25.6% of Americans are Fatty McTubbytubs.

[T2A`]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080717/thl-uk-obesity-usa-8004a53.html

Kewl! :-)

Not really. D:

I'd like to know how other countries compare, tbh. I also think it's funny that rednecks have the highest obesity rate. I guess white trash just don't give a f**k.

[toniglandyl]

and it's increasing in France too :(

[Angel_Mapper]

I don't know, I wouldn't really call someone my height weighing 186 'obese'. Get into the 200's, then yeah.

[Wail of Suicide]

BMI is a crock.

I like the throwaway line, "BMI takes into account variations in build for all but the most heavily muscled athletes." Really? So dividing weight by height "takes into account variations in build?"
I have friends who are shorter than me and heavier, and in good shape. I also have friends that are taller and lighter, and in good shape. Amazingly enough, not everyone has the same body type, a fact that was recognized a hundred years ago when Sheldon proposed his somatotypes. I guess it's more convenient to play up the "Epidemic!" than to recognize obvious facts.

The guy's advice is pretty bad too - More of the same, "Eat more carbohydrates." Great advice for losing weight...

[JohnDoe641]

Well you need to eat more cards and exercise. That energy has to come from somewhere to get the damn fatties to move. :P

[TomWithTheWeather]

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

And "food" does not include the heavily processed junk you find on the grocery store isles. Stick to the perimeter, where the meats and vegetables are. "Food" also does not include heavily processed, corn-based fast food.

If your great grandma wouldn't recognize it as food, don't eat it.

The Western diet is so full of unhealthy food-like substances it's no wonder we have "Western diseases" like heart disease, several forms of cancer, obesity, and diabetes.

[Angel_Mapper]

Eat finger and hork.

[anaemic]

twtw pretty much nailed it.

want to be more healthy? prepare your own meals from fresh vegetables and meat.

want to lose weight? here's an idea, get some willpower, and cut down your portion sizes.

[kiff]

want to lose weight? here's an idea, get some willpower, and cut down your portion sizes.

or just excercise ;)

[Airmoran]

I'd like to know how other countries compare, tbh. I also think it's funny that rednecks have the highest obesity rate. I guess white trash just don't give a f**k.
Vegetables and fresh meat can be fairly expensive while fast food remains cheap no matter where you are in the 'states. It's not a surprise that southern states tend to be poorer.

or just excercise ;)
Or both. :o

[SlayerDragon]

Vegetables and fresh meat can be fairly expensive



This is the real PITA. I like to eat this kind of stuff, when I'm actually not lazy and go to the grocery store and cook for myself.

[dotnetbeast]

Do drugs, get to target weight, call a rehab center.

[Azura]

or just excercise ;)

It's easier to cut down on fat intake than to eliminate fat. I know because I practically do 1h30+ of cardiovascular exercices each day for a minimum of 3 days a week and the remaining fat is hard to get off. The easy part was knocking off 6-8 kilos last year when I realized I'd caught a sizeable belly.

I'll post some advice later.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Smaller portions and organic/fresh foods plus a little cardio and you'll be fine.

People act like it's too hard to be healthy when they subscribe to the Americana eating standards. It's not hard to stay in shape, people are just stupid and lazy. Stupid comes first because lazy people with an ounce of intelligence will still make an effort to exercise, they'll just have a harder time sticking to it.

Stupid people are the ones who don't even try apart from exerting themselves enough to complain to others. They're the reason so much money is invested in the industry of miracle weight loss scams. Everything from the "take this pill and eat whatever you want" to "lose weight while you sleep" and the ever-present random ab/hip/butt/chest/arm/leg/thigh/foot/face/penis workout machine that takes just 5 minutes a day 3 times a week to watch the fat just fall off!!!!!!1one

sigh @ country

[BillyBadAss]

My favorite thing is when I am out biking and just watching how often fat people do not respect a person on a bicycle as if it's another car. They will cut you off by making a right turn right in front of you when you are flying down a hill. They are so far out of the loop in health related things that they are now a danger to everyone else.

I bike about 10 to 15 miles a day and eat mostly vegetables.:)

[TomWithTheWeather]

Vegetables and fresh meat can be fairly expensive while fast food remains cheap no matter where you are in the 'states. It's not a surprise that southern states tend to be poorer.

And sadly, the only reason these healthier types of food are more expensive is because the government subsidizes the wrong stuff. Corn and soy are super cheap because the government subsidizes them while vegetables and meats are not, so the prices are higher than they need to be. Also, the fact that the majority of our food is grown in huge centralized industrial complexes means that is has to travel large distances to get to all corners of the country/world. This adds fuel prices to the equation.

