Obesity apologist page 4

150 posts

Flag Post

no i get the theory, karma. i just don’t believe in it. at least, not that it’s the whole story anyway. lets analyse for instance, when you said

If ya put in more money (eat more food) than your living expenses for that day

notice you didn’t say “more chocolate”; instead, you said “more food”. but if it’s really about the calories losing weight should become extremely easy. since this “energy density” is so diverse, just don’t eat the foods that have high calorie. no bread, no chocolate, no confectionary, no mayonnaise or peanut sauce, and there you go. no stupid diets needed, eat away. “food” would not be the problem.

also, it would seem that it would be extremely difficult to meet the calorie requirements eating regular food. if an entire meal is only as much as 100 gram of chocolate or 3 slices of bread, why aren’t we taught in school to eat candy and junkfood (or bread) because we need it, because it’s the only way to get enough calories? i don’t even see many people reaching anywhere near that amount of calories.

it just doesn’t make any freaking sense measured up against how society works. i mean, for one thing it means that if you eat a warm meal, you should eat as much as possible to fill your stomach, because it’s practically devoid of calories so it’s never ever ever gonna make you gain weight, nomatter how much of it you eat.

also i don’t eat a lot of sinful foods anyway. i used to eat a lot of candy (only cookies and chocolate), because i needed it, because there’s just so much vegetables, fruit and bread you can fit in there, and i was already overdoing that too. but i just refuse to buy any candy now, because i stuff it in in 2 seconds and then i’ll have to do without it anyway, so what’s the point in buying?

 
Flag Post
if an entire meal is only as much as 100 gram of chocolate or 3 slices of bread, why aren’t we taught in school to eat candy and junkfood (or bread) because we need it, because it’s the only way to get enough calories?

Because junk food will give you only simple sugars – immediate access to energy. It will not give you the balanced materials necessary for repair work.

You might just as well argue that it is pointless to ever have a mechanic look at your car. You’re putting petrol in it, why do you have to repair it as well? If it starts to play up, just put more petrol in it. That’ll solve the issue, right?

you should eat as much as possible to fill your stomach, because it’s practically devoid of calories so it’s never ever ever gonna make you gain weight, nomatter how much of it you eat.

You are lying to yourself if you believe vegetables are devoid of calories. They tend towards starch, which is a highly complex energy form with a long-term release. Essentially its a non-sweet form of sugar as it’ll break down the same way over a much longer peroid of time. So yes, eating a lot of potatoes for example, will cause you to put on weight, as they’re a great source of starch.

Eating large quantities of fruit will give you weight gain problems due to massive amounts of fructose. Eating bread, potato, pasta, will cause you to put on weight if done to excess. Eating fats will cause you to put on weight if done to excess. Not eating any of these things at all, will kill you.

 
Flag Post

no an average meal has about 500 kcal. so even if you eat three whole dinners in one day, that’s still just 1500 kcal. i mean…

one full dinner is equivalent to 100 gram of chocolate or 3 slices of bread. does that sound right to you?

and as for other nutrients, yeah you need those. but who doesn’t eat that? you still need to eat a whole lot of additional junk to ever get near the 2500 calories.

 
Flag Post

No, you don’t. And 2,500 is a guide for a specific individual. Unless you’ve been told by a dietitician personally that 2,500 is your personal daily target, then its not something you have to reach.

 
Flag Post

that only makes it worse. 2500 is an average for men. for teenagers it’s probably a lot more. if you follow the health advices, you’re never gonna reach that.

 
Flag Post

‘is probably a lot more’. If you listen to what actual mdeical professionals tell you, you won’t have to stab in the dark with wild guesses.

Besides, you’re not a teenager, unless you have been lying about your age all this time.

 
Flag Post

lol. no i’m not a teenager, but if i’m not mistaken, i were a teenager once. everyone is a teenager for a while, unless you die as a child.

 
Flag Post

Omega, please tell me why YOU are so “hung up” on this chocolate candy bar?
While it is “in the ball park”, that particular food is ONLY ONE of the blades of grass in the vast array of food items. One really needs to eat a wide variety of foods in order to get essential nutrients other than just calories. Vitamins and minerals are extremely important. Junk food is also known as “empty calories”.

