Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Dieting Makes You Fat
A comprehensive meta-study from UCLA of 31 other studies of dieters found that 83 percent of people who go on diets eventually put on more weight than before they started. What's more, the wear and tear associated with yo-yo weight loss and gain makes them much less healthy for trying. This would include the low-fat, high-fiber diet recommended by the U.S. government.
I'm generally skeptical of meta studies, but this one carries the ring of truth. Obesity critics like Paul Campos have pointed out that if you look at epidemiological tables, you'll see that black women tend to skew higher on the obesity-mortality curve than white women. That is, black women can carry more weight without much of any additional risk to their health. In fact, black women can score well into the "obese" levels of the BMI with no effect whatsoever on mortality.
Studies also show that black women don't have nearly the body image problems that white women do--they obsess less about weight, and have much, much lower incidence of eating disorders, for example. All of which strongly suggests that the (slight) increase risk in mortality that comes with moderate obesity may well be more related to constant dieting and fretting over body weight than the weight itself. Of course, this hasn't stopped hysterics like the American Obesity Association (a front group for pharmaceutical companies pushing anti-fat drugs) from trying to scare black women into dieting, anyway.
All of which could mean that all of these calls from ant-fat activists and PR campaigns from the U.S. government encourage people to lose weight aren't just meddlesome. If 83 percent of people who try to lose weight fail, and are less healthy for trying, these sorts of messages could well be doing harm. As the dietitian in the Guardian article suggests, you're far better off just trying to get some cardiovascular exercise several times per week and not worrying so much about weight.
|4.11.07 @ 8:50AM|#
you're far better off just trying to get some cardiovascular
exercise several times per week and not worrying so much about
weight.
Amen. There's a thought I wish would get passed around a little
more.
SugarFree|4.11.07 @ 8:54AM|#
So, do skinny people actually get help when they go to the
doctor? I'm Type 1 diabetic (hence the nickname) and I'm not as fat
as a house or anything, but everything I go to the doctor about is
related back to my weight. I was once told that my double pneumonia
was weight-related, as was a pinched nerve in my leg.
I think doctors are obsessed with weight as a way to not do their
damn jobs. They bitch and moan about weight and do nothing to treat
what might actually be wrong with you. I go to the doctor to be
fixed, not to be lectured. I have and mother and a wife to nag me.
Would you ever go back to a mechanic that lectured you for 1/2 hour
about the way you drive, and didn't fix your radiator?
And, if you think they are bad now about nagging you about
"preventive" causes of illness, wait for socialized medicine...
Fluffy|4.11.07 @ 9:10AM|#
I have a problem with the use of statistics in this post.
My first issue is with the "83% gain it back" number. I know this
is a truism and similar numbers are offered up routinely. I think
it fails to take into account the fact that the people who would
choose to go on diets are usually people who are gaining weight as
they age. This means that the diets may be a brief interruption or
rear-guard action [forgive the pun] against a longer and broader
trend of weight gain. It's really impossible for the statistics to
tell us if the 180 pound man who gains 30 pounds, diets and loses
it all, and then gains it back again for a final weight of 210
wouldn't actually weigh 240 or more if he had never dieted and
broken the chain of weight gain. Until the statistics can tell us
that, they are of limited utility.
My other problem is with the black female mortality statistic. I'd
need to know where both the obese and the non-obese stats stand
relative to whites before I can really evaluate it. If black female
mortality is worse than white female mortality for both obese and
fit blacks, that stat doesn't prove that obesity isn't a big deal -
it just proves that being black in America is statistically even
worse than being obese.
|4.11.07 @ 9:18AM|#
"Diets" in the sentence "people who go on diets eventually put
on more weight than before they started" is not the same thing as
"diet" in the sentence "the low-fat, high-fiber diet recommended by
the U.S. government."
The former refers to a program of restricted eating for a period of
time for the purpose of losing weight. The latter refers to the
eating habits one utilizes in one's ordinary life. As a matter of
fact, the high-fiber, low-fat diet recommended by the U.S.
government, which is supposed to be the ordinary eating habits
someone adopts througout their adult life, is recommended as an
alternative to "dieting," in the sense of cutting one's food intake
for a period of time to lose weight.
