page 2 is hungry

12/14/2011 12:58:25 PM

suspend!

12/14/2011 12:59:00 PM

Quote :

"Yea, that is kinda the point."

Not as you presented it. The point you presented was essentially that it is pointless to work out because poor dieting happens as a result (almost an absolute).

There are lots of things you can add caveats to and twist results in your favor. I agree that diets are slightly more important than exercising in terms of weight gain, but saying that exercise is not that important as a whole in the whole health picture is just ignorant. Health is much more than weight and calories in vs calories out.

Anyone who writes books about health and views it in that regard loses my interest and my respect as an authority on the subject even if they make decent points along the way. Not being fat != being healthy either. Cardiovascular health, muscular health, the health of joints; bones; etc. all need to be considered for the long haul and exercise is just as big a part of those as diets can be.

I guess it really comes down to what the point of that book was. Was it simply focusing on baby-steps and the fact that so many people are overweight in this country? Was it an attempt to look at at least just getting people out of the obesity category without any other further view of health in the overall picture? If that is the case, then that is sad but I can understand the need. However, the health "facts" presented in there need to only be viewed in the context they were intended.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 1:32 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2011 1:15:27 PM

I could only support sending my kid to this if they learned a valuable life lesson by defeating their fascist instructors and each year ended in an epic go kart race


feel tha burn

12/14/2011 2:01:59 PM

The book is not about overall health, just dealing with obesity and the ideas we have had over the past decades that simply aren't working. Yes, exercise improves overall health but may not be that crucial for battling obesity. Gotta copy something from amazon, gotta get back to work. Why can't someone address a facet of health and fitness instead of the whole picture?

Quote :

"Taubes reviews the scientific literature (rather than the popular press) and presents a conclusion that was common knowledge before WWII, and heresy afterward: we get fat because our fat cells have become disregulated and are taking nutrients that should be available to other tissues. Like a tumor, the cells live for themselves rather than in balance with the rest of the body. And since those nutrients aren't available, we become hungry and tired. Therefore we eat more, and move less. The problem isn't one of gluttony and sloth, as Taubes refers to it, but of hormone balance. Simply put, some people are more sensitive to the hormone effects of insulin, cortisol, and a few other -ols, than other people are. The more sensitive you are, the more you're likely to get fat, and the more fat you're likely to get, in the presence of even small amounts of carbohydrate -- and in the absence of enough fat. While Taubes acknowledges that exercise seems to be good for us for a variety of reasons, weight control isn't one of them. Study after study conducted by proponents of exercise have admitted that they see no compelling evidence for exercise as a weight-loss tool. And it makes sense if you throw out the calories in/calories out model of why we get fat. If we're fat because our fat tissues are starving the rest of our cells of fuel, exercise is just going to make us hungrier and more tired, not leaner and more fit. (It's worth noting that according to Taubes, in the 1930s obese patients were treated with bed rest.)"

12/14/2011 2:16:52 PM

I don't trust vegetarians. Anyone who voluntarily declines to eat the delicious meals I've had in my life that included amazing cuts of meat...is a terrorist. There, I said it.

12/14/2011 2:20:32 PM

Per pound, vegetables are usually cheaper than meat, no?

12/14/2011 2:23:16 PM

Quote :

"While Taubes acknowledges that exercise seems to be good for us for a variety of reasons, weight control isn't one of them. Study after study conducted by proponents of exercise have admitted that they see no compelling evidence for exercise as a weight-loss tool. And it makes sense if you throw out the calories in/calories out model of why we get fat. If we're fat because our fat tissues are starving the rest of our cells of fuel, exercise is just going to make us hungrier and more tired, not leaner and more fit. (It's worth noting that according to Taubes, in the 1930s obese patients were treated with bed rest.)""

I think that's grasping at straws (that the right idiom?) and isn't really relevant.

If you exercise your overall well being is enhanced. Your body is healthier. Increased activity helps brain function, allows you to sleep better, and keeps you motivated.

If you're more active you're simply less likely to overeat. Hell you have less TIME to overeat. I work out after work whereas other people are sitting on a couch eating.

