• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US people getting fatter, fast ..

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Uh, bullsh*t, bullsh*t, and bullsh*t. Running and cycling can burn upwards of 1000 kcals per hour. And the lactic acid, "cortzone", "rest mode" thing is just comical, sorry.


Uhhh.. LOL. If you are getting that off a machine telling you how many calories you "burned" then you are using a broken machine. You don't burn that many calories with exercise unless you can keep up the exercise and an higher then average heartrate (at least 70% higher then normal) for hours on end. Unless you are doing the Tour De France, that isn't going to happen. The recommended exercise is for 30 minutes at 3 times a week. This means keeping your heart rate up past 70% of it's normal rate for an entire 30 minutes. Guess how many calories you burn during this time? A few hundred like I poined out above if you are lucky. In an hour you can do 400 to maybe 500 calories if you can maintain a strenous activity for tha time frame.
Again, you're way off the mark. 70% over the average resting HR of 70 is a whopping 120 beats per minute. Only a fragile 80 year-old couldn't handle that. That, three times a week for 30 min, is barely worth the trouble. Any normal healthy adult should have no problem getting their HR up around 60-70% of max for an hour or so a few times a week. That will burn plenty of calories.


What I'm getting at here is that you're hinging weight on food rather than exercise. While you are technically correct that everyone should be able to just eat right and maintain a healthy weight without all that pesky running around and sweating, this basically doesn't happen in reality. Most people will feel hungry if they follow this sort of diet. Eventually their willpower gives out, and they fall off the wagon. This is why just dieting almost invariably fails.

With exercise (and not the pathetic regimen you're describing), you give yourself a higher caloric ceiling each day thanks to the calories burned during exercise. As such, one can eat a relatively "normal" diet, feel full, and still lose weight. On top of this, you get all the neat benefits of exercise like lowered cholesterol.....bp......the nice endorphin buzz.....better endurance in the sack....etc.



I did make another mistake. Yes you CAN lose weight through exercise, but it is extremely difficult and time consuming. It takes HOURS every day to do this. Even still, if you eat more calories then you use, it doesn't matter how much exercise you get. I could workout straight for 8 hours a day and as long as I'm munching down a 700 calorie Jumbo Jack with cheese every hour on the hour I'll still GAIN fat weight.

I could also go to sleep for the next 2 weeks and lose over 5 pounds of fat since I have no calorie intake. Yet, sleeping for 2 weeks is definately not exercise.
See above. Exercise + diet > just diet. All goes back to people's lack of willpower. I never said you could exercise and then live on Butter-Flavor Crisco.


As for effects of exercise afterwards. LOL, if you choose not to "believe" thats your perogative. It doesn't change the facts on the subject. Exercise causes your body to produce many chemicals during and afterwards. Many of these are the same chemicals produced during "stress" which is a failed release of the fight or flight response. Many cause your body to have an urge to eat or sleep. If not sleep at the very least to rest.
Again, you're demonizing exercise. Which is why I'm labeling you an idiot. :roll:
 
Yeh, the thing with exercise is that even if *only* free up an extra 400 calories a day, that still leaves me plenty of room to have a beer and scoop of ice cream after supper and not feel guilty about it.

Plus I look and feel better because of the exercise. It lets me eat things more guilt free. But I still have to be smart about my eating.

I *COULD* eat an entire Freshetta pizza for dinner...but I really don't need to consume the 1800 calories that it consists of. Instead I'll have three slices for 600 calories and a big helping of green beens or some squash on the side to fill my belly with.

I try and keep my meals at 600 calories or under with a couple 100-200 calorie snacks and a nice big whey protien & fruit smoothie for another 250 calories after working out. Then maybe a beer or a glass of wine in the evenings. If burn 2800 calories throughout the day between basic metabolic needs and exercise, and I'm only putting in 2400-2600, it's all good.
 
Bleh, I'm not demonizing exercise. I encourage it and love it. I'm just saying that exercise alone will NOT cause you to lose fat weight. I just get mad at the people that say the reasons other people are fat are because they are lazy. Which can be quite far from the truth. Let me put these statements into simpler terms.... Just try to disagree with them.

You can gain fat weight by over eating.
You can lose fat weight by eating right.
You can gain fat weight while exercising.
You can not gain fat weight if you eat less them 1500 calories a day if you exercise or not.
Exercise improves overall health most of the time (injuries due to exercise don't exactly improve health hence why I said most of the time)
Exercise helps loss of fat weight by allowing people not to go on a crash diet of very little food.
Exercise hinders loss of fat weight by causing fatigue on the body and hunger.



This is why there are different diets for different people. Some people can lose weight easily with exercise and dietinng right off the bat. Why? So long as they consume less then they use and don't allow the exercise to cause them to binge eat they will lose fat weight. Some people can not ignore the hunger pains caused by exercise and binge eat as soon as they are done "working out." For these people, it is easier, safer, and much healthier to control weight lose through other means and gradualy work in exercise routines after learning to maintain proper eating habits first.

EDIT: and I did mean 70% of max heart rate based off sex and age. I know what I meant to say but typed something different. That's twice for me. That's what I get for typing too fast and trying to finish this project by COB.
 
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Uh, bullsh*t, bullsh*t, and bullsh*t. Running and cycling can burn upwards of 1000 kcals per hour. And the lactic acid, "cortzone", "rest mode" thing is just comical, sorry.


Uhhh.. LOL. If you are getting that off a machine telling you how many calories you "burned" then you are using a broken machine. You don't burn that many calories with exercise unless you can keep up the exercise and an higher then average heartrate (at least 70% of your max rate based off sex and age) for hours on end. Unless you are doing the Tour De France, that isn't going to happen. The recommended exercise is for 30 minutes at 3 times a week. This means keeping your heart rate up past 70% of it's max rate for an entire 30 minutes. Guess how many calories you burn during this time? A few hundred like I poined out above if you are lucky. In an hour you can do 400 to maybe 500 calories if you can maintain a strenous activity for tha time frame.

I did make another mistake. Yes you CAN lose weight through exercise, but it is extremely difficult and time consuming. It takes HOURS every day to do this. Even still, if you eat more calories then you use, it doesn't matter how much exercise you get. I could workout straight for 8 hours a day and as long as I'm munching down a 700 calorie Jumbo Jack with cheese every hour on the hour I'll still GAIN fat weight.

I could also go to sleep for the next 2 weeks and lose over 5 pounds of fat since I have no calorie intake. Yet, sleeping for 2 weeks is definately not exercise.


I'm also, not arguing over the fact people blow through the amount of calories they should be getting in a day with their first meal of the day. Some people can consume several THOUSANDS of calories in a single meal and that's one of 3 or more meals they are going to eat. Don't even get me started on buffet style restuarants.

As for effects of exercise afterwards. LOL, if you choose not to "believe" thats your perogative. It doesn't change the facts on the subject. Exercise causes your body to produce many chemicals during and afterwards. Many of these are the same chemicals produced during "stress" which is a failed release of the fight or flight response. Many cause your body to have an urge to eat or sleep. If not sleep at the very least to rest.

I guarantee you can burn 700-1000 calories in a single hour of cycling, running, or swimming. You should definitely consult you nutritionist or trainer if you think otherwise.
 
you can also burn 700-750 calories on the eleptical in an hour, i usually use the eleptical machine for 30 mins and burn close to 355-360 calories
 
Originally posted by: kalster
you can also burn 700-750 calories on the eleptical in an hour, i usually use the eleptical machine for 30 mins and burn close to 355-360 calories
Pretty much anything using large muscle groups in a repetitive manner burns a bunch of calories.
 
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: laerz
148lbs @ 15
155lbs @ 25

Height: 5' 11"

Damn I'm getting fat...fast...
30 is where it actually gets hard to keep weight off. Trust me. 😛

Yep. At 25 I was 6' 160

At 34 I was 210

Now I'm still 210, but it's muscle, not fat.
 