So no, the "dieting" described in the UCLA study does not include
the eating habits recommended by the U.S. government.
|4.11.07 @ 9:23AM|#
Yes, I believe joe is correct. I have a diet, in its strict sense, of beer and pork products. Also, people who have a weight problem are the ones to go on diets for the purpose of weight loss, so it is not surprising that they would gain weight if they fail. It would be like saying that trying to restrict your drinking leads to alcoholism, even though those who make a conscious effort to do so might already have a drinking problem.
|4.11.07 @ 9:23AM|#
SugarFree,
I can relate with your post. Few years ago, I threw out my back
while doing yard-work. I had been going to the gym 4-5 times a
week, put on a bit of muscle, but could never quite lose the gut.
So, I throw out my back while lifting a large, heavy trashcan
packed to the rim with leaves, dirt, twigs, etc. I go to the
chiropractor and one of the first things he tells me is that
carrying around that extra weight (my gut) could have been a
contributing factor. I went to a different chiropractor after that.
It was the awkward lifting of heavy trashcan, not my gut, that
messed up my back!
Anyways, I've always been a firm believer that a good exercise
routine is the best way to stay fit - more than dieting alone.
SugarFree|4.11.07 @ 9:37AM|#
jimmydageek,
That's me, fairly muscular with a gut. Have they ever done your
BMI? You will read pretty well along in the obese end of the
scale.
|4.11.07 @ 9:38AM|#
The more I read this stuff the more I am convinced that the dangers of obesity is a product of bad causality. Yes, people who are fat don't live as long. But that may be coincidence with the fact that people who are fat are also sedintary and don't excercise. It is the lack of exercise that kills you not the weight. I agree with Warrren.
|4.11.07 @ 9:43AM|#
The former refers to a program of restricted eating for a
period of time for the purpose of losing weight. The latter refers
to the eating habits one utilizes in one's ordinary life.
i>
Not so sure (without RTFA, of course) that this is a distinction
with a difference. The low-fat high-fiber "diet", the low-carb
"diet", and others are all restricted eating programs that have as
one of their purposes losing weight.
The diet that you do for limited time is a "crash" diet, but I
think most weight loss diets these days are supposed to be lifetime
eating plans, although they may have intro phase intended to get
you to your target weight. I'm not a big diet guru or anything, but
I don't think any of the major diet plans out there say anything
like "Do this for a couple of months, and then go back to hitting
the cheeseburgers."
|4.11.07 @ 9:45AM|#
It sounds like most people here simply don't have the willpower to simply eat less. That's all it takes to maintain a good weight. Yeah, exercise helps tremendously, but as long as you simply eat less (and don't eat garbage), you can stay as thin as you like (although muscle tone comes only from exercise). Eating less positively works. It's a basic law of physics. Eat fewer calories than you burn, and you'll lose weight. I always have to laugh at people trying to dance around this fact, simply because they themselves do not have the willpower to shove less food into their faces.
Radley Balko|4.11.07 @ 9:46AM|#
Joe,
The Ornish diet is notoriously difficult to stick to. And yes,
people who switch to it are "dieting" in the sense that they're
restricting the amount of calories they're ingesting and they're
changing their eating habits.
Calling it a "lifestyle" or "lifelong eating habits" doesn't change
any of that. That's just a way for proponents of the diet to assume
an air of superiority. The Atkins, Weight Watchers, and Jenny Craig
people all do the same thing--"It's not a diet, it's a
lifestyle!"
Bottom line for Ornish: It does represent reduction in calories for
most people. And most people can't maintain it. Which means whether
you want to call it a diet, a lifestyle, or a series of "lifelong
eating habits," it's still not helping people lose weight. And most
people who try it and fail still end up gaining weight.
|4.11.07 @ 9:50AM|#
Frank,
You might lose weight by eating less, but that does not make you
any healthier. Eating less means you are taking in less nutrients
as well as less calories. So, don't confuse being thinner with
being healthier.
|4.11.07 @ 9:55AM|#
Years ago, I lost 55 pounds on a low-carb diet. I stayed pretty
thin for a couple of years, tried to make it a "lifestyle" but
eventually fell off the wagon, hard.
Now I am almost exactly the same weight that I was at the start of
the whole process almost exactly five years after I went on the
diet. With the added bonus that I am five years older.
Am I worse off for having done that? I can't say. Who knows what
miseries I would have suffered had I not been thinner for that
period of time.
|4.11.07 @ 9:55AM|#
Radley, RC,
The UCLA study looked at people who "went on diets" - crash diets,
as RC calls them. That is not what the government is
recommending.
Now, Radley, whether the government's recommendations are too
stringent fo most people to stick to is another matter. You still
conflated "going on a diet" with "eating healthy."
Dave W.|4.11.07 @ 10:11AM|#
You still conflated "going on a diet" with "eating
healthy."
Tomayto, tomahto. I weigh 40 pounds less than I did 4 years ago.
3.9 mph treadmill walking + no potayto, potahtoes.
LarryA|4.11.07 @ 10:19AM|#
The Atkins, Weight Watchers, and Jenny Craig people all do
the same thing--"It's not a diet, it's a lifestyle!"
IOW, "You have to pay us forever."
you're far better off just trying to get some cardiovascular
exercise several times per week and not worrying so much about
weight.
I do. Blogging counts as "cardiovascular exercise," right?
Timothy|4.11.07 @ 10:40AM|#
When I was in college I had BP of between 102/56 and 110/60 in
general, and a resting heartrate that sat around 55 on most days.
Now I'm more like 120/70 and 72, respectively. That's daytime
measurements, obviously.
Funny thing is that I eat a lot better now than I used to: less
fast food, less take out, a lot more fruits and vegetables, etc.
The reason? Well, I no longer spend an hour or two every day
walking around a 300 acre campus between classes. I also no longer
walk four miles (one way) back and forth to campus every day. It's
that bloody simple. Fortunately we just got a dog and I've been
walking her for an hour or so most days, get my cardio health back
a little. Point is: IT'S THAT BLOODY SIMPLE.
grylliade|4.11.07 @ 10:41AM|#
It sounds like most people here simply don't have the willpower to simply eat less. That's all it takes to maintain a good weight.
Yeah, you're a paragon of virtue. If it were as simple as "just
eating less," more people would lose weight. In a technical sense
you're right; in a broader sense, you're an asshole. People are
hard-wired by evolution to eat lots when food is available. For
most of human history, we had active lifestyles, coupled with
limited food supplies. Now, in the modern developed world, we have
unlimited food supplies and limited opportunity for exercise. It's
a wonder more of us aren't fat.
For some people, it's as easy as deciding, "I'm going to eat less,"
and then doing it. You're one of those people. Bully for you.
Telling other people that they just lack willpower, or that it's
actually easy, is just assholish. Obviously that doesn't work for
them; they need extra motivation, or rules to follow on a diet, or
something. Talking down to them because they find it difficult to
lose weight doesn't help anyone.
This meme among libertarians that eating less, or quitting drugs,
or getting a better job, or any number of other things are "easy"
because "I did it, and all it took was willpower," is one of our
greatest problems. For most people, it's not easy to do one or more
of those things. It doesn't just take willpower; it's quite a bit
more complicated than that. This isn't some bleeding heart, we
can't hurt their feelings thing. This is an acknowledgment of human
frailty. If people want to get help to change their lives, more
power to them. So long as it isn't coerced by the government, I see
no reason to make fun of them or talk down to them or anything of
the sort. They're making a choice to change their lives, and to
take what control of it they can. Libertarians should applaud
that.
|4.11.07 @ 10:46AM|#
I should say, I thought is a was a good post, overall.
Discussions of weight, health, and eating habits have become very
skewed, and Radley raises a lot of good points.
I think that what's going on is that researchers, government
officials, and journalists are falling into the trap of treating
factors which can be easily quantified - in this case BMI and
weight - as more important or illustrative of the underlying
facts.
|4.11.07 @ 10:50AM|#
"I'm generally skeptical of meta studies"
You should be skeptical of all studies, but if conducted correctly
meta-studies are the best source of evidence available.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7121/1533
Brian|4.11.07 @ 11:08AM|#
Get more exercise...... Oddly that's a more reassuring thought to me than always being hungry to get leaner.
|4.11.07 @ 11:11AM|#
Grylliade -
It seems that your problem with people who think it's "easy" to
change their lifestyles/diets is that you presume that they have
other beliefs that you do not agree with. First of all, I'd like to
point out that "getting a better job" is not at all parallel in
reasoning to eating less because it requires another person to
accomplish. Eating less/exercising more is a matter of personal
responsibility, and only personal responsibility for *most*
people.