I don’t think ya have to do much in the way of research to discover that THE AVERAGE HUMAN’s need for caloric intake is somewhere around 2500-3000 calories a day (less for women). Your concept that this number isn’t easily reached is so far off the mark that it would appear that YOU are simply “troll-jesting” us.

Here
And here
Notice the calories in this shake: 1140
the saturated fat content: 80%
the iron: 2.8%
Yes, of course, there are “good numbers”…duh.
BUT, it’s those “bad” ones where the problems come in….much like having too much money is far less of a problem than having too little money.

Now, let’s toss in a Wendy’s triple hamburger w/ cheese 970

Now, let’s have 64 oz of non-diet cola (either in a single cup gotten at the convenience store or in refills at the fast food restaurant) 800 calories . And, again: read the Nutrition Facts….per cent of FAT—91.

Let’s toss in some french fries w/ our “unhappy meal”…500 for a large order of McDonald’s fries.

Do I really need to continue?
Okay, since ya asked so nicely….I will.
A large Snicker’s candy bar has 280 calories. That’s right at 10% for the average adult male.

Let’s have a look at how much exercise it takes to burn up some calories.
As ya can see from this chart, it’s gonna take some real PHYSICAL EFFORT to burn off the high consumption of calories in order to not store them as fat, Fat, FAT.

 
Flag Post

yeah, yeah. again with the horror tactics. everyone constantly gets scared into CALORIES!! WAAAAAGHHH!!!!! that’s ALL we ever hear. how can one learn to eat healthily when all we hear is the same tune, which only aplies to a group of people?

i mean, look at this:

Now, let’s have 64 oz of non-diet cola (either in a single cup gotten at the convenience store or in refills at the fast food restaurant) 800 calories</blockquote.>

64 oz is two liter. if you drink two liters of cola each day, yeah your fucking up your health, duh! btw, the same amount of calories in fruit juice. but still, 800 calories in two liters doesn’t sound like that much. that’s five slices of bread.

about french fries: lose the fry sauce or what have you, and you’ll cut about 70% of the calories.

but how is all this scare tactics relevant? i mean, yes, if you eat masses of junk food each freakin day that’s gonna be bad, especially for your cholesterol, which is an entirely different subject.

but how does any of this teach you to get your calorie intake? (edit: i mean “how to get your calorie intake properly”) and if it’s really all about calories, people that want to lose weight are apparently just really fucking stupid.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

but how does any of this teach you to get your calorie intake? and if it’s really all about calories, people that want to lose weight are apparently just really fucking stupid.

And there ya have it.
YOU seem to think bad diets = stooopidiy.
Well, stoooopity here is more than likely simple ignorance on how the body works. (YOU appear to have already demonstrated this). AND, this ignorance is greatly “nurtured” by the fact that junk food tastes damn good…that it is easily obtained (drive thru windows) …and is relatively cheap.

PLUS, have YOU not watched TV much at all….EVER?
Do ya NOT pay any attention to all of the ads pushing junk food?
Do ya NOT realize that these ads cost money?
Money that comes from a whooooooooooole lot of ppl BUYING this junk food.
Have ya NOT noticed the inordinate numbers of “fat” ppl walking around? (Go to a WalMart and have a looksee)
If ya really wanna see the “large folks”,,,go to an ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT buffet and watch ’em scarf it down. There are few skinny ppl eating there.
Look at the number of diet aids, programs, equipment being advertised as tools in the “battle-of-the-bulge”.

Bottom (lol…pardon the bun-pun) line is: Obesity is epidemic in America. It is at the top of the list of health issues.
NOW, tell me that ALL OF these ppl are simply fucking stupid.
Some of the smartest ppl I know are morbidly obese & others are just plain “chubby”…NOT pleasantly-plump.

 
Flag Post

so what? just because there’s a lot of people that buy a lot of junkfood doesn’t mean that everyone does so. and again, this is a cultural issue too. like you said, “Obesity is epidemic in America”. it’s not as epidemic outside of it, although it’s treated like an epidemic where i live as well.

just because cultural habits, advertisement and availability is still not a great excuse. you’re still choosing to buy it. vegetables are actually cheaper.

and yeah i know some obese people are smart. some just don’t really care; a few can genuinely hardly help it. but if all it takes to lose weight is just to look at energy density and stuff yourself with low energy density foods, then why are the slogans all about eating less?

just stuff your face with vegetables and regular meat, and leave the freaking soyas and aromated sugars alone. and people should also stop with the anaroxia advertisement scare-tactics aimed indiscriminately at everyone, even the skinny people that need the exact opposite.

where i live, we take a proper approach to sex and stds, to drugs, and everything else, where we’re only informative without resorting to scare-tactic propoganda, but when it comes to food all we get is scare-tactics, dysfunctional food pyramids, misinformation, exaggerated goals and just…just horrible generalisations.

nobody knows healthy from unhealthy because of all that. all they know is fattening from non-fattening, and they call that “healthy” and “unhealthy”. well guess what, your generalisations don’t count for everyone. misnomers are misinformative, and that’s just bad for everyone else.

 
Flag Post
just stuff your face with vegetables and regular meat, and leave the freaking soyas and aromated sugars alone.

This won’t work. If you ‘stuff your face with vegetables’, you will put on weight. Vegetables tend towards containing starch, which is high-density energy. Your body will be overwhelmed with glucose, which the starch will be transformed into, and not being able to use it all at once, your body will convert it into fat for long-term storage.

Stuffing your face with anything is very bad for you. Ingest only what you are going to consume, and no more.

 
Flag Post

^yes, but that would imply that it is not simply all about the calories. because vegetables have a very low energy density. pretty much any type of candy or sweets and stuff, as well as mayonnaise and cheese has about 4 to 5.5 kcal/kg, nuts and seeds about 6 or 7 kcal/kg, almost everything else, including bread, has about 2.5 kcal/kg, but regular meat has only about 1.5 and vegetables about 1 kcal/kg.

if we’re going with the “all about the calories” theory, stuffing your face with vegetables should be very effective.

even the notorious french fries is only 1.5 kcal/kg.

 
Flag Post

Of course its not simply about the calories. Karma’s argument above was saying that junk food has calories, and practically nothing else, which is true. So when you consume candy, when you consume junk food, you’re getting sugar, which will eventually become ATP, but you are getting NOTHING ELSE.

You need other things. The other six groups. Energy alone is not enough. We’re back to the car analogy. If you keep fueling it up, (sugar), you can skip filling up oil, water, brake fluid, wiper fluid, et al,(everything else), as the fuel will keep it running forever without bothering about the others, right?

 
Flag Post

yes, but if you don’t eat those empty calories, then you still need to get calories. but the only thing you ever hear is DON’T EAT CALORIES. and everything that does have calories is popularly grouped in with the empty calory products, so it’s hard to know healthy ways to get your calories.

i had to figure out all on my own that nuts and seeds, mayonnaise and fruit juice are good, healthy products for me, because they provide a lot of calories without overdosing me on sugar and saturated fats. (although actually, fruit juice is not that good at all. it’s just a bunch of sugars and sours. beer would actually be better)

also, empty calories too is part of that whole scare-tactic thing that is just not relevant to me. i mean i certainly don’t have to be afraid of not getting enough of any type of nutrient, consider how much i eat. (except perhaps calcium because i hate milk)

 
Flag Post

’Don’t eat calories’ is the correct approach. You cannot help but consume calories when you eat, but moderate your intake as much as possible. You only need as much sugar, starch and protein as you are going to actually use, each day.

So if you are sedantary you will need far less than if you are active. Age plays a part as well, as does gender, as does the speed of your metabolism. Genetics factors in as well. Consult a professional dietician if you are concerned.

 
Flag Post

vika, maybe this short, “25-words-or-less” summation of what we’ve been trying to get through to him will help. It covers all of it nicely…even if really short.

Of significance is the relatively small increase over the ONLY-necessary-2-sustain-life amount of calories it takes to be a lumberjack (<<<<< really hard labor). This, obviously, means that burning of excessive amounts of of calories sure as hell ain’t easy….which means that over-eating isn’t at all hard to do…which means that getting “fat” ain’t at all hard to do either.

Which is very obvious from the looks of most AMERICAN adults over age 35…and faaaar too many kids.

 
Flag Post

Thanks for the link, Karma.

A lot of it is our civilisation’s fault. We have gotten really good at packing energy into our foods. So our daily intake includes far more energy than our bodies would ever encounter, out in the wilds.

