Fat shaming

[Humpy]

5'6"

LOL

 

[purbeast0]

I don't think I even know an adult male in real life who weighs 140lbs.

 

[Newbian]

5'6" 🙁

I've never seen myself as being short, I just see everyone as being too tall. 😛

Ahh then I suppose that weight is fine.

*Pat you on the head*

 

[Mai72]

Next thing you know people will be saying things like...

Don't wait for a parking spot in the front looping around 20 times in an effort to get a parking spot within the first 3 spaces, park towards the back, walk in, and be done quicker!

The nerve of people! The Audacity! I went to the store the other day and they didn't even have a chariot to take me to my vehicle! I had to carry all the groceries myself!

The audacity!

OMG!

You should have sued!

 

[superstition]

Special snowflakes.

Love the recent Bill Maher rant. The far left has gone so far over the edge, to the point where deriding them is easy. They're killing themselves, just like the far right has made a mockery of true conservatism.

Bill Maher is only a step above Bill O' Reilly for having a lot of hot air that doesn't add up under scrutiny.

 

[MrSquished]

I don't think I even know an adult male in real life who weighs 140lbs.

I am 5'10" and was 135lbs for my teen years plus a good portion of my twenties

Now I go between 170 and 185lbs

 

[cbrunny]

LOL

Like I said, suck it. You wanna be a superficial asshole about something that isn't possible to change, there's plenty of racists to keep you in good company these days.

 

[Humpy]

Like I said, suck it. You wanna be a superficial asshole about something that isn't possible to change, there's plenty of racists to keep you in good company these days.

LOL

5'6" and angry.

It's a dangerous combination.

 

[dullard]

So... you're not actually talking about what I think you are trying to say then.

When it comes to mass loss / gain, all that matters is conservation of mass. Energy, in the form of calories is irrelevant.

Note: Calories are related to mass. So, people find them convenient to use instead. But they are not exactly equivalent. And that is where a lot of people get into trouble. That isn't even going into details of how the body absorbs and uses the energy. They are starting off wrong before they even begin the process. Eating 1 lb of fiber is not the same as eating 1 lb of sugar. Then, add in the fact that people are using incorrect numbers.

I just linked the first articles on google for 7700 Calories per kg and 9 Calories per gram of fat. Most articles will say 3500 Calories per lb, but I figured I'd limit the math and link directly to the Calories per kg number. Here are others that say 7700 Calories per kg:
http://www.theunitconverter.com/cal...sion/7700-calorie-gram-to-joule-kilogram.html
https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Man...Calories-burned-Calories-consumed/td-p/977771
https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070515025123AAPGQwc
I could go on and on with links of this number.

Heck, even peer reviewed scientific papers mention it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376744/
(note that was 3500 Calories per lb, which equals 3500 Calories / lb * 2.2 lb/kg = 7700 Calories/kg)

The problem is that these commonly used numbers are simply incorrect (and as you state, they are gross oversimplifications of what actually happens in the body). If the body absorbed 100% of the calories with no energy required, then either a gram of fat is 7.7 Calories, or a kg of fat is 9000 Calories (a pound would be 4090 Calories). One of these two numbers--that are in just about every single nutrition textbook ever--is wrong. And not wrong in the sense of rounding, since 7.7 does not round up to 9.

That scientific paper actually goes into the proper answer. The commonly used 7700 Calories / kg of fat or 3500 Calories / lb of fat assumes we are talking about adipose tissue at 87% fat. But the nutrition labels assume pure fat. The rest is probably rounding.

 

[cbrunny]

LOL

5'6" and angry.

It's a dangerous combination.

Better to be short and angry than a turbo-asshole. You should feel bad about who you choose to be.

 

[cbrunny]

When it comes to mass loss / gain, all that matters is conservation of mass. Energy, in the form of calories is irrelevant.

Note: Calories are related to mass. So, people find them convenient to use instead. But they are not exactly equivalent. And that is where a lot of people get into trouble. That isn't even going into details of how the body absorbs and uses the energy. They are starting off wrong before they even begin the process. Eating 1 lb of fiber is not the same as eating 1 lb of sugar. Then, add in the fact that people are using incorrect numbers.

