StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
And the ONLY explanation for the fact that obesity rates have doubled in the last 20 years is environmental. Not genetics or anything. It's lifestyle.
No adult on the planet can cycle for 90 min 6 times a week while consuming 1700 calories/day and get obese.
rh71
No Lifer
- Aug 28, 2001
- 52,844
- 1,049
- 126
Maybe this is true for quite a few people, but those of us who hardly get exercise at all can remain thin. I still say it's metabolism. I only play hockey once or twice a week - and that's only in-season - nothing else. I can sit on my @$$ (and I do since I work from home) all day for months and not gain any weight while maintaining the fast-food diet. It sucks for my cholesterol, but the point is weight here.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Activity levels have gone down, while average caloric intakes have gone up. Low activity + more food = nation of fat asses.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: skace
Originally posted by: Amused
Why is this funny? I grew up eating McDonalds at least twice a week and no one in my family was fat. I ate McDonalds quite often all through my 20s, and never got fat.
Blaming food venders for obesity is like blaming gun makers for drive by shootings. It's simplistic and ignorant.
Your family is alien.
I wonder if the mcdonalds anti-obesity campaign will be "Don't eat here, everything we make is fvcking unhealthy"
Edit: BAH, the raging bitch beat me to it.
I love how kids today, who have NO IDEA how we ate 20-30 years ago, think McDonalds is so bad. The average meal when I was growing up had more fat than a bag full of McDonald's burgers. Most things were cooked using Crisco, lard or bacon grease. And the obesity rate was no where near what it is today.
America got fat on diet sodas, and low fat foods.
BINGO!
It's not the type of food, it's the AMOUNT and lack of activity. When you are inactive, you are more likely to munch. Play ball outside with your dad or kid, and you don't munch. Sit in front of a computer or TV all day, and what do you do? You munch.
I just had a thought... maybe this nation is consuming too much alcohol...
Originally posted by: rh71
Maybe this is true for quite a few people, but those of us who hardly get exercise at all can remain thin. I still say it's metabolism. I only play hockey once or twice a week - and that's only in-season - nothing else. I can sit on my @$$ (and I do since I work from home) all day for months and not gain any weight while maintaining the fast-food diet. It sucks for my cholesterol, but the point is weight here.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Activity levels have gone down, while average caloric intakes have gone up. Low activity + more food = nation of fat asses.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: skace
Originally posted by: Amused
Why is this funny? I grew up eating McDonalds at least twice a week and no one in my family was fat. I ate McDonalds quite often all through my 20s, and never got fat.
Blaming food venders for obesity is like blaming gun makers for drive by shootings. It's simplistic and ignorant.
Your family is alien.
I wonder if the mcdonalds anti-obesity campaign will be "Don't eat here, everything we make is fvcking unhealthy"
Edit: BAH, the raging bitch beat me to it.
I love how kids today, who have NO IDEA how we ate 20-30 years ago, think McDonalds is so bad. The average meal when I was growing up had more fat than a bag full of McDonald's burgers. Most things were cooked using Crisco, lard or bacon grease. And the obesity rate was no where near what it is today.
America got fat on diet sodas, and low fat foods.
BINGO!
It's not the type of food, it's the AMOUNT and lack of activity. When you are inactive, you are more likely to munch. Play ball outside with your dad or kid, and you don't munch. Sit in front of a computer or TV all day, and what do you do? You munch.
I'm guessing its true for over 85% of the people(did you know 99% of all stats are made up on the spot?
)
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,505
- 20,116
- 146
I concur with your agreement.
The key here is, what changed? I say the leading cause is activity levels. And that lower activity levels have led to more munching in a vicious cycle. The obesity epidemic directly correlates with the rise in popularity of cable and sat TV, video games, and the Internet. Not only that, but it allso correlates with the rise in popularity of lowfat/fatfree foods and diet drinks.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
I know few people who have a regular approach to excercise, but don't forget that we recently heard on some study that since the 70s women are eating 20% more calories and men 7%. That's a lot!Originally posted by: Amused
I concur with your agreement.
The key here is, what changed? I say the leading cause is activity levels. And that lower activity levels have led to more munching in a vicious cycle. The obesity epidemic directly correlates with the rise in popularity of cable and sat TV, video games, and the Internet.
Genetics does play a big role, but damn near anyone could get fat if they wanted to. Which shows the part that lifestyle plays in it.
The thing is, your assessment is pretty much anecdotal without you actually logging what all you eat on a daily basis. You may actually not be taking in as many calories as you think whereas most people take in many more than they think they do.
Try writing it all down for a week, you'll probably be pretty surprised.
The 2 go hand in hand. Being active may make a big impact on your health, but so does eating healthy. Eating healthy also gives you the energy to be active. Both are very important. Likewise, people who eat unhealthy and exercise to offset, usually end up overweight the second their exercise plan slows down.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,505
- 20,116
- 146
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I know few people who have a regular approach to excercise, but don't forget that we recently heard on some study that since the 70s women are eating 20% more calories and men 7%. That's a lot!Originally posted by: Amused
I concur with your agreement.
The key here is, what changed? I say the leading cause is activity levels. And that lower activity levels have led to more munching in a vicious cycle. The obesity epidemic directly correlates with the rise in popularity of cable and sat TV, video games, and the Internet.
True, but as I said, most of that increase is the MUNCHING that goes along with inactivity.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Well take a picture of yourself and get back to me when you're 36
I never said, and never will, that all people have the same metabolism or propensity to obesity. It's clearly not the case. I gain weight easily. I have an appetite like you would not believe, and at the same time I know people who "claim" that they can't lose weight, but the fact is obesity is skyrocketing because of lifestyle. No other country on the planet has obesity levels like in the US (and though you can't compare easily a pigmy's genetics to a white guy in texas, you CAN compare a texan to somebody from France), and inter-country comparisons aside the us is getting fatter because of lifestyle. Although I have a harder time being thin than many people I am thinner than most simply because of lifestyle.
Eat somewhere healthy like Panera Bread BWAHAHAHA! That sandwich is like TWO Big Macs.
I hope you like Sodium.
I hope you like Sodium.
Not really. 7% tacked on to a 2500kcal daily intake (2500 is sort of an arbitrary BMR plus a bit number) is only 175 extra calories per day. That's about a 15-20 minute brisk walk. I'm on the bike at least an hour a day, which is 600-1000 extra calories burned, so you can see why I have so much flexibility in eating pretty much whatever I want.Originally posted by: Skoorb
I know few people who have a regular approach to excercise, but don't forget that we recently heard on some study that since the 70s women are eating 20% more calories and men 7%. That's a lot!Originally posted by: Amused
I concur with your agreement.
The key here is, what changed? I say the leading cause is activity levels. And that lower activity levels have led to more munching in a vicious cycle. The obesity epidemic directly correlates with the rise in popularity of cable and sat TV, video games, and the Internet.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Yeah but we both know most people don't do a 15-20 min brisk walkOriginally posted by: Fausto
Not really. 7% tacked on to a 2500kcal daily intake (2500 is sort of an arbitrary BMR plus a bit number) is only 175 extra calories per day. That's about a 15-20 minute brisk walk. I'm on the bike at least an hour a day, which is 600-1000 extra calories burned, so you can see why I have so much flexibility in eating pretty much whatever I want.Originally posted by: Skoorb
I know few people who have a regular approach to excercise, but don't forget that we recently heard on some study that since the 70s women are eating 20% more calories and men 7%. That's a lot!Originally posted by: Amused
I concur with your agreement.
The key here is, what changed? I say the leading cause is activity levels. And that lower activity levels have led to more munching in a vicious cycle. The obesity epidemic directly correlates with the rise in popularity of cable and sat TV, video games, and the Internet.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,505
- 20,116
- 146
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well take a picture of yourself and get back to me when you're 36
I never said, and never will, that all people have the same metabolism or propensity to obesity. It's clearly not the case. I gain weight easily. I have an appetite like you would not believe, and at the same time I know people who "claim" that they can't lose weight, but the fact is obesity is skyrocketing because of lifestyle. No other country on the planet has obesity levels like in the US (and though you can't compare easily a pigmy's genetics to a white guy in texas, you CAN compare a texan to somebody from France), and inter-country comparisons aside the us is getting fatter because of lifestyle. Although I have a harder time being thin than many people I am thinner than most simply because of lifestyle.
Just a note: While not quite as bad, Europe IS having it's own explosion in obesity rates. Some Southern European countries are even catching up to the US.
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well take a picture of yourself and get back to me when you're 36
I never said, and never will, that all people have the same metabolism or propensity to obesity. It's clearly not the case. I gain weight easily. I have an appetite like you would not believe, and at the same time I know people who "claim" that they can't lose weight, but the fact is obesity is skyrocketing because of lifestyle. No other country on the planet has obesity levels like in the US (and though you can't compare easily a pigmy's genetics to a white guy in texas, you CAN compare a texan to somebody from France), and inter-country comparisons aside the us is getting fatter because of lifestyle. Although I have a harder time being thin than many people I am thinner than most simply because of lifestyle.
Just a note: While not quite as bad, Europe IS having it's own explosion in obesity rates. Some Southern European countries are even catching up to the US.
Must....Eat ....More...I can't let France beat us!
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Canada isn't far behind eitherOriginally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well take a picture of yourself and get back to me when you're 36
I never said, and never will, that all people have the same metabolism or propensity to obesity. It's clearly not the case. I gain weight easily. I have an appetite like you would not believe, and at the same time I know people who "claim" that they can't lose weight, but the fact is obesity is skyrocketing because of lifestyle. No other country on the planet has obesity levels like in the US (and though you can't compare easily a pigmy's genetics to a white guy in texas, you CAN compare a texan to somebody from France), and inter-country comparisons aside the us is getting fatter because of lifestyle. Although I have a harder time being thin than many people I am thinner than most simply because of lifestyle.
Just a note: While not quite as bad, Europe IS having it's own explosion in obesity rates. Some Southern European countries are even catching up to the US.
While I admit when it come to nutrition I know very little. I'm guessing a steak is much healtier than a mayo laden patty of mcdonalds beef with some special sauce. You need to get some nutrients, but a bigmac is not a way to go about it. Again I don't know much about nutrition so I'm going off something I must have heard from someone or I'm just making it up, but a Patty of beef from the butcher and a mcdoanlds patty are very different.
Skace; I'll clarify.
You're correct that the two do go hand-in-hand, but I'm pointing out that from a caloric standpoint, the exercise makes a greater impact on your weight and is easier to control/quantify. Assume a BMR of 2500 kcal for a person. If he/she is sedentary, they have to be relatively careful with regard to diet in order not to exceed that number on a daily basis and then gain weight. On the other hand, if that person gets an hour of exercise each day and burns 500kcal (and that's a modest number for an hour), he/she now has an extra 500 calorie fudge-factor (no pun intended) if they decide eat some junk. This is why cyclists eat EVERYTHING they see and remain so thin. Of course, they tend to eat healthy stuff for the most part as quality of food does affect your growth as an athlete, but you get my point with regard to weight only.
Everything I just said becomes even more obvious when someone is trying to lose weight. If you don't exercise to get that calorie buffer, you basically have to starve yourself. Omitting 500 kcal per day when you're already only eating 2500 per day is not going to be fun whereas the exercise person just has to not stuff himself all the time and the weight will come off.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter