People are often born with a tendancy to be overweight it was on the news not so long ago people are often born with two fat genes making the metabolic rate slower causing them to feel hungier exercise obviuosly speeds your metabloism and some foods also.
Even if that was true, if you had a naturally slow metabolism you would simply need to consume less food, the issue is still the behavior of eating.
This is however, just not true for the majority of fat people: fat people have the same metabolic rate as thin people relative to their size and, in absolute terms, faster metabolic rates. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/healthy_living/your_weight/medical_myths.shtml)
It might be theoretically possible to have a genetic predisposition to overeating the same way it might be theoretically possible to have a genetic predisposition to aggression but for practical purposes its almost impossible to test for these things because the environmental interactions are too complex (and you ‘inherit’ an environment) and the traits themselves are arbitrary (where you draw the lines as to ‘fat’ or ‘thin’ has no material basis and while there is a material basis for overeating among adults, which is simply eating above maintenance level, children and teenagers ‘overeat’ in the same fashion its just but their calories are converted into bone, muscle and fat, rather than just muscle and fat, so they wont necessarily appear to get fat in the same way so the degree to which someone reduces their consumption at the end of their bone growth or maintains it affects if they get fat or not...which is why teenagers are on average thinner than 20 somethings of the same height.)
3) You can't inherit a large appetite. A large apetite is down to how slow or fast ur metabolism is which is down to how much exercise and what u eat.
But you have it the other way around; people with high metabolisms for their size have them because they exercise more so they feel more hungry than other people of their size and can eat more than other people of their size without gaining weight. People who are fat and sedentary also have higher metabolisms than thin sedentary people (but in proportion to their size) and they are likewise more hungry. Fat people’s metabolisms are not slower than thin people’s metabolisms, either relatively or in absolute terms.
Yes, of course.
Have you ever heard of a thyroid disorder?
Have you ever heard of thyroid medication?
The vast majority of fat people don’t have thyroid disorders, if they did they’d just take pills instead of being fat.
Of course not. I think the idea is just spread around in order to make fat people feel better about themselves. The causes of being overweight are overeating, eating bad food, and leading a sedentary lifestyle.
But realistically, the cause of being weight isn’t eating bad food or leading a sedentary lifestyle, its just overeating, eating when you’re more than full, always needing to be full, always satisfying hunger pains. It’s a total calorie issue and no one can exercise enough to make up for eating a brownie a day or snacking at midnight, the calories burned in exercise are insignificant compared to those consumed in snacks or meals.
And no food is “bad”. A calorie from a carrot builds as much fat as a calorie from chocolate (that’s human fat cells, not grams of fat, its too bad that those totally different things have the same name). Its an issue of quantity not quality.
i wouldent jump to conclusions so fast, a know several people who work out like crazy, eat good food, and take generally good care of themselves and still are a little chubby. no matter what they do they cant lose the extra body fat.
They snack and lie about it (or, are just confused that eating “good food” makes you thin no matter how much of it you eat), they do not defy the laws of thermodynamics pertaining to the conservation of energy. And, again, working out like crazy can change your body *shape* but it doesn’t significantly change your body *size*, no one loses significant weight just by working out because it makes them want to eat *more* and working out for hours burns fewer calories than a sandwich.
And anyways, lots of fat people binge eat and deny it or try to hide it out of the social shame attached to it (or even imagine that because they eat salad at lunch they can eat fried food in the evening). People lie about food for the same reason they lie about sex: because society tells people to be guilty for things they want to do even though they don’t hurt anyone else.
I do know that body types are inherited. My great grandmother was shapped somewhat round on skinny little legs. I only knew her in her old age and in her youthful pics her shape was thin but still shaped the same. My grandmother and now my mother have grown into that shape as well.
Sure, but shape and size are different issues; people aren’t responsible for the pattern that their fat is distributed in but they can control how much of it they have.
My mom had lyposuctiom to remove her belly fat and 10 years later she is shape the same as before the surgery.
That really doesn’t make sense because liposuction actually removes fat cells (whereas diet and exercise merely shrink them). But fat distribution changes over someone’s lifespan as well so it might have been coincidental (as in, had she not have had lipo she would have more fat on her belly and less fat elsewhere today).
Sheldon's Somatotype theory has categorised metabolism types in an interesting fashion.
I think you’re confused; somatotype isn’t the same as metabolism. People have basically the same metabolic rate as others with the same amount of soft tissue, activity, and sleep, unless there is something really wrong with them. This doesn’t mean that they’d have the same body type because bone growth and the distribution pattern of fat are based on genes (or rather, they’re based on hormones and hormones are often correlated to genes).
Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)
Right... 'cause the "overweight cabal" secretly controls medical research and has forced doctor after doctor after doctor to consistantly report that genetics play a significant role in determing body type.[/b]
Um, no, doctor after doctor do not report that genetics play a determining role in weight maybe shape and height but not weight relative to height. (or, maybe some doctors do but peer reviewed academic researchers do not; not all doctors are good scientists)
The belief that fatness is inherented doesn’t come from medical journals it comes from the media peddling to fat consumers with bad science that misinterprets the implications of research, and the zeitgeist’s assumption that this is the case without any real evidence.
Originally posted by LSD+--> (LSD)
If anything, there's social pressure in the opposite direction. There's a great deal of money to be made in selling diet products and exersize equipment and all other manner of "weight loss" product.[/b]
That’s rather absurd LSD, diet books and exercise equipment don’t have anywhere close to the consumer base of fast food in huge portions, of carbohydrate rich groceries, of the snack food industry. There’s a great deal *more* money to be made in selling people on behaviors that will make them fat.
When you commute to work you might pass a dozen or two dozen fast food restaurants, bagel shops, cafes with huge pastries and high calorie gourmet coffee; you probably don’t pass one diet book ad or gym.
Ideology might suggest that being thin is more desirable than being fat, but the balance of social and economic forces encourage the behaviors that lead to being fat, and as any Marxist knows, economics trump ideology when it comes to influencing human behavior on a mass level.
And anyways, the only thing that can make a fat person thin or a thin person stay thin is simple calorie restriction sustained indefinitely, and that’s not the type of diet that you can sell as a product because all it requires is math not lists of foods to avoid or to eat, and discipline and the entire appeal of diets is to get what you want without being disciplined because otherwise people who get fat in the first place don’t stick to them. Diets “don’t work” because people go off them.
Likewise, people not wanting to face the reality that only reducing how much you eat in absolute terms (not just cutting out “bad food”) is going to result in sustained weight loss like to think of exercise as an important factor in weight loss. Its really not, apart from professional athletes, people just don’t have the time to exercise enough to burn enough calories to make that type of a difference. What exercise is really about isn’t making fat people thin, it’s making thin people sexy, its for thin people who want to be thin toned people. It just doesn’t work for what fat people would want it to work for so they (understandably) give up on it and many are too embarrassed of their bodies to try in the first place.
In order to sell all the crap you've got to first convince people that they can actually accomplish something, which means first deluding them into believing that they can look like the models on the box.
The reality, however, is that most people will not and can not get that in shape or that good looking.
The human body just isn't that maleable.
The reality is that fat people can get that thin just not through any method that’s profitable to anyone, so there’s no motivation to advertise.
If any fat person just decided to eat 1600 calories a day for the rest of their lives (and never binged or snacked or went over that) and they just counted on the nutritional information labels of what they were eating, they’d eventually be thin (though not as fast maybe as on some crash diets that they wont sustain) and they’d stay thin. But, I’m not going to make any money from writing that am I? Whats effective isn’t marketable because anyone can do it so people market things that are superficially appealing but not effective.
But anyways, being good looking isn’t just about being thin, its about having an attractive face (which really is mostly genetic) in addition to being thin.
And, I also think its rather cynical to dismiss attempts to improve people’s appearance just because not everyone can improve their appearance to the same degree or has the same potential to be attractive. The fashion and cosmetic industries aren’t aimed at everyone and its only a liberal psudo-equal-opprotunities myth that would get anyone to think that using an unusually attractive model to sell something suggests that an averagely attractive person could look like them with that product. People are not inherently equal in this regard and some industries cater to people who are better off in it. Thin women buy more clothes than fat women, thin men buy more exercise equipment and gym memberships than fat men, so using desirable people in advertisements is in part a reflection on the fact that people who could potentially be desirable are a more lucrative market per capita than people who do not have that potential.
Originally posted by LSD
No matter your genetics, everyone is still capable of being healthy, it's just that it might be harder for some people than for others.
There are lots of genetic abnormalities that make people totally incapable of being healthy, there are plenty that are fatal in infancy. People aren’t made equal.
Originally posted by LSD
Body types ultimately have more to do with genetics and physiology than they do with nutritional intake.
To get someone from the body of an infant to a body of an adult is entirely depedent on nutritional intake. Even height has more to do with nutritional intake than genetics (the Dutch went from being the shortest people on average in Europe to being the tallest people in the world in the span of two generations; it was nutritional not genetic).
While the size of someone’s bones compared to others with the same nutritional intake and the pattern that their soft tissue, their fat and muscles, are distributed, is largely genetic, the overall volume of their soft tissue is directly dependent on their food intake.