 
Flag Post

yeha, you keep repeating the same thing. even the link is just more “calories” bullshit. “don’t eat calories” is not the right approach for anyone that’s not fat. how can’t you get that?

this approach is tailored to fat people. i’m not fat. it doesn’t work for me.

but that aside, if you shouldn’t eat calories, then you should just fill your stomach with low calory foods, problem solved.

but you just keep repeating your same generalised simplificiation. and keep ignoring how someone that “overeats” massively on vegetables still gets far less calories than someone that eats a tiny amount of chocolate or peanutbutter.

 
Flag Post

The approach is not tailored to fat people. It is tailored to the human metabolism. Just because you are not fat, does not mean you are as healthy as you could be. Eating a balanced diet is all about health, of which weight management is only a part.

but you just keep repeating your same generalised simplificiation

Have to. We both know dealing with the details is not how how you think. Therefore if I am to get through to you, I have to keep it as simple as possible.

ignoring how someone that “overeats” massively on vegetables still gets far less calories than someone that eats a tiny amount of chocolate or peanutbutter.

Quite possibly I’m ignoring it, because its a lie. You’re still getting vastly more energy than you need. The difference is one is a complex energy molecule (starch), whilst the other is is a simple energy molecule (simple sugar). Sugar breaks down far more quickly, whilst starch takes a little while longer.

Both will cause problems if they are supplying far more glucose than the body can work with. In both cases, the body will store the excess as fat. It wastes as little as possible, even if you supply it with far too much material.

 
Flag Post

if we’re going with the “all about the calories” theory, stuffing your face with vegetables should be very effective.

Depends the vegetable. As Vika pointed out Starch chains are high in calories. But, not all vegetables have a great deal of starches. Cold Celery is almost devoid of caloric content. The effort expended in eating and heating it is about equal to what it provides. One could eat a virtual infinite amount of cold celery and not put on weight. Not true about potatoes.

Personally I’m a cheap and poor skinny guy. I am generally more interested in maximizing calories then minimizing them, and you are right to suggest that for some people calorie intake is a non issue. It’s just not most people, nor that marketable of an approach.

Hehe, consider it along these lines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQcljaFWP-c

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

yeah, yeah. again with the horror tactics. everyone constantly gets scared into CALORIES!! WAAAAAGHHH!!!!! that’s ALL we ever hear. how can one learn to eat healthily when all we hear is the same tune, which only aplies to a group of people?

Calories are one way to lose weight, if someone can watch them, but not an exact science. Weight Watchers has their own “numbers” system called Points, which calculates foods on a more holistic basis based on fat, carbohydrates, fiber, and protein (doesn’t watch calories). Still, both of these methods have someone watch their intake versus their output. There are some people who are able to just “cut down”, “eat less”, “exercise more”, and that actually works for them. It’s never worked for me; to be successful lately I need to operate strictly by some numbers, so that is what I do. But everyone just needs to find what works for them.

yeha, you keep repeating the same thing. even the link is just more “calories” bullshit. “don’t eat calories” is not the right approach for anyone that’s not fat. how can’t you get that?

Another thing I’d like to mention is that someone needs to be in their caloric range to lose weight. “Don’t eat calories” wouldn’t be accurate; they actually need to eat enough calories so that their metabolism doesn’t slow down and fight them. Of course, with the average diet today, getting “enough” calories is rarely a problem, but it would be a problem if someone just had three side salads a day and thought they were doing great by their diet. That’s one of the reasons Weight Watchers, if followed, absolutely works—they tell you the minimum number of points you need to have per day, as well as the maximum. It’s up to the person to stay in that range, and honestly, they can be creative and do it anyway they want—if you really have an urge to have three donuts, you can have a couple soups for your other meals and save the excess points for those goodies.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

If ya really wanna see the “large folks”,,,go to an ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT buffet and watch ’em scarf it down. There are few skinny ppl eating there.

Oh, God….on the note of buffets I hate, Hate, HATE going to them on Weight Watchers. I literally get so pissed off being brought to those places while on a diet because I have two options:

(a) Eat with everyone else and then spend the rest of the night trying to remember what portions of everything I ate, and then research their values online
(b) Eat conservatively, and then feel deprived when I watch people visit and revisit the chocolate fountain.

I swear, trying to do places like Country Buffet on a diet is just flirting with failure. Especially when there are so many other places with finite amounts (like Burger King, Taco Bell, Sushi, etc) where I’d be just as happy.