I just linked the first articles on google for 7700 Calories per kg and 9 Calories per gram of fat. Most articles will say 3500 Calories per lb, but I figured I'd limit the math and link directly to the Calories per kg number. Here are others that say 7700 Calories per kg:
http://www.theunitconverter.com/cal...sion/7700-calorie-gram-to-joule-kilogram.html
https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Man...Calories-burned-Calories-consumed/td-p/977771
https://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070515025123AAPGQwc
I could go on and on with links of this number.

Heck, even peer reviewed scientific papers mention it:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376744/
(note that was 3500 Calories per lb, which equals 3500 Calories / lb * 2.2 lb/kg = 7700 Calories/kg)

The problem is that these commonly used numbers are simply incorrect (and as you state, they are gross oversimplifications of what actually happens in the body). If the body absorbed 100% of the calories with no energy required, then either a gram of fat is 7.7 Calories, or a kg of fat is 9000 Calories (a pound would be 4090 Calories). One of these two numbers--that are in just about every single nutrition textbook ever--is wrong. And not wrong in the sense of rounding, since 7.7 does not round up to 9.

That scientific paper actually goes into the proper answer. The commonly used 7700 Calories / kg of fat or 3500 Calories / lb of fat assumes we are talking about adipose tissue at 87% fat. But the nutrition labels assume pure fat. The rest is probably rounding.

I won't lie. I don't understand your point. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree. I'm just saying I don't understand.

 

[superstition]

I won't lie. I don't understand your point. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree. I'm just saying I don't understand.

The fiber vs. sugar example is about mass being deceptive because of energy content. Fiber offers little energy in comparison with readily digestible sugar. Some fibers, like psyllium, offer none directly. We can get technical and talk about how some fibers are digested in the colon and some pass through, blah blah blah. But the bottom lines are these:

The body needs fat, protein, and carbs. Each has a different energy density. Fat has the highest. However, contrary to what people were taught for a long time, low fat diets are not good for people. High fat diets aren't good either but they're better than low fat diets.

The best way to lose weight is to be less sedentary and get adequate sleep. People who sleep less than 8 hours weigh 20% more, typically. Sleep and exercise increase metabolism. The other thing about losing weight is to eat a healthy diet. The Mediterranean diet is a good choice, although it's tricky because of mercury in fish thanks to coal power.

Cutting added sugars (and all sugar substitutes) out of one's diet completely is very helpful, along with refined/processed carbs. Also, contrary to common belief, ketosis is not something most people should try to achieve. Carbs have important roles in the body, like keeping water level adequate, ATP level adequate, and helping serotonin production. Ketosis is mainly useful for problematic epilepsy and for surgical weight loss systems.

 

[Humpy]

Better to be short and angry than a turbo-asshole. You should feel bad about who you choose to be.

Poking fun of someone's height is so childish you're not supposed to actually get mad.

Regular height people know this.

Let's be friends.

 

[superstition]

Poking fun of someone's height is so childish you're not supposed to actually get mad.

Regular height people know this.

Let's be friends.

As a tall person I'd rather be shorter because of fewer joint problems from aging. Airplane trips are also really bad. I've had flight attendants move me just to get my legs and feet out of the way.

 

[cbrunny]

The fiber vs. sugar example is about mass being deceptive because of energy content. Fiber offers little energy in comparison with readily digestible sugar. Some fibers, like psyllium, offer none directly. We can get technical and talk about how some fibers are digested in the colon and some pass through, blah blah blah. But the bottom lines are these:

The body needs fat, protein, and carbs. Each has a different energy density. Fat has the highest. However, contrary to what people were taught for a long time, low fat diets are not good for people. High fat diets aren't good either but they're better than low fat diets.