Because a lot of the focus is on corn and soy, we have more of it than we know what to do with. Food scientists play in their labs all day, refining and processing basic foodstuffs like corn into whatever they can come up with, which leads to all sorts of food-like edible things like most fast foods and junk foods. All many of these food companies are caring about is being the new, hot product on the market.

You can be 300lbs from not eating anything more healthy than Doritos and Soda for every meal and still be basically malnourished.

If you live in the US and have an average American diet, most of what you eat is corn. Most of those chemically sounding ingredients listed on the back of food products are corn derivatives. To name a few:



Baking Powder
Confectioner’s Sugar
Corn Oil
Corn Syrup
Corn-Fed Animals
Cornmeal
Cornstarch
Dextrin or Dextrine
Dextrose
Food Starch
Fructose
Fructose And Fructose Syrup
High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
Malt
Malt Extract
Malt Syrup
Maltodextrin
Monosodium Glutamate
MSG
Sorbitol
Starch
Xanthan Gum

Even most of our meats come from corn fed animals. Cows are not meant to eat corn, they are meant to eat grass. It actually makes them sick because they are not evolutionarily designed to eat corn. It's not their natural food, grass is. These huge factory feed farms pump all the cattle with loads of antibiotics to keep them from getting too sick off the corn feed.

The reason we feed them corn is to fatten them up in roughly 1/4th the time it would take if they were grass/pasture fed instead. Feeding cattle corn is about the same as if we only ever ate chips and soda for every meal. Chickens and pigs are raised much the same way. The result is that you get beef that tastes less beefy, chicken that doesn't taste as chickeny, and pork that's not as porky. Of course none of us know the difference because this system has been in place for the last 40-50 years.

Next time you're in a nice restaurant and you order the $15 steak; as you eat it, imagine where it came from: a cow, crammed into one of several hundred pens with several hundred other cows, nearly sick and pumped full of medicines because it can't properly digest the corn it's fed, standing in a layer of feces one foot thick, and growing at a rate about 4 times faster than it should.

Don't get me wrong, our industrialized food system has cranked out a lot of food to a lot of hungry people, but for the most part it's low-quality, less nutritious, and nearly inhumanely grown.

The US has enough space that we can locally grow fresher, more naturally grown foods within a 50 mile radius of just about every populated area except the very largest cities. A place like New York might have to look a hundred miles farther to find enough food to feed it's people.

The point is, food could be cheaper, fresher, and more nutritious in the US if we could kill the industrialized system we have now and if we could could get the government to subsidize the right foods.

Another good rule to go by is if it can rot within a week, it's probably healthy and good to eat. If even the bacterias and molds will not eat it, we should not either.

[thewalkingman]

I want a hover chair.

[BillyBadAss]

And sadly, the only reason these healthier types of food are more expensive is because the government subsidizes the wrong stuff. Corn and soy are super cheap because the government subsidizes them while vegetables and meats are not, so the prices are higher than they need to be. Also, the fact that the majority of our food is grown in huge centralized industrial complexes means that is has to travel large distances to get to all corners of the country/world. This adds fuel prices to the equation.

Because a lot of the focus is on corn and soy, we have more of it than we know what to do with. Food scientists play in their labs all day, refining and processing basic foodstuffs like corn into whatever they can come up with, which leads to all sorts of food-like edible things like most fast foods and junk foods. All many of these food companies are caring about is being the new, hot product on the market.

You can be 300lbs from not eating anything more healthy than Doritos and Soda for every meal and still be basically malnourished.

If you live in the US and have an average American diet, most of what you eat is corn. Most of those chemically sounding ingredients listed on the back of food products are corn derivatives. To name a few:



Baking Powder
Confectioner’s Sugar
Corn Oil
Corn Syrup
Corn-Fed Animals
Cornmeal
Cornstarch
Dextrin or Dextrine
Dextrose
Food Starch
Fructose
Fructose And Fructose Syrup
High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
Malt
Malt Extract
Malt Syrup
Maltodextrin
Monosodium Glutamate
MSG
Sorbitol
Starch
Xanthan Gum

Even most of our meats come from corn fed animals. Cows are not meant to eat corn, they are meant to eat grass. It actually makes them sick because they are not evolutionarily designed to eat corn. It's not their natural food, grass is. These huge factory feed farms pump all the cattle with loads of antibiotics to keep them from getting too sick off the corn feed.

The reason we feed them corn is to fatten them up in roughly 1/4th the time it would take if they were grass/pasture fed instead. Feeding cattle corn is about the same as if we only ever ate chips and soda for every meal. Chickens and pigs are raised much the same way. The result is that you get beef that tastes less beefy, chicken that doesn't taste as chickeny, and pork that's not as porky. Of course none of us know the difference because this system has been in place for the last 40-50 years.

Next time you're in a nice restaurant and you order the $15 steak; as you eat it, imagine where it came from: a cow, crammed into one of several hundred pens with several hundred other cows, nearly sick and pumped full of medicines because it can't properly digest the corn it's fed, standing in a layer of feces one foot thick, and growing at a rate about 4 times faster than it should.

Don't get me wrong, our industrialized food system has cranked out a lot of food to a lot of hungry people, but for the most part it's low-quality, less nutritious, and nearly inhumanely grown.

The US has enough space that we can locally grow fresher, more naturally grown foods within a 50 mile radius of just about every populated area except the very largest cities. A place like New York might have to look a hundred miles farther to find enough food to feed it's people.

The point is, food could be cheaper, fresher, and more nutritious in the US if we could kill the industrialized system we have now and if we could could get the government to subsidize the right foods.

Another good rule to go by is if it can rot within a week, it's probably healthy and good to eat. If even the bacterias and molds will not eat it, we should not either.

Well said. I haven't eaten beef since 1994 and rarely eat meat at all, but if I do I try and eat fish. As a result I am way healthier and look much younger than most people my age. The typical American Diet is a joke.

[Azura]

Well said. I haven't eaten beef since 1994 and rarely eat meat at all, but if I do I try and eat fish. As a result I am way healthier and look much younger than most people my age. The typical American Diet is a joke.

I'd be happy eating fish but I just can't get it to taste as good. For example I decided to have some strips of roastbeef instead of alaskan pollack (what I mostly eat in terms of fish). Have got any ideas on something I could add to make it more yummy ?

[JohnDoe641]

Even most of our meats come from corn fed animals. Cows are not meant to eat corn, they are meant to eat grass. It actually makes them sick because they are not evolutionarily designed to eat corn. It's not their natural food, grass is. These huge factory feed farms pump all the cattle with loads of antibiotics to keep them from getting too sick off the corn feed.

The reason we feed them corn is to fatten them up in roughly 1/4th the time it would take if they were grass/pasture fed instead. Feeding cattle corn is about the same as if we only ever ate chips and soda for every meal. Chickens and pigs are raised much the same way. The result is that you get beef that tastes less beefy, chicken that doesn't taste as chickeny, and pork that's not as porky. Of course none of us know the difference because this system has been in place for the last 40-50 years.
This is one of the only reasons why I still stay Kosher. Non of that corn feed ****, the cows for Kosher meat graze on grass and the chickens are feed what they naturally eat. Though the downside is that I don't eat pork.

[Angel_Mapper]

Helpful animated map!
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/

[Kantham]

I don't know, I wouldn't really call someone my height weighing 186 'obese'. Get into the 200's, then yeah.
I don't see how 16 LBS makes so much of a difference.
250 LBS sure is getting serious though.

[hilo_]

BMI is a crock.

I like the throwaway line, "BMI takes into account variations in build for all but the most heavily muscled athletes." Really? So dividing weight by height "takes into account variations in build?"
I have friends who are shorter than me and heavier, and in good shape. I also have friends that are taller and lighter, and in good shape. Amazingly enough, not everyone has the same body type, a fact that was recognized a hundred years ago when Sheldon proposed his somatotypes. I guess it's more convenient to play up the "Epidemic!" than to recognize obvious facts.

The guy's advice is pretty bad too - More of the same, "Eat more carbohydrates." Great advice for losing weight...

This.

[pine]

twtw pretty much nailed it.



Yeah, because he summarized the best book on food ever written. ;)

http://www.michaelpollan.com/OmnivoresDilemma_full.jpg

Go read it.

[dragonfliet]

BMI is a crock.

I like the throwaway line, "BMI takes into account variations in build for all but the most heavily muscled athletes." Really? So dividing weight by height "takes into account variations in build?"
I have friends who are shorter than me and heavier, and in good shape. I also have friends that are taller and lighter, and in good shape. Amazingly enough, not everyone has the same body type, a fact that was recognized a hundred years ago when Sheldon proposed his somatotypes. I guess it's more convenient to play up the "Epidemic!" than to recognize obvious facts.

The guy's advice is pretty bad too - More of the same, "Eat more carbohydrates." Great advice for losing weight...

Ignorance like this...

BMI is no be all end all, which any reasonable person should know, BUT it's a very good scale for the most part. Honestly, how many people do you know that are 5'9" and 203lbs that WOULDN'T be considered obese. Is it really your assertion that a very significant number of people are actually bodybuilders incorrectly labeled as obese?

Also: Carbohydrates are GOOD. We shouldn't subsist on an all pasta diet, but neither should we avoid them. Idiots have latched onto Atkins ideology and think that somehow high fat, zero carbohydrate diets are healthy. They are not. You need carbs, starches, etc. as part of a healthy diet (as TWTW ripped off from The Omnivore's Dilemma).