You're still not making any sense at all. Meat consumption has NOT increased, but grain consumption has and accounts for the majority of calorie increase. If increased consumption of fast food was to blame, meat consumption would have risen at least SOME.

I never said that meat consumption has increased.

I'll say it again. People in the 1950s ate at home more. Home cooked meals typically have more meat that what's in a mere regular Mcdonalds burger. Today people eat more fast food, and fast food has replaced home cooked meals. They eat stuff like quarter pounders or whoppers now, so really the meat intake is more or less the same.

While the meat size in fast food has increased from the 1950s, the meat the average overal diet has not.

There's also this thing against red meats and fish. Red meats being bad for your heart, and fish being loaded with heavy metals. I doubt that's helped meat consumption.

Also, fat consumed per calorie has DROPPED. This doesn't point to fast food as the increase either.

I would attribute this more to the low fat craze. Until recently, the media has been pushing a low fat, high carb diet while not really paying attention to the quality and types of each fat/carb. Look at the frozen food section, everything has "low fat" or "only 2g of fat" or something to that extent.

When I say that fast food's contributed, I'm not saying that fast food is the sole factor to blame or that everyone that's getting fat is eating fast food. I'm saying that it's one of many, many factors.



At any rate, go ask anyone over 40 about snack food changes in the last 20-30 years.

Snack foods take up many, MANY times more space in supermarkets than they did just 20 years ago. That HAS to be in response to demand, which means snack food consumption has grown dramatically.

And, again, there is only ONE thing to do when sitting at a desk at work, then sitting around the house watching cable/sat TV, surfing the Internet and playing video games (and unlike fast food, THESE activities DIRECTLY correlate with the obesity epidemic). MUNCH. And people don't idly munch fast food. They munch on snack foods. And the vast majority of snack foods are... get this, grains.

And I don't disagree with this.

However you should quit using the word "GRAIN" like it's evil like mass consumers think dietary fat is. There are healthy grains. The stuff in the munchies you speak of are not healthy grains though, so I agree that those grains are bad.
 
I think it's a good thing. We are getting too populated anyway and need people to start dying sooner. I guess this is just a way for natural selection to work it's magic.
 
Haven't read much of the thread, but here's my solution to the problem. We need to make health insurance like car insurance in some respects. You do something bad for your health, you're going to have to pay for it. Naturally, this approach should not be used for inherited traits, just personal choices that raise risk.

In addition, these extra costs need to be paid by the individual, not their employers. If you are overweight, fine...but you are going to have to pay $300 out of pocket more for health insurance per month. (Note that the figure I came up with is totally arbitrary).

How do we keep track of weight for these purposes? Require everyone to get a physical once a year. If your weight is high, you pay the extra money until you get it down. Same thing with issues such as smoking, other personal behaviors that are unhealthy...you need to declare at your physical (under penalty of perjury) whether you do these things.

I'd be willing to bet that something this simple would cut obesity and healthcare costs drastically.
 
Originally posted by: Legend

At any rate, go ask anyone over 40 about snack food changes in the last 20-30 years.

Snack foods take up many, MANY times more space in supermarkets than they did just 20 years ago. That HAS to be in response to demand, which means snack food consumption has grown dramatically.

And, again, there is only ONE thing to do when sitting at a desk at work, then sitting around the house watching cable/sat TV, surfing the Internet and playing video games (and unlike fast food, THESE activities DIRECTLY correlate with the obesity epidemic). MUNCH. And people don't idly munch fast food. They munch on snack foods. And the vast majority of snack foods are... get this, grains.

And I don't disagree with this.

However you should quit using the word "GRAIN" like it's evil like mass consumers think dietary fat is. There are healthy grains. The stuff in the munchies you speak of are not healthy grains though, so I agree that those grains are bad.

I actually don't believe any grains are really "bad." But just like ANY food, taken to excess, they cause problems. When people are stuffing themselves like thanksgiving turkeys while sitting in front of the boob tube, it doesn't much matter what the fsck they're eating, just that they are.

Grains aren't the point other than to show that fast food isn't the sole, or even main cause of obesity.
 
Originally posted by: gigapet
blame the 99 cent menu!

find me an organic pita with delicious grilled fresh veggies for 99 cents.

Here's why: Restaurants find healthy foods flop

This is what they are replacing the healthy items with:
http://bca.ns.ca/Support/forums/sondex.cgi/noframes/read/822

Ruby Tuesday?s is promoting its ?Ultimate Colossal Burger? - two half-pounds of hamburger on a triple-decker bun with both American and Monterey cheeses. Ruby Tuesday?s nutrition Web site translates that into 1,781 calories.

:Q
 
Everyone seems to have missed my thread last night. As I said, I see a correlation between professional sports fanaticism and obesity in the United States. Now, with Nascar proving to be more and more popular, we have more people sitting at home on the weekend, spending an extra 4 or more hours in front of the television, drinking beer and eating junk food. I know guys who, during the football season, sit in front of the tv before noon to watch the pre-game shows, then watch football from 1 o'clock until 11 o'clock. Exercise comes 12 ounces at a time and rushing to the bathroom between quarters.

Rather than watching the occasional game and cheering for the home team, they can't miss a single game. Did you ever see a skinny guy take off their shirt and flaunt their painted chest at a football game in December? No, they're all fat. All they do is sit in front of the television drinking beer and eating wings and pizza or else going to the game and drinking even more beer. Physical exercise to them is tossing the football back and forth at the tail-gate party with a beer in the other hand.
 
Originally posted by: hypn0tik
Originally posted by: SWScorch
I hate being fat. I weighed myself yesterday and was shocked at how much I weighed. I blame myself for being a lazy cow.

Fixed.

Dude, no way. It's totally genetics. It doesn't matter whether I exercise or not, I always weigh the same. Granted, I don't exercise all that much, but even when I do, I don't lose more than a few pounds, and sometimes I actually gain weight.
 
Originally posted by: SWScorch
Originally posted by: hypn0tik
Originally posted by: SWScorch
I hate being fat. I weighed myself yesterday and was shocked at how much I weighed. I blame myself for being a lazy cow.

Fixed.

Dude, no way. It's totally genetics. It doesn't matter whether I exercise or not, I always weigh the same. Granted, I don't exercise all that much, but even when I do, I don't lose more than a few pounds, and sometimes I actually gain weight.



Read my posts above. Exercise alone is not enough to make someone lose fat weight. In fact, someone who doesn't regularly exercise and starts finds that they tend to eat more food then they used to because exercise causes the food to want more fuel from food instead of using it's fat stores for fuel. Mix in the fact that exercise promotes muscle weight gain, and typically people gain more weight if they start an exercise program from the begining. They don't even realize what the weight gain is from and get discouraged.

If you are trying to lose fat first, and you are very overweight or obese, keep the exercise routine very very very light. WALK 2 to 4 times a week. Doesn't have to be much, just something extra. About 15 to 30 minutes. This will promote some cardio stimulus without causing hunger cravings by the body to start rebuilding. While doing this, cut back on the food you eat. Either eat smaller portions with every meal (if you eat 3 squares a day) or cut out ALL snacks (if you do that) or skip 1 meal every other day entirely.

Gradualy work your way down while walking for 1 month. You should lose 1 or 2 pounds. This is a gradual process. After a month, start stepping it up. Walk for 30 minutes and jog for 15. Get an extra day in there of work out. Add some LIGHT weights. 5 to 10 pound weights. Don't actually have to do tons of reps, just get yoru hands above your head 10 times or so.

The point to this is to start getting into shape in a healthly way that doesn't encourage someone to give up because it's too hard or binge eat from over exercising. You won't gain muscle weight this way, but you will help your heart out and start feeling more energetic because of increased blood flow throughout the body during the day. You wil lose fat weight by cutting back on what you eat.

The biggest hurdle and perhaps easiest is cutting out snacks. If youare a muncher, then hold out for a meal. Don't eat more at a meal then you usually do, just don't snack. Once you cut out snacks, try to cut out or cut back on deserts if you can after meals. Then once you cut those mostly out, start working on what and how much you eat during meals. Something as simple as NOT ADDING ketchup or cheese to a burger can add up without taking all that much away from the enjoyment of the meal.