The best way to lose weight is to be less sedentary and get adequate sleep. People who sleep less than 8 hours weigh 20% more, typically. Sleep and exercise increase metabolism. The other thing about losing weight is to eat a healthy diet. The Mediterranean diet is a good choice, although it's tricky because of mercury in fish thanks to coal power.

Cutting added sugars (and all sugar substitutes) out of one's diet completely is very helpful, along with refined/processed carbs. Also, contrary to common belief, ketosis is not something most people should try to achieve. Carbs have important roles in the body, like keeping water level adequate, ATP level adequate, and helping serotonin production. Ketosis is mainly useful for problematic epilepsy and for surgical weight loss systems.

So all he is saying is that eating healthy is good and eating not healthy is not good?

 

[superstition]

So all he is saying is that eating healthy is good and eating not healthy is not good?

No, it was something to do with no confusing mass with energy. The point about fiber and sugar is one I explained. 1 lb of fiber = 1 lb of mass with very little energy. 1 lb of sugar = 1 lb of a lot more energy.

Fat has a higher energy density than the protein and carbs. The body also tends to metabolize different types of food differently.

 

[Elixer]

OP, at least they didn't use this pic...

 

[Exterous]

As a tall person I'd rather be shorter because of fewer joint problems from aging. Airplane trips are also really bad. I've had flight attendants move me just to get my legs and feet out of the way.

While I agree airplane flights can suck I'd rather be tall. A very good friend of mine is short and that apparently leads to lots of problems meeting women - he was pretty angry about it. Perhaps thats why the short people in the thread are also angry?

 

[foghorn67]

I dont drink soda. I drink coffee and water. I don't eat horribly either. I'll eat a fried egg or two for breakfast. I will have a turkey sandwich and a small amount of chips and some vegetables for lunch. I eat a sensible dinner, maybe 2 pieces of pizza or something, and have a sugary snack sometime throughout the day, maybe a snickers bar or something. I work out EVERY day at least 30-45 minutes of cardio and/or weight lifting. I am barely maintaining my weight -- maybe adding a pound or two every couple months. I crave sugar, even if I go without for a week or two, I still really enjoy it.

There are others who can eat double what I do and have soda throughout the day and are just naturally skinny. There's a lot to this metabolism thing. I'm always cold but have had my thyroid tested and its normal. I'm at 205 right now, but have always been heavy my entire life except for the past couple years. Still, even though I don't eat much and am what most would consider active, I can't lose weight.

I think one of the biggest mistakes is the lack of variance in cardio routines. Merely burning calories won't burn fat. It just tells your body how to store carbs and fat more efficiently. High intensity workouts hasn't stopped anyone from loosing weight.

 

[dullard]

I won't lie. I don't understand your point. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree. I'm just saying I don't understand.

I'll try it in a different way.

1) Suppose you have a box, filled with contents, and that box+contents weighs 150 lbs.
2) Suppose you put 5 lbs of stuff in the box.
3) Suppose you take 4 lbs of stuff out of the box.

What does the box + contents now weigh? Anyone in the world should be able to answer that question. The box + contents now weighs 151 lbs. That answer is true no matter what you put in or what you took out. Put in 5 lbs of water or 5 lbs of sugar and the answer is the same.

Now, if that box was your skin, why does the weight of the items no longer matter, but the energy content (calories) now matters? Answer: it doesn't. We are focusing on calories, when we should actually focus on the weight of things we put in and push out of our bodies.

Calories are related to the weight of the food we eat. Eating two pounds of sugar is double the calories and double the weight of one pound of sugar. So, in that case, focusing on calories and focusing on weight are the same. That is why so many people think about calories, as it is close enough in many cases to the real focus of the weight of the items. But, calories are still not scientifically correct. Two pounds of fiber (no usable calories) and two pounds of sugar (all usable calories) are completely different. It is the weight that matters when we want to lose weight.

 

[slag]

I won't lie. I don't understand your point. I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree. I'm just saying I don't understand.

I didn't even read it. Incoming wall of text crushed me for 800 hp and I died.

 

[slag]

I'll try it in a different way.