I have lost 50 pounds over the past 3 1/2 years (though I've been
at the same weight for a year now). I have never been this thin
since I was in the 8th grade and I don't find it easy. I also still
have a *little* way to go. The thing is, it took me 2 ½ years to
lose 50 lbs, not 6 months. It started with eliminating meat from my
diet, progressed to walking all over the place (a couple of miles a
day), eventually I got thin enough to replace the walking with
taking dance, yoga, and capoeira classes, and then racquetball, and
then running… the point is, it really does need to be a lifestyle
change. I've been more sedentary lately, but have still maintained
my weight and some reasonable level of cardio exercise. It's a
matter of serious personal growth for me.
Fluffy makes some good points about statistical validity. But those
of you who are like " you people who say it's easy just don't know
what it's like to have legitimate weight problems" or "sure it was
easy for you because you did it, but it's just not that easy for
other people," are the real insensitive people here. It's one thing
to attack people who are fat because they sit on their duff and
have trouble controlling themselves, but it takes a lot of nerve to
attack people who used to be fat because they sat on their duff and
had trouble controlling themselves but managed to turn it around
for themselves through self-discipline and major lifestyle
changes.
thoreau|4.11.07 @ 11:16AM|#
grylliade-
You made some very good points in your post. However, you also said
something equivalent to "This is why libertarians will never get
anywhere":
This meme among libertarians that eating less, or quitting
drugs, or getting a better job, or any number of other things are
"easy" because "I did it, and all it took was willpower," is one of
our greatest problems.
It is now obligatory that we all take a drink!
:)
Mike Laursen|4.11.07 @ 11:18AM|#
you're far better off just trying to get some cardiovascular
exercise several times per week and not worrying so much about
weight.
Damn straight! That's what the White Shadow always used to say, and
he always knew the right thing to do!
|4.11.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Cardiovascular exercise should be part of a healthy exercise
regimen but shouldn't be a large part of it.
You can eat like a pig and still look good if you lift weights.
Strenuous weight lifting will generally increase your muscle mass,
bigger muscles require more calories. If you're lifting weights and
not adding muscle mass you're doing it wrong. Plus it has a cardio
component- I'd be suprised if I wasn't burning more calories than
the treadmillers- I certianly look worse after I'm done.
|4.11.07 @ 11:26AM|#
BMI is all a bunch of cooked-up number BS. I can run 5 miles at
a clip (granted it's a 10-11 minute pace), knock out about 100
push-ups and sit-ups, each in 2 minutes, and run 1.5 miles in less
than 14.5 minutes. At 5'9" and 200 lbs, I'm certainly no "elite
athlete," but there's no way I'm "overweight" or "obese," as the
BMI claims.
Of course, the BMI is caveated about 6 ways from Sunday that make
it essentially a useless number: "The correlation between the BMI
number and body fatness is fairly strong; however the correlation
varies by sex, race, and age... At the same BMI, women tend to have
more body fat than men. At the same BMI, older people, on average,
tend to have more body fat than younger adults. Highly trained
athletes may have a high BMI because of increased muscularity
rather than increased body fatness."
But the distinction between a helathy diet and "dieting" as a verb
meaning "weird, temporary dietary habits intended to induce weight
loss" is certainly worth making. But it doesn't change the fact
that there's an awful lot of fear-mongering...
|4.11.07 @ 11:33AM|#
The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not.
Russ 2000|4.11.07 @ 11:34AM|#
I think that what's going on is that researchers, government
officials, and journalists are falling into the trap of treating
factors which can be easily quantified - in this case BMI and
weight - as more important or illustrative of the underlying
facts.
That's not falling into a trap, it's laziness.
|4.11.07 @ 11:47AM|#
Anyone ever wonder if maybe there's a gereral degradation of the food supply (i.e. lower nutrient density for given amount of calories), which causes fullness triggers to fail to fire, in turn causing people to either eat too many calories or have difficulty eating fewer? You know, like an agriculture system that tries to get the most yield from the fewest, cheapest inputs?
|4.11.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Mark Twain -
I don't agree with that. I eat and drink all kinds of things that I
like, and they're not ridiculous low-fat low-carb whatever
frankensteins. The thing is that you have to eat them sparingly,
and compensate for them in the rest of your diet.
As for doing what you'd rather not, are you referring to exercise?
I've found a great passion for tennis, racquetball, capoeira, and
running, and would rather do any of those things than sit around on
the computer most days.
|4.11.07 @ 11:56AM|#
What ever happened with those patches you put on your skin,
which would electrically stimulate your muscles and allow you to
exercise while sitting on the couch watching TV?