Quote :

"exercise is just going to make us hungrier and more tired, not leaner and more fit."

Just absolutely not true. Yes I'm hungrier but I feel more motivated to eat healthier and not over eat. The overweight people I know ARE NOT active and sit on the couch and overeat. Active/fit people rarely overeat because they know better.

12/14/2011 2:39:39 PM

Quote :

"Why can't someone address a facet of health and fitness instead of the whole picture?"

I think they can, but they don't need to seemingly "put down" another facet at the same time. It really starts to spin the results and point of his research at that point. (Whether intentional or not).

Also, I'd like to see more case studies of obese people exercising and dieting vs the same diet and no exercising and see which group loses weight faster. Dollars to donuts the group who has a regular exercise routine and dieting loses weight faster than the group who is on the same diet *as well as keeps the weight off longer*. I just don't quite understand the angle that author is trying to take.

PS I would also like to see how the book compared weight of soft individuals who simply eat healthy to those who were in good shape and carrying lean muscle mass while also eating healthy.

[Edited on December 14, 2011 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ]

12/14/2011 2:48:38 PM

Quote :

"Anyone who voluntarily declines to eat the delicious meals I've had in my life that included amazing cuts of meat...is a terrorist. There, I said it. "

+1,000,000

12/14/2011 3:34:05 PM

Yeah vegetarians really do miss out.

12/14/2011 3:36:56 PM

Obviously you are not obese. The recommendation to not exercise is only for obese people. Until insulin resistance is put in a good place, then maybe you can think about it, otherwise you might just be spinning your wheels and all that insulin is just shoving all that shit right back into your fat cells. I have never been obese to prove it myself but that is what Taubes is trying to say he has found throughout numerous studies. I think the obese people you know are inactive and eat a lot BECAUSE they are obese. I can sit at a desk all day without snacking. I rarely even think about it. Active people are generally more conscious about what they eat yes, but they also have a good hormonal balance that leads them to not crave nutrient lacking foods. Obese people on the other hand have their hormones telling them to load it up.

12/14/2011 5:48:56 PM

Quote :

"I think the obese people you know are inactive and eat a lot BECAUSE they are obese."

Quote :

"I think the big problem is the discipline to follow through though. "

To me, saying I'm inactive and eat a lot (which makes you fatter) is all caused by me being obese sounds very similar to someone saying 'I don't spend my money well and don't save because I don't have any money.' If that's how you view it, then the solution is in the problem.

12/15/2011 8:56:39 AM

Calorie dense foods that were engineered to be addictively delicious, convenient, and cheap + sedentary lifestyle caused by mechanization of labor = High rates of obesity.

There's a fucked up vicious cycle that roots, imo, the government as the problem. Follow along...

Government subsidizes the corn/grain industry creating an incentive to mass produce processed foods based on corn. The nutritional value of corn based energy is inferior to most other sources.

Through the processing of corn, food products can be created that have a long shelf life, low nutritional value, addictive taste, at a low price. This makes it very easy to over eat.

Now that people are getting obese much easier, this puts a strain on their health. Since a lot of this obese people are lower class and can't afford health care, a burden on the medicare/aid system is created.... Costing the government/society even more money.

See the downward spiral?

12/15/2011 10:04:13 AM

Also Taubes is a crackpot and most of his work has been refuted. He's not even a scientist, he's a journalist.

12/15/2011 10:06:30 AM

^^The problem with this thinking is that quite a bit of US produced corn (possibly a majority?) is actually turned into animal feed for meat production. Thats why meat is so cheap in the US and why Americans have some of the highest rates of meat consumption in the world.

edit:

I was right a majority of corn is used as feed for meat/egg production



[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 10:18 AM. Reason : .]

12/15/2011 10:13:51 AM

You are right, but that still doesn't change the fact that is basis for uber cheap processed foods.

It's a catch 22, to sustain 6+ billion people these agri and processed food methods are required.

