the TIME to excersize

.... 15 minute drive to McDonalds ... 4 minute line up ... 5 min wait for food ... 3 minutes adding salt and BBQ sauce to 40 piece Mc Nuggets ... 30 minutes "savouring" the "flavour FLAVE" ... drive home ... etc etc.

Time saved eating ... run around the block for 72 minutes.
Click to expand...

Which is why in fantasyworld nobody is overweight.
 
Thai green curry chicken and fresh Vege.

2 secs get wok.

3 min heat wok and add oil.

6 minutes eat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom