Study Finds 'Mind-Boggling' Rise in Morbid Obesity

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: Tick
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: Vic
What I have trouble understanding is why people don't want to exercise (or engage in physical activity) to the point of making up excuses not to exercise. Really. Nothing feels better (okay, except for sex, but isn't that a type of exercise? :p ) and nothing is better for you. Exercise is the cure for practically everything that ails us. From depression to diabetes. Hell, Magic Johnson claims to have beaten HIV through exercise.
You can't keep blaming food all you want, but that's just another way of not taking responsibility for your own life.

I don't understand it either as exercise is a drug with no downside. The more you do it the better you feel. It is also amazing that once you get in shape all the little aches and pains associated with getting older simply go away. I am going to go ride my bike 12 miles before it gets dark. Something I look forward to every day.

Ew... I HATE physical activity. It just saps your energy. It also makes me need to go to sleep sooner at night. And it takes so damn much time. AND it makes my eczema flare up. AND, it's usually done outside, so it flares up my alergies. AND I have to take a shower afterwards, makeing my skin dry. AND, it's almost boring.

Long term, exercise gives you more energy. You can exercise in the morning and shower after, meaning one shower a day still. You can exercise indoors, saving you from your allergies. Sorry about your skin, but in most cases, eczema is an autoimmune disorder caused by too little exposure to the world and bacteria.

Work is boring. Get over it. Personally, I love lifting weights.
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
Originally posted by: Tick
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: Vic
What I have trouble understanding is why people don't want to exercise (or engage in physical activity) to the point of making up excuses not to exercise. Really. Nothing feels better (okay, except for sex, but isn't that a type of exercise? :p ) and nothing is better for you. Exercise is the cure for practically everything that ails us. From depression to diabetes. Hell, Magic Johnson claims to have beaten HIV through exercise.
You can't keep blaming food all you want, but that's just another way of not taking responsibility for your own life.

I don't understand it either as exercise is a drug with no downside. The more you do it the better you feel. It is also amazing that once you get in shape all the little aches and pains associated with getting older simply go away. I am going to go ride my bike 12 miles before it gets dark. Something I look forward to every day.

Ew... I HATE physical activity. It just saps your energy. It also makes me need to go to sleep sooner at night. And it takes so damn much time. AND it makes my eczema flare up. AND, it's usually done outside, so it flares up my alergies. AND I have to take a shower afterwards, makeing my skin dry. AND, it's mostly boring.

Sarcasm, right?
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: crt1530
Friendlier staircases and more walkable environments? How about personal responsibility for your own health? No environment is going to be "more walkable" if you eat so much that you are 100 pounds overweight.

Well, food is only half, if not less of the equation. It's the rise of a near or total lack of physical activity in our current society that correlates perfectly with the rise in obesity.

Kinda sad, actually. The very genetic traits that ensured survival in times of feast and famine and constant physical labor for food are backfiring on us now.

You don't need to be active to be skinny. It is lack of willpower and self control. No amount of physical activity will help these people without willpower.

Keep telling yourself that. If it makes you feel superior, run with it.

Just know in the back of your mind the fact that it's bullsh!t. Dieting fails because the body WILL make you eat sooner or later. 98+% of diets fail long term.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=67422

Activity is obviously the key to the obesity epidemic. And the longer we focus on food the longer we will fail.

They never say in the article what types of diets they've studied. I personally lost 50 lbs in two years just from going on a low/moderate GI diet with no change in physical activity, which also completely cleared up my hypertension and insulin resistance (I was at high risk for diabetes at the time). That was three years ago that I started. In the past year, I've also taken up weight lifting in addition to High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT), and have lost another 20 lbs.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be active, only that without a good diet, the exercise isn't going to do very much.

Edit: It would probably be useful to make a distinction between "diet" and "dieting." When I say diet, I'm simply referring to the type and amount of food/drink consumption. I'm not referring to any specific plan or process (i.e. Atkins, South Beach, etc.) Anyway, if people aren't able to sustain a particular degree of consumption, then no sh1t it's not going to work. Was a study really necessary to discover that?

No, but a study to show the vast, VAST majority cannot maintain calorie restriction diets IS needed. And trust me, if you want to keep that weight off long term you're going to have to focus on activity/exercise and not so much on diet.

The study never said people didn't lose weight. It says people don't keep it off long term and most end up fatter than before.


Amused, given your experience with bodybuilding, I will assume you have gone through cutting phases before, and know approximately how many calories you need to eat each day to maintain your current weight.

Having said that, why can't the general population follow some of the same principles? I'm not saying they need to get x grams of protein or anything like that, but just track what they each day and figure out approximately how much they can eat each day to maintain their current weight. They may not be able to get it exactly right, but if they track it they can get close enough to keep from getting morbidly obese. There are websites out there that make traking these things incredibly easy.

You said it's not willpower, but isn't doing what I described just a matter of willpower?

Or maybe I am misunderstading your use of the term diet.

A cutting diet is only good short term... just like ANY calorie restrictive diet. They all fail in the long term for a reason and it's not as simplistic as "everyone has no willpower."

Could they not just "cut" for awhile and then go back to eating what would be their maintenance level of food? What would that be besides a lack of willpower?

There is a reason most people gain back MORE weight than they started with after a calorie restrictive diet. Can you guess what it is (if you say will power you fail)?

That because they have lost weight, their new "maintenance" calories are now less than what they were before, thus they start gaining weight again?

Or am I totally missing your point here?

The point is, the body has natural reactions to perceived famine. One of those is to increase appetite in times of feast and increase the minimum stores set-point for the next famine. This is one of the main reasons calorie restrictive diets fail long term, and it's not all about "will power."

People who diet, then fail long term almost always end up heavier than had they never dieted at all. It's the body's natural reaction to famine cycles.

What if they were to do the caloric reductions gradually, and never get too far below their maintenance? I'm sure you're familiar with the "crash diets" in which a person will drastically reduce calories in a short period of time. Those will cause the reaction you are describing, but what about a more conservative approach?

Why am I able to cut for 4 months and get lean, and am also able to gradually increase my calories back to where they were pre-cut without gaining any of the fat back? Are you saying this is entirely the result of genetics?

Again, I'm not suggesting that the general population take up bodybuilding, only that some of the principles followed could be used by the general population.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Special K
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: crt1530
Friendlier staircases and more walkable environments? How about personal responsibility for your own health? No environment is going to be "more walkable" if you eat so much that you are 100 pounds overweight.

Well, food is only half, if not less of the equation. It's the rise of a near or total lack of physical activity in our current society that correlates perfectly with the rise in obesity.

Kinda sad, actually. The very genetic traits that ensured survival in times of feast and famine and constant physical labor for food are backfiring on us now.

You don't need to be active to be skinny. It is lack of willpower and self control. No amount of physical activity will help these people without willpower.

Keep telling yourself that. If it makes you feel superior, run with it.

Just know in the back of your mind the fact that it's bullsh!t. Dieting fails because the body WILL make you eat sooner or later. 98+% of diets fail long term.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=67422

Activity is obviously the key to the obesity epidemic. And the longer we focus on food the longer we will fail.

They never say in the article what types of diets they've studied. I personally lost 50 lbs in two years just from going on a low/moderate GI diet with no change in physical activity, which also completely cleared up my hypertension and insulin resistance (I was at high risk for diabetes at the time). That was three years ago that I started. In the past year, I've also taken up weight lifting in addition to High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT), and have lost another 20 lbs.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be active, only that without a good diet, the exercise isn't going to do very much.

Edit: It would probably be useful to make a distinction between "diet" and "dieting." When I say diet, I'm simply referring to the type and amount of food/drink consumption. I'm not referring to any specific plan or process (i.e. Atkins, South Beach, etc.) Anyway, if people aren't able to sustain a particular degree of consumption, then no sh1t it's not going to work. Was a study really necessary to discover that?

No, but a study to show the vast, VAST majority cannot maintain calorie restriction diets IS needed. And trust me, if you want to keep that weight off long term you're going to have to focus on activity/exercise and not so much on diet.

The study never said people didn't lose weight. It says people don't keep it off long term and most end up fatter than before.


Amused, given your experience with bodybuilding, I will assume you have gone through cutting phases before, and know approximately how many calories you need to eat each day to maintain your current weight.

Having said that, why can't the general population follow some of the same principles? I'm not saying they need to get x grams of protein or anything like that, but just track what they each day and figure out approximately how much they can eat each day to maintain their current weight. They may not be able to get it exactly right, but if they track it they can get close enough to keep from getting morbidly obese. There are websites out there that make traking these things incredibly easy.

You said it's not willpower, but isn't doing what I described just a matter of willpower?

Or maybe I am misunderstading your use of the term diet.

A cutting diet is only good short term... just like ANY calorie restrictive diet. They all fail in the long term for a reason and it's not as simplistic as "everyone has no willpower."

Could they not just "cut" for awhile and then go back to eating what would be their maintenance level of food? What would that be besides a lack of willpower?

There is a reason most people gain back MORE weight than they started with after a calorie restrictive diet. Can you guess what it is (if you say will power you fail)?

That because they have lost weight, their new "maintenance" calories are now less than what they were before, thus they start gaining weight again?

Or am I totally missing your point here?

The point is, the body has natural reactions to perceived famine. One of those is to increase appetite in times of feast and increase the minimum stores set-point for the next famine. This is one of the main reasons calorie restrictive diets fail long term, and it's not all about "will power."

People who diet, then fail long term almost always end up heavier than had they never dieted at all. It's the body's natural reaction to famine cycles.

What if they were to do the caloric reductions gradually, and never get too far below their maintenance? I'm sure you're familiar with the "crash diets" in which a person will drastically reduce calories in a short period of time. Those will cause the reaction you are describing, but what about a more conservative approach?

Why am I able to cut for 4 months and get lean, and am also able to gradually increase my calories back to where they were pre-cut without gaining any of the fat back? Are you saying this is entirely the result of genetics?

Again, I'm not suggesting that the general population take up bodybuilding, only that some of the principles followed could be used by the general population.

You cannot apply bodybuildiing diets to the general public. They will NEVER have the calorie needs for muscle mass that we do. Nor will they burn the calories a body builder does both in the gym, and especially at rest.

BUT, know that ex-body builders and ex-wrestlers have serious obesity problems because of the extreme body fat swings they go through. They must remain slaves to their body for the rest of their lives, or most will end up obese (or seriously over weight) when they drop it all.
 

imported_Tick

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
4,682
1
0
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: Tick
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: Vic
What I have trouble understanding is why people don't want to exercise (or engage in physical activity) to the point of making up excuses not to exercise. Really. Nothing feels better (okay, except for sex, but isn't that a type of exercise? :p ) and nothing is better for you. Exercise is the cure for practically everything that ails us. From depression to diabetes. Hell, Magic Johnson claims to have beaten HIV through exercise.
You can't keep blaming food all you want, but that's just another way of not taking responsibility for your own life.

I don't understand it either as exercise is a drug with no downside. The more you do it the better you feel. It is also amazing that once you get in shape all the little aches and pains associated with getting older simply go away. I am going to go ride my bike 12 miles before it gets dark. Something I look forward to every day.

Ew... I HATE physical activity. It just saps your energy. It also makes me need to go to sleep sooner at night. And it takes so damn much time. AND it makes my eczema flare up. AND, it's usually done outside, so it flares up my alergies. AND I have to take a shower afterwards, makeing my skin dry. AND, it's mostly boring.

Sarcasm, right?

Nope.
 

imported_Tick

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2005
4,682
1
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Tick
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: Vic
What I have trouble understanding is why people don't want to exercise (or engage in physical activity) to the point of making up excuses not to exercise. Really. Nothing feels better (okay, except for sex, but isn't that a type of exercise? :p ) and nothing is better for you. Exercise is the cure for practically everything that ails us. From depression to diabetes. Hell, Magic Johnson claims to have beaten HIV through exercise.
You can't keep blaming food all you want, but that's just another way of not taking responsibility for your own life.

I don't understand it either as exercise is a drug with no downside. The more you do it the better you feel. It is also amazing that once you get in shape all the little aches and pains associated with getting older simply go away. I am going to go ride my bike 12 miles before it gets dark. Something I look forward to every day.

Ew... I HATE physical activity. It just saps your energy. It also makes me need to go to sleep sooner at night. And it takes so damn much time. AND it makes my eczema flare up. AND, it's usually done outside, so it flares up my alergies. AND I have to take a shower afterwards, makeing my skin dry. AND, it's almost boring.

Long term, exercise gives you more energy. You can exercise in the morning and shower after, meaning one shower a day still. You can exercise indoors, saving you from your allergies. Sorry about your skin, but in most cases, eczema is an autoimmune disorder caused by too little exposure to the world and bacteria.

Work is boring. Get over it. Personally, I love lifting weights.

Name an indoor exercise that isn't incredibly boring and repetitive. And I've had eczema all my life, and so has my mother and several of her ancestors, it's genetic. Also, working out is tons more boring than even working fast food, at least in my opinion. But mostly it's the eczema and the allergies. I've also never been able to keep exercise up long enough to get past the tired all the time stage.
 

Ronstang

Lifer
Jul 8, 2000
12,493
18
81
Originally posted by: Tick
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: Tick
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: Vic
What I have trouble understanding is why people don't want to exercise (or engage in physical activity) to the point of making up excuses not to exercise. Really. Nothing feels better (okay, except for sex, but isn't that a type of exercise? :p ) and nothing is better for you. Exercise is the cure for practically everything that ails us. From depression to diabetes. Hell, Magic Johnson claims to have beaten HIV through exercise.
You can't keep blaming food all you want, but that's just another way of not taking responsibility for your own life.

I don't understand it either as exercise is a drug with no downside. The more you do it the better you feel. It is also amazing that once you get in shape all the little aches and pains associated with getting older simply go away. I am going to go ride my bike 12 miles before it gets dark. Something I look forward to every day.

Ew... I HATE physical activity. It just saps your energy. It also makes me need to go to sleep sooner at night. And it takes so damn much time. AND it makes my eczema flare up. AND, it's usually done outside, so it flares up my alergies. AND I have to take a shower afterwards, makeing my skin dry. AND, it's mostly boring.

Sarcasm, right?

Nope.

No offense but you are a sad and misguided individual then. I feel bad for when you get to middle age as you are going to be a miserable sight and likely in poor health. Too bad you won't do some exercise long enough to realize that it actually makes things exactly the opposite of what you claim.
 

mrkun

Platinum Member
Jul 17, 2005
2,177
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: mrkun
Did anyone read my response earlier where I said that I lost 50 lbs in two years eating a low/moderate GI diet (which I've continued to do) that wasn't calorie restricted, while doing little exercise, and have kept the weight off? Hell, if a person just cuts out fast food and high fructose corn syrup they'll lose a lot of weight.

Did you replace all the HFCS with an equal amount of calories in sucrose (sugar) daily?

Of course not. Blaming HFCS for obesity is another silly myth. Just like blaming fast food.

2 years is not long term. Let's see you in 10 years with little to no exercise.

I don't understand your point about HFCS and fast food. If you read my previous post (or one of them anyway), that was actually three years ago that I started. For the past year I've been weight lifting and doing High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) regularly, and have continued to lose fat (I know some of the weight lost in those initial two years was muscle). Again, I'm not saying that exercise isn't important; rather, exercise by itself, without a decent diet, isn't going to achieve very much.
 

Xylitol

Diamond Member
Aug 28, 2005
6,617
0
76
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Xylitol
It's the parents to blame since obesity usually starts while you're young

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...PubMed&list_uids=8452057&dopt=Abstract

This study blows that myth out of the water. Propensity for obesity is genetic, NOT learned. Obesity is caused by your body's excessive need for food in a given environment of little to no activity, not "bad habits."

A number of studies, including the Danish adoption study, have shown that, in adults, the familial resemblance of obesity, as measured by the body mass index (weight in kg/(height in m)2), is mainly due to genes. The body mass index may reflect both fat and fat-free body mass. In this further analysis of the Danish adoption study, the degree of obesity was assessed by a silhouette score. There was a significant relationship in scores between the adult adoptees and their biological mothers and between the adoptees and their biological full siblings reared by the biological parents. Weaker, nonsignificant associations were found for the biological fathers and for the maternal and paternal half-siblings. There were no relationships in silhouette scoring between adoptees and adoptive parents. The results confirm the results of our previous analysis of body mass index. We conclude that human obesity is under genetic control, whereas the childhood family environment has little, if any, influence on obesity in adults. It is an important task for future research to identify the genes involved.

I say that that scientific research is BS
Why would there be such a sudden increase in the number of obese people in the US/World
if it was due mostly to genetics?
Just a decade ago, America was significantly less fat
Now, America is obese
Obviously, it can't be mostly genetics especially since America's population growth is pretty
linear

Look at the older generations - They're pretty skinny on the most part DESPITE the sudden increase in the availability of food
Look at the recent generations - They're pretty fat on the most part with wide availability of food
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Calorie restrictive diets are wrong in the manner that most people try to use them. They will eat a 600 calories breakfast, starve until dinner, and then eat a huge meal. Their metabolism slows during the day, and they find themselves hungry a lot. Once they get off the diet they go back into their old habits.

For me it is very simple. I know exactly how many calories a day I need on my diet. I log every drink, condiment, and morsel of food that goes into my mouth. I measure EVERYTHING. From the weight of meat to the TBSP of Smart Balance to the beverages I drink all the way down to how many cups of cheese or whatever that I eat. I log it all online. I don't miss a gram of condiments, sauces, cheese, or whatever else. I even log non-nutrititive sweetners and really low-cal stuff like Crystal Light or Red Wine Vinegar.

I typically eat three main meals and 2-3 snacks. I can have about 1800-1900 calories a day. I used to eat twice that. I have not been hungry yet. In fact, I found myself full almost all the time and almost resenting the need to eat (obviously means I need more exercise).

You can eat healthy and eat fast food. I still eat it a few times a week.

McDonald's Grilled Honey Mustard Wrap is a good lunch for me. So is their fruit salad with nuts and yogurt. Taco Bell has Fiesta/Fresco tacos. I can eat at McDonald's or Taco Bell and be full for hours just by eating 280-280 calories.

I drink nutritional or protein shakes as well. I eat a lot of egg beaters, turkey, raw veggies, cooked veggies (very light in olive oil, or sometimes roasted in the oven), raw fruit (never canned), and I drink at least 72 ounces of water a day. If I want a drink I drink Diet Coke, Diet Dr. Pepper, or Crystal Light.

Haven't had a regular drink in months, and I don't want one. I actually bought some OJ (just to have because I sometimes get low blood sugar after an intense bike session), and I couldn't take more than a sip.

I have tons more energy and I am a lot happier. Low-cal diets CAN work if you log what you eat, eat your meals in decent spacing to keep your metabolism up and stay full, and exercise. Plus, I won't let myself crave. If I want Ice-Cream I will have a Skinny Cow or Light Ice Cream (180 calories or less). I can eat most things if I downsize the portion, or take off condiments and unecessary sauces.

I cannot stress enough how important it is to stay hydrated. A lot of people mistake being thirsty as being hungry. You must stay very hydrated. If you are not peeing half-a-dozen times a day then you are nowhere close (I typically go about 8-12 times a day).

It is not about "dieting." It is about changing how you eat, how you exercise, and how you look at food. I never thought that 1800-1900 calories a day would keep me extremely full. I weighed 234-239 in the few weeks before I started my diet. Now I'm down to 223. It has only been getting easier for me. However, I know I have to keep that log EVERDAY not matter what. I have no problem if I go over by 100 or 200 calories, or have a day where I am under 100 or 200. The problem is having a day where you go over by 1000 or starve yourself. You cannot do those things. So far, I have not.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
I know you guys are bringing this up to a point, but here it goes. What happened to families? Doesn't have to be mom & dad and the 2.5 kids. But the whole family situations are getting way out of hand.
Remember when it was normal for families to sit down together and have a home prepped meals? I didn't have low calorie diets. I more often then not had seconds or thirds because my mom didn't know how
to prep meals for a small family. I didn't get fat. I had video games, and we had movie channels with a pretty extensive movie collection of our own. I had my share of vegging in front of the TV. But it was balanced
with all the play time a kid can have. Riding around on my trusty GT Performer (I miss that bike), playing schoolyard baseball, basketball, dodgeball.
My packed lunches wasn't filled with junk. I hated natural orange or apple juice, so I usually got Capri sun. Not great, but I am sure it was better then drinking soda all day.

Now people want to spend all their time letting their kids get brought up to television while they have all the access they want to sodas, twinkies and crappy tv dinners.
Don't get me wrong, I love sodas, sweets and fast food, but I don't live on it.
--edit--what the hell is up with this carriage return on my typewriter?
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,515
16,238
146
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Xylitol
It's the parents to blame since obesity usually starts while you're young

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...PubMed&list_uids=8452057&dopt=Abstract

This study blows that myth out of the water. Propensity for obesity is genetic, NOT learned. Obesity is caused by your body's excessive need for food in a given environment of little to no activity, not "bad habits."

A number of studies, including the Danish adoption study, have shown that, in adults, the familial resemblance of obesity, as measured by the body mass index (weight in kg/(height in m)2), is mainly due to genes. The body mass index may reflect both fat and fat-free body mass. In this further analysis of the Danish adoption study, the degree of obesity was assessed by a silhouette score. There was a significant relationship in scores between the adult adoptees and their biological mothers and between the adoptees and their biological full siblings reared by the biological parents. Weaker, nonsignificant associations were found for the biological fathers and for the maternal and paternal half-siblings. There were no relationships in silhouette scoring between adoptees and adoptive parents. The results confirm the results of our previous analysis of body mass index. We conclude that human obesity is under genetic control, whereas the childhood family environment has little, if any, influence on obesity in adults. It is an important task for future research to identify the genes involved.

I say that that scientific research is BS
Why would there be such a sudden increase in the number of obese people in the US/World
if it was due mostly to genetics?
Just a decade ago, America was significantly less fat
Now, America is obese
Obviously, it can't be mostly genetics especially since America's population growth is pretty
linear

Look at the older generations - They're pretty skinny on the most part DESPITE the sudden increase in the availability of food
Look at the recent generations - They're pretty fat on the most part with wide availability of food

Activity. It all boils down to activity levels. As children my generation did not have cable/sat TV, home video games were not all that common, and we did not have the internet. Most people still did their own household chores, washed their own cars, raised their own kids, etc.

Activity levels have dropped to an all time low. And what do people do while they're sitting around all day? They munch on starchy snack foods. Starchy foods are high energy foods.

The study isn't BS. It's a fact and undeniable. The propensity for obesity in a given environment is genetic. In our present environment, a person with the fat gene(s) is more than likely going to end up fat... or be in constant struggle with their weight... a struggle most will lose.

You cannot deny an adoption study. It utterly destroys any notion that all bodies are equal and obesity is learned or caused by bad habits.

It also destroys any notion that skinny people are somehow just more disciplined than fat people. That superiority complex is a joke.
 

mrkun

Platinum Member
Jul 17, 2005
2,177
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Xylitol
It's the parents to blame since obesity usually starts while you're young

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...PubMed&list_uids=8452057&dopt=Abstract

This study blows that myth out of the water. Propensity for obesity is genetic, NOT learned. Obesity is caused by your body's excessive need for food in a given environment of little to no activity, not "bad habits."

A number of studies, including the Danish adoption study, have shown that, in adults, the familial resemblance of obesity, as measured by the body mass index (weight in kg/(height in m)2), is mainly due to genes. The body mass index may reflect both fat and fat-free body mass. In this further analysis of the Danish adoption study, the degree of obesity was assessed by a silhouette score. There was a significant relationship in scores between the adult adoptees and their biological mothers and between the adoptees and their biological full siblings reared by the biological parents. Weaker, nonsignificant associations were found for the biological fathers and for the maternal and paternal half-siblings. There were no relationships in silhouette scoring between adoptees and adoptive parents. The results confirm the results of our previous analysis of body mass index. We conclude that human obesity is under genetic control, whereas the childhood family environment has little, if any, influence on obesity in adults. It is an important task for future research to identify the genes involved.

I say that that scientific research is BS
Why would there be such a sudden increase in the number of obese people in the US/World
if it was due mostly to genetics?
Just a decade ago, America was significantly less fat
Now, America is obese
Obviously, it can't be mostly genetics especially since America's population growth is pretty
linear

Look at the older generations - They're pretty skinny on the most part DESPITE the sudden increase in the availability of food
Look at the recent generations - They're pretty fat on the most part with wide availability of food

Activity. It all boils down to activity levels. As children my generation did not have cable/sat TV, home video games were not all that common, and we did not have the internet. Most people still did their own household chores, washed their own cars, raised their own kids, etc.

Activity levels have dropped to an all time low. And what do people do while they're sitting around all day? They munch on starchy snack foods. Starchy foods are high energy foods.

The study isn't BS. It's a fact and undeniable. The propensity for obesity in a given environment is genetic. In our present environment, a person with the fat gene(s) is more than likely going to end up fat... or be in constant struggle with their weight... a struggle most will lose.

You cannot deny an adoption study. It utterly destroys any notion that all bodies are equal and obesity is learned or caused by bad habits.

It also destroys any notion that skinny people are somehow just more disciplined than fat people. That superiority complex is a joke.

And there's obviously no difference in the food that the average person consumes now compared to when you were a kid.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Well, food is only half, if not less of the equation. It's the rise of a near or total lack of physical activity in our current society that correlates perfectly with the rise in obesity.

Kinda sad, actually. The very genetic traits that ensured survival in times of feast and famine and constant physical labor for food are backfiring on us now.

A lack of physical activity is something we have to prepare for, there are just so many jobs and lifestyles now that can be perfectly normal and not have significant physical activity. I think it is a terrible copout to just say "ok everyone needs to start running". I mean, it is an answer, but is it a logical answer that makes a lot of sense. Running, exercise takes time AND energy. But eating healthy, that is big because everyone has to eat. If you aren't eating right now, chances are you aren't fat, so dealing with eating is dealing with a time frame that has already been partitioned out.

I'm all for running and exercise, I just hate seeing it as an answer to a society that is moving the opposite direction. Someone has to find better ways, either incorporate exercise into our daily activities, or address it in some other manner.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Originally posted by: Vic
People can do their usual simple-minded moronic (I expect no less from shadow9d9's underdeveloped mind) there-must-be-an-easy-solution-to-everything! stupidity but (as usual) it ain't so. Health is more than just a matter of weight, food intake, and willpower. It's about getting off your fat fscking ass, and living a complete healthy lifestyle.

You will never solve the problem that way. Never. It's wishful thinking that every morbidly obese person will magically start running simply because you swore at them. If someone is going to solve this problem they are going to have to come up with a better solution than telling everyone they need to sacrafice 2 hours a day (time traveling to workout location, working out, showering, stretching, etc). Although, corporate america could do wonders on their work force by instituting mandatory or perhaps suggested workout regimes during the day, considering the average corporate worker probably wastes more than 2 hours anyways. The company would also be reaping the direct benefits of a healthier and happier work force. They would also be contributing directly to the health of their locations. Win/Win situation right there. Corporate america is also part of the problem, the desk job is a key role in the sedentary lifestyle.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Dunbar
What he said. Also, Penn & Teller recently did a BS episode on obesity. Most of the studies about "obesity epidemic" are paid for by the diet and exercise industry. And BMI is far from a perfect measure of health. Measured by BMI Brad Pitt is overweight and George Clooney is obese. And "fat" people that exercise are healthier than skinny people who don't.
Yep. I believe it was also PBS' Frontline that did an expose on the diet industry not too long ago, and found that it was mostly snake oil sold by a huge multi-billion dollar industry. With the exception of Weight Watchers, of course, but that's because they are kind of like a Foodaholics Anonymous -- instead of selling the promise of quick weight loss for a quick buck, they emphasize the complete and permanent lifestyle change that is actually required to lose weight, keep it off, and get healthy.

I took a lot of crap a while back because I used to say in my sig that the media that tells you that America has an obseity epidemic is also the same media that derives a large portion of its profits from telling you to "snack happy," "snack strong," and eat "fourth meal." Consume, consume, consume.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: skace
Originally posted by: Vic
People can do their usual simple-minded moronic (I expect no less from shadow9d9's underdeveloped mind) there-must-be-an-easy-solution-to-everything! stupidity but (as usual) it ain't so. Health is more than just a matter of weight, food intake, and willpower. It's about getting off your fat fscking ass, and living a complete healthy lifestyle.

You will never solve the problem that way. Never. It's wishful thinking that every morbidly obese person will magically start running simply because you swore at them. If someone is going to solve this problem they are going to have to come up with a better solution than telling everyone they need to sacrafice 2 hours a day (time traveling to workout location, working out, showering, stretching, etc). Although, corporate america could do wonders on their work force by instituting mandatory or perhaps suggested workout regimes during the day, considering the average corporate worker probably wastes more than 2 hours anyways. The company would also be reaping the direct benefits of a healthier and happier work force. They would also be contributing directly to the health of their locations. Win/Win situation right there. Corporate america is also part of the problem, the desk job is a key role in the sedentary lifestyle.

:roll:

Nowhere did I say that the morbidly obese need to go to the gym everyday. I said that good health is a matter of "living a complete healthy lifestyle." A gym membership might be nice, but it is not required for that. Get a clue. What is required is that people care enough about themselves to take care of themselves. That they take the time to eat healthy, and that they get some regular simple exercise to boost their metabolism, even if only a short walk (maybe a mile or so).
As for the rest of your nonsense, STFU and take some responsibility for your life. It's not "Corporate America"'s body, it's YOURS. Oh noes!! the desk job!! Would you prefer we all went back to blue collar manual labor? Of course not.
I swear, this is the kind of BS thinking that comes from being a mindless sheep who can't take responsibility for their own life, and can never mature past the infant stage of demanding that others always wipe their bib and change their diapers for them. Enjoy being a fat nasty pig come middle age. I've no doubt that you'll blame everyone else but yourself.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: mrkun
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: crt1530
Friendlier staircases and more walkable environments? How about personal responsibility for your own health? No environment is going to be "more walkable" if you eat so much that you are 100 pounds overweight.

Well, food is only half, if not less of the equation. It's the rise of a near or total lack of physical activity in our current society that correlates perfectly with the rise in obesity.

Actually, just the activity of walking does next to nothing for fat loss. I think walking for an hour probably burns fewer than 100 calories. Fat loss is primarily a matter of diet.

Wrong. Weight gain is cumulative, so any and all exercise is better than none.

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You don't need to be active to be skinny. It is lack of willpower and self control. No amount of physical activity will help these people without willpower.

Wrong.


Proper physical exercise is key to good health, along with proper nutrition. You can't have one without the other.
Sure, you could become skinny through starving yourself, but you still won't be healthy (although you will be perhaps a bit more healthy than if you were morbidly obese and not exercising). However, it would be better to be a little fat AND exercising than to be skinny and NOT exercising.

People can do their usual simple-minded moronic (I expect no less from shadow9d9's underdeveloped mind) there-must-be-an-easy-solution-to-everything! stupidity but (as usual) it ain't so. Health is more than just a matter of weight, food intake, and willpower. It's about getting off your fat fscking ass, and living a complete healthy lifestyle.


"People can do their usual simple-minded moronic (I expect no less from shadow9d9's underdeveloped mind) there-must-be-an-easy-solution-to-everything! stupidity but (as usual) it ain't so. Health is more than just a matter of weight, food intake, and willpower. It's about getting off your fat fscking ass, and living a complete healthy lifestyle."

Read my sig and say that again.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Read my sig and say that again.
I've already explained to you that your sig is like you carrying a billboard around proclaiming your own self-pwnage. The fact that you can't seem to grasp that is what makes the pwnage even that much better.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Xylitol
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Xylitol
It's the parents to blame since obesity usually starts while you're young

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...PubMed&list_uids=8452057&dopt=Abstract

This study blows that myth out of the water. Propensity for obesity is genetic, NOT learned. Obesity is caused by your body's excessive need for food in a given environment of little to no activity, not "bad habits."

A number of studies, including the Danish adoption study, have shown that, in adults, the familial resemblance of obesity, as measured by the body mass index (weight in kg/(height in m)2), is mainly due to genes. The body mass index may reflect both fat and fat-free body mass. In this further analysis of the Danish adoption study, the degree of obesity was assessed by a silhouette score. There was a significant relationship in scores between the adult adoptees and their biological mothers and between the adoptees and their biological full siblings reared by the biological parents. Weaker, nonsignificant associations were found for the biological fathers and for the maternal and paternal half-siblings. There were no relationships in silhouette scoring between adoptees and adoptive parents. The results confirm the results of our previous analysis of body mass index. We conclude that human obesity is under genetic control, whereas the childhood family environment has little, if any, influence on obesity in adults. It is an important task for future research to identify the genes involved.

I say that that scientific research is BS
Why would there be such a sudden increase in the number of obese people in the US/World
if it was due mostly to genetics?
Just a decade ago, America was significantly less fat
Now, America is obese
Obviously, it can't be mostly genetics especially since America's population growth is pretty
linear

Look at the older generations - They're pretty skinny on the most part DESPITE the sudden increase in the availability of food
Look at the recent generations - They're pretty fat on the most part with wide availability of food

Activity. It all boils down to activity levels. As children my generation did not have cable/sat TV, home video games were not all that common, and we did not have the internet. Most people still did their own household chores, washed their own cars, raised their own kids, etc.

Activity levels have dropped to an all time low. And what do people do while they're sitting around all day? They munch on starchy snack foods. Starchy foods are high energy foods.

The study isn't BS. It's a fact and undeniable. The propensity for obesity in a given environment is genetic. In our present environment, a person with the fat gene(s) is more than likely going to end up fat... or be in constant struggle with their weight... a struggle most will lose.

You cannot deny an adoption study. It utterly destroys any notion that all bodies are equal and obesity is learned or caused by bad habits.

It also destroys any notion that skinny people are somehow just more disciplined than fat people. That superiority complex is a joke.

You could keep repeating yourself but it doesn't make it right. I am proof that willpower is everything to do with it. I have never been physically active and have always been normal to underweight. I sit at a computer all day, but I never eat fast foods and I could diet when I eat too much and gain any weight.

it is good to be active but absolutely NOT required.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Read my sig and say that again.
I've already explained to you that your sig is like you carrying a billboard around proclaiming your own self-pwnage. The fact that you can't seem to grasp that is what makes the pwnage even that much better.

Yes, the bible being a con means that I want to outlaw religion. : ). HAHAHA.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
it is good to be active but absolutely NOT required.
It is required. Weight gain is cumulative. The result of a simple equation.

Calories consumed - metabolic rate = weight gain (loss)

If you are not active, then as you grown older your metabolic rate will slow (and the less active you are, the more it will slow), resulting in weight gain (and poor cardiovascular health too BTW, enjoy your ED). You'll figure all this out in a decade or 2, but by then you'll be fighting a uphill battle and wishing you had listened to those who were trying to help teach you how to prevent it.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Read my sig and say that again.
I've already explained to you that your sig is like you carrying a billboard around proclaiming your own self-pwnage. The fact that you can't seem to grasp that is what makes the pwnage even that much better.

Yes, the bible being a con means that I want to outlaw religion. : ). HAHAHA.

No, it means you're stupid. This was already thoroughly covered in that thread months ago, so there's no reason to off topic in this one.
 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Originally posted by: Vic
:roll:

Nowhere did I say that the morbidly obese need to go to the gym everyday. I said that good health is a matter of "living a complete healthy lifestyle." A gym membership might be nice, but it is not required for that. Get a clue. What is required is that people care enough about themselves to take care of themselves. That they take the time to eat healthy, and that they get some regular simple exercise to boost their metabolism, even if only a short walk (maybe a mile or so).
As for the rest of your nonsense, STFU and take some responsibility for your life. It's not "Corporate America"'s body, it's YOURS. Oh noes!! the desk job!! Would you prefer we all went back to blue collar manual labor? Of course not.
I swear, this is the kind of BS thinking that comes from being a mindless sheep who can't take responsibility for their own life, and can never mature past the infant stage of demanding that others always wipe their bib and change their diapers for them. Enjoy being a fat nasty pig come middle age. I've no doubt that you'll blame everyone else but yourself.

For what it's worth I work out 1 to 2 hours daily. Which is why I know about the sacrafice. My point was that you cannot expect every person to do that, it is not a solution. If I ever lose more time during my day I may end up losing those 2 hours I spend, which I think is what happens to a lot of people.

Anyhow, your entire response was asshole. Thanks for making a bunch of assumptions.