That sounded like a sweet deal.
|4.11.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Excess weight can cause an increase in blood pressure as well,
though, which can be improved by losing the weight. It can also be
improved by cardiovascular exercise as well.
Also, exercise is great, but surprisingly doesn't play as big a
role in weight loss as most people think. Most of our weight is
determined by 1) genetics and 2) caloric intake. Unless you have a
very active job (construction, farmer, etc), your activity is
unlikely to make a big difference in your weight (it will improve
your health, of course).
And while I agree that it is arrogant to tell people that it just
requires willpower to lose weight, to say that all of these people
have tried and it is just too hard is BS as well. There's a reason
we have the fattest nation in the world, and it's largely because
most people sit on their asses and eat too much.
|4.11.07 @ 12:10PM|#
crimethink,
My chiropractor would use those patches on my back. They completely
helped me relax while they were on. Incidentally, I never grew
bulging back muscles by using them.
Rhywun|4.11.07 @ 12:25PM|#
There's a reason we have the fattest nation in the world,
and it's largely because most people sit on their asses and eat too
much.
Actually, we don't (isn't it Samoa or someplace nearby? further
proof that genetics play the major role), but yes it's true we
mostly sit on our asses and eat too much. Sucks being rich, doesn't
it? And now with news trickling in that being fat isn't the end of
the world like we've been led to believe all our lives, one has to
wonder why we should give a fuck about being the "fattest nation in
the world" any more.
|4.11.07 @ 12:38PM|#
What ever happened with those patches you put on your skin,
which would electrically stimulate...
Somebody else...please...I can't...
|4.11.07 @ 12:42PM|#
umm.. can someone explain to me how if it's all about genetics,
that we as a nation of mixed cultural immigration are consistently
fat in comparison to many of the nations from which our ancestors
came? Can someone explain to me how a person from Austria living in
the US for a year gains 25 pounds, and then loses it all again
promptly after returning to Austria? Similarly, how I lost 20
pounds living in France for 6 months?
My suppositions: It's a combination of diet, exercise, and food
quality (as dude keenly observed)
Genetics, while to blame for the fact that I can't just eat Burger
King 5 times a week and still be thin, or why I can't be 6'2" and
lanky, is a small fraction of the whole story by my personal
observations
SugarFree|4.11.07 @ 12:57PM|#
jimmydageek,
Did a regular doctor look at your back after "what came to be known
in family legend as The Trashcan Incident"? I blew my
shoulder out weightlifting and keep re-injuring it playing tennis
and disc golf. You go to them with an exercise injury and they
won't give two shits in a paper cup about it. (And I have very good
health insurance through work.)
As for the "just eat less" is the answer to everything crowd... try
living on a 1200 calories a day diet for three months and not
losing any weight. See what that does for your "willpower." The
doctors refuse to even consider there might be some underlying
medical condition for my weight, they just blame "willpower."
(By the way, I'm 5'10" and weigh 225. The doctors act like I'm
barely-able-move Buddha fat when they examine me... and a few of
them are obsessed with my neck size... neck perverts.)
|4.11.07 @ 1:44PM|#
on willpower . . .
I once read a comment that making "fat" people diet was roughly
equal to making alcoholics drink threes shots a day. Any less and
you die. Any more and you die.
|4.11.07 @ 1:52PM|#
High fructose corn syrup is the food ingredient most responsible
for the obesity problem in this country in my opinion.
BTW, I am currently on 3 diets.
i was starvin on just the one.
|4.11.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Wow, I think I agree with Joe.
Big difference between "diet" referring to the normal everyday way
of life/eating and yo-yo "diets."
I am not saying the government recommended diet is the best or
anything..Though generally high fiber, lowfat is better than
most.
|4.11.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Also for me there is a difference between being philosophically
and morally opposed (which I am) to the Nannies and Food Police and
being in denial and/or trying to justify that being fat and eating
crap is actually Healthy.
I used to be a "F Morgan Spurlock, I'm gonna eat fast food 8 times
a day and eat 5 lb rare steaks,etc" type of a guy. But the more I
live/grow/think aout these things- health and quality of life for
me involves being lean ( which has the nice side effects of having
a longer penis, being able to run and jump, dunk a basketball,etc)
and healthy and not being an overeating fatass just be a rebel.
|4.11.07 @ 3:42PM|#
Good post, and generally good discussion.