Also, grain feed for livestock creates inferior meat. I still eat it though

12/15/2011 10:20:28 AM

Well Taubes did study various scientific fields at Harvard and Stanford. I doubt that can be said for most people in the nutrition field. I know you would agree with some of his dietary views but not views on exercise. I would never avoid fruit. The only reason I read his book is because a lot of the Paleo bloggers were talking about him. They don't agree with everything he says and neither do I. I do think he has an interesting way of looking at the past and how things have gone terribly wrong since WWII.

12/15/2011 11:21:35 AM

Quote :

"Obese people on the other hand have their hormones telling them to load it up."

And all the fat people hormones are only in the US, UK, Mexico etc?

I think this hits the nail on the head:

Quote :

"Calorie dense foods that were engineered to be addictively delicious, convenient, and cheap + sedentary lifestyle caused by mechanization of labor = High rates of obesity."

Quote :

"Government subsidizes the corn/grain industry creating an incentive to mass produce processed foods based on corn. The nutritional value of corn based energy is inferior to most other sources."

This also. If there's no corn syrup in a household you probably won't find any obese people. I don't think it's as complex as some people make it out to be. It's easy to put two and two together...

12/15/2011 12:46:51 PM

I was talking about this sort of thing with a coworker the other day. I was saying its not a surprise that so many folks in this one department are overweight. We rarely have time to leave our cubicle, let alone leave for lunch/to work out.

You have to make an extra extra conscious effort to get some activity in each day.

12/15/2011 12:52:00 PM

Yeah, I just realized that recently, thinking about teachers. Most of them stay on their feet, moving around the classroom the whole day, and they're all pretty thin. But the ones who teach from a stool or desk are invariably overweight.

I know it's hard to stay on your feet when you already have a weight problem, but it would be cool if they got some real comfortable shoes and took better advantage of a job that allows them to be generally active.

12/15/2011 1:06:04 PM

Quote :

"I was talking about this sort of thing with a coworker the other day. I was saying its not a surprise that so many folks in this one department are overweight. We rarely have time to leave our cubicle, let alone leave for lunch/to work out. You have to make an extra extra conscious effort to get some activity in each day."

While I agree with you to a point there's many other factors involved.

There's a very clear trend between hours worked and fitness level in many industries. I'm a consultant/analyst and deal with the financial industry on a daily basis and the more money you make and the more hours you work the better shape you typically are in.

If you're successful with your job and work long hours and make lots of money you're most likely going to be successful in other aspects of life such as fitness level. You eat healthier, you get up an hour earlier to run, you have a trainer, etc.

This goes back to the education aspect. If you have the resources and the education you're probably not going to be obese regardless of how many hours you work. If fitness is an important aspect of your life then you'll make time for it. Same with anything else. Kids, vacation, etc.

Now I do notice as executives get older they do fall off when they start having kids, etc but the analysts I've met that work 70-90 hour weeks are in great shape. They prioritize work and life.

12/15/2011 1:12:36 PM

yeah no one said we make lots of money

12/15/2011 1:19:09 PM

So again it comes down to money. If you get down to it, it doesn't cost more to stay in shape or eat well. It's just harder. You don't have the gym or the trainer and you don't have the convenient healthy meals you can get from restaurants or from more expensive ingredients.

That goes back to my original point that this camp is silly unless the kids have the means to continue the life style AFTER the camp. I have no doubt they're getting top notch athletic coaching and gourmet healthy meals every day for $62k/year.

12/15/2011 1:28:43 PM

Quote :

"Calorie dense foods that were engineered to be addictively delicious, convenient, and cheap + sedentary lifestyle caused by mechanization of labor = High rates of obesity."

I'm not sure that the calorie density is the critical factor so much as the culture.

I think you have to start from high density foods and then apply an economics perspective. Businesses today have the largest cost in the form of bringing customers in. I would never start a restaurant b/c it's an industry with razor thin margins and saturated with competition. But if I could start a restaurant where I was guaranteed to have X number of people buying meals there every day, hell yeah I'd do it. It's getting the transaction to happen that's the hard part.