 
Flag Post

I’m Asian… and Asian buffets(economic) caters more to manual labourers…. I dun find <40% obese at higher end buffets… I can only conclude eating culture and genes that determine obesity…v
For me, it comes naturally to eat 70%~ full with breakfast and supper(4th meal) optional.
I find myself eating less as my age rises…. Never exceeded 68kg in my 172cm frame….

 
Flag Post
The approach is not tailored to fat people. It is tailored to the human metabolism. Just because you are not fat, does not mean you are as healthy as you could be. Eating a balanced diet is all about health, of which weight management is only a part.

impossible. you’ve never been truly skinny, that’s for sure. you can’t fuss all that much about balancing your pyramid when you have to eat eat eat. you need to find ways to get what you need without having to resort to crap. and the AVOID ALL CALORIES rubbish is not helping. how can one discern healthy food from non-healthy food if those terms get abused for meaning “low calory” and “high calory” food?

plus, the whole balanced food thing is just to make sure you get all the vitamines and fibers you need. if you eat a lot because you just have eat and eat, you won’t have any shortage of anything like that.

and if you do as advised, eat 5 portions of fruits and vegetables, and some bread…people are likely to not make their calories. i mean does anyone even realise that 100 gram of chocolate equals your entire dayly intake of vegetables, pasta/potatoes and meat? i sure didn’t until i happened to compare calories.

they need to suggest alternatives to candy and junkfood. they need to sell it too, because i don’t know a lot of calory-rich snacks that aren’t unhealthy. nuts is pretty much it. often the only option is candy.

Have to. We both know dealing with the details is not how how you think. Therefore if I am to get through to you, I have to keep it as simple as possible.

are you trying to insult my intellect? but clearly, it’s not that you’re not getting through. you’re just wrong.

Quite possibly I’m ignoring it, because its a lie. You’re still getting vastly more energy than you need. The difference is one is a complex energy molecule (starch), whilst the other is is a simple energy molecule (simple sugar). Sugar breaks down far more quickly, whilst starch takes a little while longer.

god damnit, do i need to repeat again that chocolate has 5.5 times the calory density of vegetables? 200 grams of chocolate is extremely easy to eat. to match that overeating on vetegatebles you’d need to eat an entire kilo of vegetables, and i don’t think many people could do that.

pretty creepy that merely 6 slices of bread with some spread matches it too.. :/

so who’s the one lying eh?

Depends the vegetable. As Vika pointed out Starch chains are high in calories. But, not all vegetables have a great deal of starches

starch or no starch, they have pretty much all just about 1 kcal/kg, which is really low. i checked. potatoes, as per your examples, is only 0.85 kcal/kg. i’m using Dutch sources, hence why i’m not linking, look it up. (although i’m getting highly fluctuating data on french fries :/)

Personally I’m a cheap and poor skinny guy. I am generally more interested in maximizing calories then minimizing them, and you are right to suggest that for some people calorie intake is a non issue. It’s just not most people, nor that marketable of an approach.

Hehe, consider it along these lines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQcljaFWP-c

right. that shows quite well that you probably just wanna satisfy yourself on vegetables. that should keep you from “rewarding” yourself for your efforts by ruining them with treats.

course, with the average diet today, getting “enough” calories is rarely a problem

yeah that’s what i doubt. a group is not a school of clones; they’re highly varied individuals. if the “average” diet is such or so many calories, then that average is probable a mean, not a mode. iow: just because it’s “average” doesn’t mean it’s common. many people will have much more than that, and many people much less. it’s the latter group that is completely overlooked.

if you eat just two or three slices of bread for breakfast, and again for lunch, and an average dinner, and drink tea and lemonade, you’re gonna fall short. and doing the “right” thing of eating more veggies isn’t gonna help. you need high calory crap.

and there are those with exceptionally high calory needs.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

yeah that’s what i doubt. a group is not a school of clones; they’re highly varied individuals.

Why do you doubt it? I mean, I get that everyone’s individualized, but have you paid attention to the cheapest foods out there? They are calorically rich, high carbohydrate crap. i.e. fast foods, breads, ramen, etc. Those are the cheapest out there. Considering (at least the U.S.) has programs such as food closets and Food Stamps/SNAP, I see very little trouble at all with the average person getting their minimal caloric intake.