SugarFree, I hear you about the "it's your fault" school of
medicine. I have gum disease, which really should mean I go get
blindingly painful treatments every six months and $1,000 a pop. My
last hygenist, in response to my complaining that it really hurt to
have someone stick probes in my gums replied, "Remember whose fault
this is. If you had taken care of yourself, you wouldn't be here."
Now, there is quite a bit of truth in that statement, but it does
no bloody good to tell me about it now. So, I haven't been back in
a couple of years. Anyone knows a good, non-judgmental dentist in
Austin, Texas, email me.
As for the dieting thing, I think joe, et al, who said that
activity level was more important were onto something. Most people
think "dieting" does mean restricting food intake or following some
marginally insane food regimen with the goal of looking good in a
bikini. It has little to do with actually improving one's level of
health. Thing is, plenty of people look fat by the standards of
Vogue but are still in perfect health, and plenty of
supermodels maintain their nonweight by being chain-smoking bulimic
junkies. This says something about the average consumer and
shouldn't be address by anyone but late-night comedians, but it's
worth noting.
|4.11.07 @ 4:08PM|#
High fructose corn syrup is the food ingredient most
responsible for the obesity problem in this country in my
opinion."
Corn syrup doesn't fatten people, people do.
Rhywun|4.11.07 @ 4:59PM|#
umm.. can someone explain to me how if it's all about
genetics, that we as a nation of mixed cultural immigration are
consistently fat in comparison to many of the nations from which
our ancestors came?
We eat more. My point is, I believe it's not the big deal the media
keep telling us it is with their ubiquitous titillating displays of
obese midsections. And in any case, it's clear that a large part of
the public is willing to trade a few years of later life for a
sedentary present.
|4.11.07 @ 5:00PM|#
My father used to say that if you are overweight and want to
lose weight you need to remember that it took time to gain the
weight. It's going to take time to take it off too.
As in many other things people want immediate gratification.
|4.11.07 @ 5:57PM|#
It is simply why losing weight is difficult. Heavy people have
trained themselves, three (or more (or many more)) times per day,
to eat a certain way and gain satisfaction from it. By the time
they decide to diet, it's usually YEARS after they have been
trained that way. Daily. Maybe even hourly.
What kind of "diet" can counter that kind of training? A much,
much, much more powerful psychological motivator must be used to
have any hope of working. "You're going to die young" isn't
powerful enough. Something like a ten-minute-lethal food allergy
works better.
I think it's practically impossible to lose weight. And everyone
knows what "lose weight" means: "get skinny and never get fat again
no matter what choices I make in the future". Forget it. Enjoy life
instead.
|4.11.07 @ 6:25PM|#
Most people think "dieting" does mean restricting food
intake or following some marginally insane food regimen with the
goal of looking good in a bikini.
I don't even want to think about the diet that would leave me
looking good in a bikini.
Healthy Fat Person|4.11.07 @ 6:31PM|#
If you follow Durk Pearson's life extension program, you can be fat with no dire consequences. By any measure, I'm obese, but I my cardiovascular condition is the same as a thin person's.
|4.11.07 @ 6:43PM|#
"We eat more. My point is, I believe it's not the big deal the
media keep telling us it is with their ubiquitous titillating
displays of obese midsections. And in any case, it's clear that a
large part of the public is willing to trade a few years of later
life for a sedentary present."
That doesn't really address the question I asked, and doesn't
address your statement that "genetics play the major role."
I never said that people weren't willing to sacrifice
length-of-life for a sedentary present, and that is their choice to
do so. But if they're so satisfied with this choice, why complain
about it? The truth is, most obese or otherwise largely overweight
people don't want to be even remotely overweight. They just don't
have the right information to turn that around, and it doesn't help
them for people to be like "It's OK, it's just genetics, it's not
your fault, there's little you can do about it anyway, so you might
as well be happy with your body the way it is." Yeah, that line of
reasoning can be applied to all sorts of vices, but I highly doubt
it ever results in the person its told to actually believing that
it's ok.. now they just believe that they can't do anything about
it.
Rhywun|4.12.07 @ 1:26AM|#
But if they're so satisfied with this choice, why complain
about it?
They complain because they've been conditioned by society to
constantly fret about their weight.
it doesn't help them for people to be like "It's OK, it's just
genetics, it's not your fault, there's little you can do about it
anyway, so you might as well be happy with your body the way it
is."