Because of that, the company wants to capitalize on the transaction as much as reasonably possible. To the company the purchase commitment is $$$, and they want to monetize that purchase commitment. Thus, they try to maximize not only the transaction profit per dollar but also the dollar amount of the transaction.

I'm on the borderline of underweight and I loooooooove calorie dense foods. I'm not gaining weight but I know I would if I frequently ate at all those places where you sit down and commit yourself to eat a huge amount of food.

Golden Corral

for instance, is a place that doesn't make economic sense unless you're eating large portions. Because of that, people but the buggy in front of the horse. They have a need for food, and even though they want to loose weight (which would cause them to lowball the desire) they highball the desire. They offer their body more food than what the body's asking price was.

That's the entire fucking story of post WWII.

Addition:

My reasoning also explains the high vs. low income difference well. If someone is a rich analyst, then the price per calorie doesn't matter worth shit to them. Ultimately, the financial number we want to minimize is the price per month of our eating habits. For normal or poor people, preferentially selecting lower $/Cal foods will lower costs, there is absolutely no doubt about that. But if you're making upwards of $80k/year, your other preferences basically completely push out the calorie optimization program.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2011 1:40:58 PM

Yeah don't eat at Golden Corral.

I'd rather eat at a restaurant with lots of small portions brought over the course of an hour or 2 then one large portion brought at the beginning.

12/15/2011 1:51:08 PM

I agree that a year-long boarding school for weight loss seems wrong-headed. I mean, you pay a bunch of money, lose all the weight, and then what? Start living your life? It's appealing, sure, but still a very unbalanced view of life and healthful living. I mean, there's a girl in the article who has already been to two summer camps and lost 65 pounds, saying she's "halfway there." She's now enrolled in the boarding school, but does she really need another nine months of fat camp? What happens when she gets all the way "there"?

Plus, I think people, especially young people, have very unrealistic expectations for what weight loss means. You don't magically get a great partner, have perfect hair, and stay happy all the time. These programs seem to prey on people's inappropriate fixations on weight loss.


Anyway, a three-week boot camp where kids jumpstart weight loss, learn about nutrition/exercise, make new friends, and get to try a bunch of new recipes/activities seems like a much better use of time (and money).

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 2:53 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2011 2:46:25 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I just realized that recently, thinking about teachers. Most of them stay on their feet, moving around the classroom the whole day, and they're all pretty thin. But the ones who teach from a stool or desk are invariably overweight."

The sheer amount of blanket generalizations in this thread could smoother the most obese man you can find.

12/15/2011 3:21:49 PM

Quote :

"Related NPR Stories 1st Lady Helps Set Jumping Jacks World Record "

lol

12/15/2011 3:23:32 PM

Quote :

""Yeah, I just realized that recently, thinking about teachers. Most of them stay on their feet, moving around the classroom the whole day, and they're all pretty thin. But the ones who teach from a stool or desk are invariably overweight.""

Yeah because teachers who work at a desk don't make any money. We should pay them more.

^^Agreed.

12/15/2011 3:34:18 PM

I apologize for generalizing based on 12 years of going to school ever day. Admittedly, I had teachers who were overweight and stayed on their feet all day. Their giant, steely calf muscles were distracting.

But, whatever, I shouldn't have implied that daily activity on the job is related to better health outcomes. WHAT A WILD GENERALIZATION!

^I have no idea what you're talking about. You're the one who is talking about money and having a trainer and getting up early to run or whatever, not me.

12/15/2011 3:43:02 PM

Partial sarcasm to my prior point of the more money you make the more in shape you are regardless of hours or if you sit at a desk all day.

Quote :

"But, whatever, I shouldn't have implied that daily activity on the job is related to better health outcomes. WHAT A WILD GENERALIZATION!"

You're very right. My friend eats like crap but is a pre-school teacher and is skinny. Doesn't mean he's healthy though.

Basically there are plenty of contributing factors but I think it goes like this:

The more intelligent and educated you are the better choices you're going to make in life (obviously parenting, social issues, etc are major contributing factors too).

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 4:03 PM. Reason : s]

12/15/2011 3:54:54 PM

Well, now you're the one generalizing. I come from some intelligent, educated people who have all struggled with weight and other issues throughout adulthood. I'm not comfortable identifying anyone in particular, but we're talking doctors, lawyers, PhD scientists/mathematicians, etc... Literally, on one side of my family, all but one person out of 8 has at least one advanced degree.

It's a running "joke:" if you're so smart, why are you so fat?

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 4:10 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2011 4:08:01 PM

I was actually more referring to your saying this:

Quote :

"Most of them stay on their feet, moving around the classroom the whole day, and they're all pretty thin."

Moreso than the "ones that sit down are fat". My entire family lineage is teachers and I've worked in schools and I just could never say that "most of them are pretty thin" about teachers in general.

I realize now though that you were probably just trying to say that the ones that move around all day are pretty thin, even though the syntax suggested otherwise on first reading.

12/15/2011 4:16:16 PM

^^Not saying there aren't exceptions. Call it whatever you like but in general the more educated, wealthy higher classes aren't obese. There's 100's of contributing factors but the correlation is still there. My original point being throwing money at a probablem won't always fix the issue unless you can keep throwing money at it. These kids obviously didn't grow up where they learned about nutrition or exercise so unless they can maintain this healthy life style after the camp they're going to gain that weight right back.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 4:20 PM. Reason : s]

12/15/2011 4:19:39 PM

Quote :

"It's a running "joke:" if you're so smart, why are you so fat? "

Quote :

"I think the big problem is the discipline to follow through though. "

12/15/2011 4:20:02 PM

^so you're saying there's a lot of smart people out there that don't follow through?

12/15/2011 4:21:32 PM

Quote :

" Call it whatever you like but in general the more educated, wealthy higher classes aren't obese."

Well their population density for obesity is lower--obviously there's still plenty of obese rich people.


...haha, population density.

12/15/2011 4:21:46 PM

I'd like some evidence to support this idea that better paid, better educated people are less likely to obese. I'll start:

http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/fitness/2010-12-15-obesity14_ST_N.htm

According to this USA Today article, it's true for women but not for men. Hmmmm....

12/15/2011 4:35:36 PM

^^Population density for obesity is lower? What do you mean by that?

I would think overall the higher the density of people the lower the obesity rate because:

urban areas = more expensive = higher income families.

But there's way too many contributing factors to make a strong correlation between density and obesity.

Although I really don't see that many obese people in Urban areas compared to the rural suburbs.

^That article isn't really taking the right approach. It's a % of total for a specific household income.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-research-finds-obesity-negatively-impacts-income-especially-for-women-134899003.html

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 2, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new report from The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services' Department of Health Policy (GW) uncovered an overall wage differential between those of normal weight and those who are obese, especially when it comes to women. The research, released today, demonstrates the impact obesity may have on a person's paycheck. Examining years 2004 and 2008 in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY79) to quantify obesity-attributable wage gaps, the GW research team found the connection between obesity and reduced wages to be stronger and more persistent among females than males. In 2004, wages among the obese were $8,666 less for females and $4,772 lower for males. In 2008, wages were $5,826 less for obese females, a 14.6% penalty over normal weight females. "This research broadens the growing body of evidence that shows that in addition to taxing health, obesity significantly affects personal finances," said Christine Ferguson, J.D., Professor in the Department of Health Policy. "It also reinforces how prevalent stigma is when it comes to weight-related health issues.""

Either way that's more the reverse. You're obese so that inhibits your ability to make more money.

I was speaking to the reverse. You're better educated so you make more money and make better life style decisions.

12/15/2011 4:44:20 PM

Quote :

"You're very right. My friend eats like crap but is a pre-school teacher and is skinny. Doesn't mean he's healthy though. "

sooooo true.

I once knew a girl who, I swear, ate nothing but graham crackers for a 2.5 day trip. I think her body was falling apart.