1) Suppose you have a box, filled with contents, and that box+contents weighs 150 lbs.
2) Suppose you put 5 lbs of stuff in the box.
3) Suppose you take 4 lbs of stuff out of the box.

What does the box + contents now weigh? Anyone in the world should be able to answer that question. The box + contents now weighs 151 lbs. That answer is true no matter what you put in or what you took out. Put in 5 lbs of water or 5 lbs of sugar and the answer is the same.

Now, if that box was your skin, why does the weight of the items no longer matter, but the energy content (calories) now matters? Answer: it doesn't. We are focusing on calories, when we should actually focus on the weight of things we put in and push out of our bodies.

Calories are related to the weight of the food we eat. Eating two pounds of sugar is double the calories and double the weight of one pound of sugar. So, in that case, focusing on calories and focusing on weight are the same. That is why so many people think about calories, as it is close enough in many cases to the real focus of the weight of the items. But, calories are still not scientifically correct. Two pounds of fiber (no usable calories) and two pounds of sugar (all usable calories) are completely different. It is the weight that matters when we want to lose weight.

Ok, so I did read this and I think it matters because our bodies are not just lifeless boxes. Our bodies metabolise different types of food in different ways. The type of food very much matters whereas weight can be important, but is not as important as the types of calories we are taking in and quantity of calories.

 

[Kaido]

Calories are related to the weight of the food we eat. Eating two pounds of sugar is double the calories and double the weight of one pound of sugar. So, in that case, focusing on calories and focusing on weight are the same. That is why so many people think about calories, as it is close enough in many cases to the real focus of the weight of the items. But, calories are still not scientifically correct. Two pounds of fiber (no usable calories) and two pounds of sugar (all usable calories) are completely different. It is the weight that matters when we want to lose weight.

In theory, yes, momentarily...but the missing part of that equation is energy consumption. If you eat a pound of sugar or a pound of steak, then yes, immediately after, your body is one pound heavier. However, a calorie is basically how much energy it takes to increase the temperature of a gram of water by one degree Celsius & different foods have different calorie densities. Each type of food has a different amount of calories per gram. Protein has 4 calories per gram, fat has 9 calories per gram, and carbs have 4 calories per gram. So there's your macros: protein, fats, carbs. When it goes through the digestion process & turns into usable energy for your body, that's when things change. Putting a pound of sugar & a pound of steak in a box will make the box two pounds heavier; putting the same in a human body, over time, will not make it 2 pounds heavier because the box lacks digestion, whereas the human body takes that fuel & converts it to energy. And for weight loss, the bottom line is eating fewer calories than you need, which is why just about every diet out there works. For actually getting shredded, add in macro counting so that your body is getting the correct fuel. And even that isn't the whole picture, because you can get abs off ice cream & protein shakes if you really wanted to by meeting your daily macro number & calorie count, but that doesn't mean that those foods are healthy for you long-term. fwiw, case in point, I eat a ton of sugar (self-proclaimed sugar addict, I make dessert just about every night), but stick with my macros, and I'm just fine.

 

[Kaido]

Ok, so I did read this and I think it matters because our bodies are not just lifeless boxes. Our bodies metabolise different types of food in different ways. The type of food very much matters whereas weight can be important, but is not as important as the types of calories we are taking in and quantity of calories.

That's basically it. A cardboard box lacks a stomach to convert food into energy, thus the food sits there & simply adds weight instead of being burned for fuel. It's like tossing a wooden log into a bonfire...you're not going to be left with a 5-pound log, you're just going to have some soot & ashes at the end because all of the energy got burned off in the fire.

 

[dullard]

That's basically it. A cardboard box lacks a stomach to convert food into energy, thus the food sits there & simply adds weight instead of being burned for fuel. It's like tossing a wooden log into a bonfire...you're not going to be left with a 5-pound log, you're just going to have some soot & ashes at the end because all of the energy got burned off in the fire.

You are forgetting about the mass of the CO2 and other components that left the bonfire. Mass in - mass out = mass change