Nor does it help to give them false hope with all these diets that
don't work, causing constant worry and yo-yo'ing in weight. I think
we're all agreed that losing weight is not easy and takes more
willpower than most people can give, especially if you're fighting
genetics. Why not take a more sensible approach by emphasizing tips
for healthy living that take into consideration that these people
probably aren't going to lose any weight?
Reason Me This|4.12.07 @ 5:53AM|#
After a couple of sedentary years in a frigid climate, I had put
on over 40 pounds, and didn't know where to begin. I've never been
a firm believer in any of the popular weight loss schemes, so I
simply decided to go sugar free with most products, which lowered
my calories, and well, I exercised more. Now, it's nothing
religious, or fanatical. I simply started paying closer attention
to my calorie intake. I had never had a reason to do that before.
If I ate more, then I usually ran or walked a little longer. If I
didn't feel like working out on a particular day, then I held off
on a favorite snack.
Now, when I speak to others about weight loss I am astounded at how
few people truly understand the idea that extra calories are what
causes weight gain.
Using any calorie calculator, while not perfectly accurate, can
give most people a ball park figure of their daily needs, and they
can then plan accordingly. Trial and error usually suffices as
well.
It's simple, yet people have been so hypnotized by the fad, diet
market that they actually think that fat and carbs directly make
them fat. In reality, these diets correspond to a drop in calories,
but also limit people's choices, which is also a quality of life
issue.
If more people simply accepted, or realized that they can pretty
much eat what they like with portion control and exercise, then we
might not be witnessing so much frustration on the issue.
The damaged caused by nutrition priests seems beyond repair, yet
most people find their idealistic programs fairly daunting. The
more you try to adhere to the idea of perfection in a diet, the
less likely you are to succeed. Hence, the problem.
Edward|4.12.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Reason Me This
What you say is aboslutely rational. But it occurs to me that the
market economy depends on gullibility and irrationality. The fad
diet industry makes billions. If everybody were rational, the whole
thing would go belly up. Reasonable eating is for elites; everybody
else goes on fad diets and swallows expensive but ultimately
worthless supplements.
|4.12.07 @ 2:28PM|#
So sorry, the server messed up the board. Let's try again:
♜♞♝♛♚♝♞♜
♟♟♟♟♟♟♟♟
♙
♙♙♙ ♙♙♙♙
♖♘♗♕♔♗♘♖
Reason Me This|4.13.07 @ 6:17AM|#
Edward, don't even get me started on the supplement gurus. It's
almost impossible to convince most adherents that the highly
profitable supplement makers, who are not required to prove any
efficacy in regards to their products, might actually be selling
them nothing more than extra calories, or sugar pill
equivalents.
If you highlight that fact to them, they will normally recount an
anecdotal story about how their friend, or family member used them,
and they look fantastic!
More importantly, it seems rather difficult to have any reasonable
discussion about calorie reduction strategies as long as so many
people are still convinced that aspartame is bad for you.
Apparently, you have to eat organic foods if you desire longevity,
or well, a host of any other postive life experiences.
Here we have a product that can, in some cases, dramatically reduce
a person's daily caloric intake, yet many mainstream doctors, and
nutritionists still repeat myths about it. I guess they've been
Googling the topic like they have in other instances.
It reminds me of an incident in my old Anatomy & Physiology
class. I once overheard the lab professor telling a student that
aspartame is absolutely horrible for you. Of course, he was a
Chiropractor moonlighting as a lab instructor.
None|4.13.07 @ 6:39PM|#
I always thought that it was pretty much assumed that some
people are born with certain issues regarding weight containment,
or excessive eating. However, even with these biological "factors"
controlled eating, and exercise are still the only viable options
for weight control. You'll just have to work a little harder than
the man or woman who may have trouble gaining weight. Although,
this seems to be less of a factor as people grow older, and their
lifestyles change. Most people put on weight as they grow older for
obvious reasons such as family dedication, and of course heavy work
schedules. Also, they have very little time for active hobbies that
may burn more calories.
I would like to see more research though. These health headlines
are always nice, but once you read them thoroughly you realize that
it really is the media attempting to extrapolate an interesting
finding.
Ultimately with news like that you'll have a slew of people
claiming that they were born fat, just like so many people now have
ADD and depression to excuse lackluster performance.
|4.19.07 @ 1:08AM|#
To successfully lose weight, you must carry out
a plan to balance your caloric intake with exercise.
Ideally, dieting should be done by eating a nutritionally
balanced, low-calorie diet and increasing physical activity.
I found useful informations at
http://toloseweight.org
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245