Originally posted by LSD
1. Eating "outside meals" is recommended by every single nutrionist on the planet. The formalization of a "meal" system is part of why people get so damn fat.
Pretty obviously an exaggeration LSD, there’s no profession that every single member is going to agree on any particular point in and nutritionists are among the least standardized professions.
Anyways, I believe he was referring to eating outside of meals in addition to eating full meals, not instead of eating meals.
However, his attitude that its “not okay” to do something that makes a lot of people happy without hurting anyone else is moronically conservative and paternalistic. If someone likes eating snacks more than they like having a flat stomach than that’s a trade off that they should feel free to make according to their own personal preferences without judgment or moralizing. It simply has no value one way or the other.
Originally posted by LSD
2. "Junk food" is fun, and kids are going to eat it regardless. The way to instill good nutrion isn't to stigmatize "bad" foods, but to teach an understanding of how diet works and why.
I disagree. There are basically only two ways to get people to stop eating high calorie per gram food (like candy). Either stigmatize it (“that’s junk food!! Bad for you, very naughty!!”) or give a rational, self interest reason to avoid it (“you’d look more sexually appealing to boys and make your chubby girl friends jealous and vaguely deferential”).
Since parents are totally unwilling to give the rational explanation of why it might be a good idea (since you know, they want to control their kids not let their kids control themselves for their own purposes and hate the idea of them thinking about sex), they prefer to give the irrational but effective moralization which makes them associate their behavior with shame and then want to deny it rather than accept it for what it is: an equally valid choice. By seeing it as a ‘bad choice’, they grow up doing it anyways but denying the fact that it was a choice, and we get threads like this one.
Originally posted by LSD
3. It is "okay" to become fat! It isn't particularly healthy, but there's nothing "imoral" about it and it certainly isn't the worst thing that can happen to a child.
Secular western society has replaced “healthy” for “good” and “unhealthy” for “wrong”, it just replaced what the clergy say with what government approved doctors say.
That way it’s a moral system that seems so much more ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ but it’s not. “Unhealthy” is the new popular term for “immoral” because the irrational nature of declaring things “unhealthy” is more mysterious to people than the obviously irrational nature of declaring those same things “immoral.”
200 years ago the same behavior would have been called ‘gluttony’ instead of ‘unhealthy.’ Health itself is an artificially defined category and when people refer to things as being healthy or unhealthy they are almost always referring to small relative statistical differences in population groups not significant absolute risks or causal affects.
[email protected]
And if you think that eating that potato chip had the slightest effect on those children's conception of nutrition or eating
There is no one to one cause and effect relation but I think its obvious that people who are taught that certain behaviors are acceptable are at least marginally more likely to do them themselves than people who aren’t...which isn’t to say that many also don’t do the opposite, its merely weakly predictive. People still have free will. So, yah, of course it had the slightest affect it simply didn’t have a casual effect.
The real problem is thinking that a mother has to modify her behavior utterly with no regard for herself to squeeze even a fraction of an advantage in contributing to the most hypothetically optimal environment for her children. This is again the type of misogynistic pro-natalism that reduces mothers (and sometimes women in general) to only extensions of their children and not people in their own right.
LSD
It's almost like they think they're still individuals with personal rights! Shocking, truly, shocking...
You joke, but it is still shocking to a lot of people; its pretty common even in revleft to think that women lose their personal rights when they get pregnant and/or give birth.
The patriarchal responsibility of mothers to their children is mutually oppressive both to the mothers and their children; the mothers are told that they have to make their child the centre of their world and subordinate all personal desires to it no matter how trivial, intimate or personal; the children are told that they are inherently irresponsible, that their parents are responsible for them and that they have no will of their own. It subsumes mother and child into a single social unit where neither is permitted to be person in their own right with their own lives. If children are irresponsible it is precisely because every single responsibility they have is stripped from them by their parents, even such profoundly personal things as deciding what to eat or when to go to sleep, and if their mothers fail to dehumanize them in this manner they’re told that they’re bad mothers (and thus bad people since as women it’s the “Most Important Job They Could Ever Do tm”).
But because the patriarchy family is such a pervasive form of social organization, and given the fact that the vast majority of people grew up in patriarchal families even if they aren’t living in one at present, it can be hard for people to see the system itself as dysfunctional rather than people in the system. A family is said to be dysfunctional when it fails to instill the dysfunction and neurosis in its members that best preserves patriarchal social expectation. The women who choose to buy into it are praised as upholding some kind of civic duty (in patriarchal logic, self-sacrifice is for women the virtue that ambition is for men) and those who don’t are ridiculed in moralistic terms.