12/15/2011 4:51:50 PM

is anyone interested in actually tackling this problem? I think we could really make a difference if we try. Talking is overrated. Pushups and running is where it's at

12/15/2011 4:57:26 PM

Or we could start a campaign to put a body fat % limit on fast food restaurant purchases.

12/15/2011 5:00:32 PM

Quote :

"urban areas = more expensive = higher income families. "

Maybe on average, but average means shit if the bottom quartile can't even afford a fast food meal. A lot of the super poor I see are not obese, it's only the mid range. I read somewhere that above $60K a year in family income people generally don't eat fast food. That's certainly true with everyone I know.

12/15/2011 5:02:30 PM

Yeah but there's a strong correlation between low income families and obesity. I think we need to define "lower income family".

Quote :

"Maybe on average, but average means shit if the bottom quartile can't even afford a fast food meal."

I would say the vast majority of the lower quartile in income can easily afford fast food.

Just google "obesity" and "low income families"

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/data.html

12/15/2011 5:10:10 PM

^

I got lost in my train of thought. I think that's true for the nation on average, but in an urban center there are super fucking poor people that can't. There's also super fucking rich that brings up the average household income. In most urban centers that screws with the average a lot. I think people just walk more in cities.

12/15/2011 5:15:36 PM

^^^^^^^?

The article you posted is based on different research but says a lot of what my article does. Also, your article appears to address the issue of income, not income/education (which is what you're on about).

Furthermore, you're presenting your premise as practical fact. Every other idea gets dismissed as one of many exceptions or some other more minor correlating factor. But you haven't presented any evidence to support your premise that education/income are the most important factors of them all...so important that nobody can bring up another point without you responding with even more about how important education/income are.

It's no secret that people in poverty are more likely to be obese. But, when addressing the issue as a national problem, I don't know how valuable that information is. And poor people may be fat, but I really find it hard to believe that there's some perfectly negative linear relationship between income/education and rates of obesity. And, really, any argument that relies on the notion that sedentary professionals who work long hours are more likely to be thin because they don't have time to eat needs to be rethought.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 5:18 PM. Reason : sss]

12/15/2011 5:17:40 PM

Depends on the urban center. For example in Charlotte the wealth distribution flip flopped from the 90's to today. Now everyone who has money lives in the city and surrounding neighborhoods and the lower income families are getting pushed out to the cheaper suburbs. Always exceptions but you get the point.

^you mean like this?



http://www.planetizen.com/node/51851

Seriously though I didn't mean to get hung up on the income thing.

Quote :

"But, when addressing the issue as a national problem, I don't know how valuable that information is"

Income not necessarily. Education is very valuable.

Quote :

"And, really, any argument that relies on the notion that sedentary professionals who work long hours are more likely to be thin because they don't have time to eat needs to be rethought."

No I meant sedentary professionals who work long hours (but make lots of money) work out more. They're more successful in their job and feel the need to be in shape because it's more socially acceptable among higher paid jobs.

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 5:26 PM. Reason : s]

12/15/2011 5:18:54 PM

You keep posting information about income and obesity, but not income/education and obesity. And education is presumably the factor that is most important, according to you. The one link in this thread that does include education (my link) doesn't support your simplistic premise.

Also, your chart that addresses income is compelling, but it also clearly suggests there is some regional/environmental stuff that plays a role in all this as well. And, yet, you're still going on about how it's mostly a matter of income/education.

And, again, the fact that poor families are more likely to be obese isn't valuable information when addressing obesity as a national problem. Oprah Winfrey isn't going to lose weight if we give her food stamps for healthy food, build a decent grocery store in her neighborhood, clean up her local park so she can exercise, and pass out pamphlets with information about exercise/nutrition... However, poor people would probably benefit from some of those interventions. Do you follow?

[Edited on December 15, 2011 at 5:39 PM. Reason : ]

12/15/2011 5:38:29 PM

Well, anyway, clearly I think it's more complicated than just a matter of education and income, but I do agree that those are probably some critical factors.

But I won't be able to respond to this thread anymore. Christmas is here!

12/15/2011 6:14:48 PM