I also wantto re-iterate. LACK OF EXERCISE WILL NOT MAKE YOU FAT!!!! OVER EATING MAKES YOU FAT. Period. If you don't over eat, no matter what level of exercise you have, you can't gain fat weight. If you over eat you will gain fat weight. It's that simple. In simple terms of fat weight and dieting, exercise just allows you to have a higher calorie ceiling form which to select your foods. If you can't cut something out from a diet, you can exercise it off but you HAVE to exercise it off or you will not lose fat weight.
 
Originally posted by: SWScorch

Dude, no way. It's totally genetics. It doesn't matter whether I exercise or not, I always weigh the same. Granted, I don't exercise all that much, but even when I do, I don't lose more than a few pounds, and sometimes I actually gain weight.

Did you forget the /sarcasm, or are you serious?

If you burn more Kcal than you consume you are going to lose weight; unless you have found a way around the first law of thermodynamics in which case you should submit your application for the Nobel Prize in applied physics.

 
Originally posted by: HumblePie

I also wantto re-iterate. LACK OF EXERCISE WILL NOT MAKE YOU FAT!!!! OVER EATING MAKES YOU FAT. Period. If you don't over eat, no matter what level of exercise you have, you can't gain fat weight. If you over eat you will gain fat weight. It's that simple. In simple terms of fat weight and dieting, exercise just allows you to have a higher calorie ceiling form which to select your foods. If you can't cut something out from a diet, you can exercise it off but you HAVE to exercise it off or you will not lose fat weight.

This is EXTREMELY simplistic. The fact is, our bodies evolved to WORK for our food. Most often, chasing it, gathering it, walking for miles for it.

Our appetites are STRONG. Very difficult to overcome for a lack of exercise.

Also, dieting without exercise results in weakness, a kind of skinny flabbiness caused by low muscle mass. Your body not only eats fat when it starves, it eats muscle.

And that's what dieting is, starving. Dieting alone without exercise is far less successful in the long term than sensible eating and exercise combined because the body has built in safe guards for starvation and guards it's fat stores like a mother bear protecting her cubs. It will literally drive you crazy with hunger as it attempts to protect, and rebuild what it thinks is it's normal fat stores. This is why once you're fat, it is VERY hard to lose/keep weight off. Your body is forever trying to get it's fat stores back.

Let's face it, if weight loss and maintenance was as easy as taking in less than you burn, people would have no problem doing it. There are MUCH more complex factors to consider. And exercise is a VERY important part of that.
 
Originally posted by: HumblePie
Originally posted by: SWScorch
Originally posted by: hypn0tik
Originally posted by: SWScorch
I hate being fat. I weighed myself yesterday and was shocked at how much I weighed. I blame myself for being a lazy cow.

Fixed.

Dude, no way. It's totally genetics. It doesn't matter whether I exercise or not, I always weigh the same. Granted, I don't exercise all that much, but even when I do, I don't lose more than a few pounds, and sometimes I actually gain weight.
Snip.

Dude, sorry to make you type all that out, but I was being sarcastic. I'm a runner and I run around 70 miles a week. I'm 5'10" and weight 130 pounds. 😀

Originally posted by: klah

Did you forget the /sarcasm, or are you serious?

If you burn more Kcal than you consume you are going to lose weight; unless you have found a way around the first law of thermodynamics in which case you should submit your application for the Nobel Prize in applied physics.

I thought the sig would give away my sarcasm, along with the fact that a lot of people here know I'm a runner, but I didn't want to be too obvious. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Our appetites are STRONG. Very difficult to overcome for a lack of exercise.

Eating is a CHOICE. Fatties are just hiding behind the same BS that alchoholics and addicts use: "I can't help it."

 
Most of the people I know, family members, friends, coworkers, etc pack quite alot of, ahem, "reserve for harsher condition" on their bodies.
 
Back
Top