Eat less, exercise more, stop frying things, stop being ignorant. I couldn't believe this from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25464987/

Despite the eye-opening revelations, whether New Yorkers will switch to lower calorie meals remains to be seen. They may just switch menus.
That’s what Fowler, the woman who was dining recently with her friends at T.G.I. Friday's, decided to do.

“I’m so upset,” she said, noting some entrees — like the Jack Daniels ribs and shrimp dinner — contain almost 2,000 calories, and the desserts were more of the same (the brownie obsession is 1,500 calories). “I wish they wouldn’t have done this.”

But then Fowler noticed that the waiter had handed her friend an old menu, which didn’t have calorie counts on it.

“You got a menu without anything on it?” she asked her friend. “Can I have yours?”

~Jason

[Armagon917]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080717/thl-uk-obesity-usa-8004a53.html

Kewl! :-)

Not really. D:

I'd like to know how other countries compare, tbh. I also think it's funny that rednecks have the highest obesity rate. I guess white trash just don't give a f**k.

Maybe its just come about that society does these polls along with reality TV. I think when people get fed we are just as flabby at any period in history. Take ancient Rome and the people who were fed well and rich enough to afford whatever they wanted. I bet the statistics were pretty close there too. Rednecks generally speaking and living in Houston I can tell you that comes from beer. I live in a semi yuppie area but I see super redneck mullet guy every once in a while and he's as happy and as fat as can be and drunk. heh

[rex]

Well said. I haven't eaten beef since 1994 and rarely eat meat at all, but if I do I try and eat fish. As a result I am way healthier and look much younger than most people my age. The typical American Diet is a joke.
The american diet is diet coke and mcdonalds salads, which in turn actually has the same or even more calories than their burgers.

Also I saw this show on danish tv, it was danish too, what a surprise, where they tested how much energy a normal person in an office uses a day. And then compared it to how much a regular person usually eats.

Turns out we eat quite a bit more than we actually need. And usually have an appetite for more. They speculated if it was a remain from old days, where people worked harder, had less mechanical help and therefore used more energy.

The fast way to loose weight through your food is, if I'm not mistaken, to eat alot of small meals during the day instead of 3 big ones. Example take some fruits with you to work, like carrots, bananas apples etc. And eat them during your day.
This should speed up your metabolism and you won't feel as hungry at the usual 3 big meals.

[Defeat]

I'm fat :0 nom nom nom

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/Saren/eating.gif

[Wail of Suicide]

Ignorance like this...

BMI is no be all end all, which any reasonable person should know, BUT it's a very good scale for the most part. Honestly, how many people do you know that are 5'9" and 203lbs that WOULDN'T be considered obese. Is it really your assertion that a very significant number of people are actually bodybuilders incorrectly labeled as obese?

Also: Carbohydrates are GOOD. We shouldn't subsist on an all pasta diet, but neither should we avoid them. Idiots have latched onto Atkins ideology and think that somehow high fat, zero carbohydrate diets are healthy. They are not. You need carbs, starches, etc. as part of a healthy diet (as TWTW ripped off from The Omnivore's Dilemma).

Eat less, exercise more, stop frying things, stop being ignorant. I couldn't believe this from: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25464987/



~Jason

Way to read into things I didn't say.

Obviously there is a substantial portion of America that has problems with their weight. But I don't think playing with numbers (e.g. BMI) is a particularly legitimate way to diagnose the problem, nor is tossing around words like "Epidemic" going to solve it. Acknowledging that you're never going to turn a stocky mesomorph into a willowy ectomorph is a pretty good start, I think, for encouraging a health-conscious approach to weight.

As for dietary suggestions - People have a really easy time getting carbohydrates. You eat a bowl of cereal in the morning, eat a sandwich and fruit for lunch, have pasta or potatoes with your dinner, maybe a granola bar snack somewhere in there if you're the snacking type. That's way too many carbohydrates to be eating for almost anyone. Now, my dad eats like that and doesn't gain any weight, but if I eat like that I definitely will.

That's pretty much the sort of diet the US federal government recommends, but I think at this point it should be obvious that it's not going to work for everyone, or even a majority of people. Precisely because carbohydrates are so easy to come across, and are present in pretty much every quick-and-easy food, I think it's kind of irresponsible not to recommend people to decrease their intake. Reducing the amount of bread and other carbohydrate-rich, nutritionally-low value foods you eat is probably the single change that can make the most impact in peoples' weight.

[hilo_]

Ignorance like this...

Also: Carbohydrates are GOOD. We shouldn't subsist on an all pasta diet, but neither should we avoid them. Idiots have latched onto Atkins ideology and think that somehow high fat, zero carbohydrate diets are healthy. They are not. You need carbs, starches, etc. as part of a healthy diet (as TWTW ripped off from The Omnivore's Dilemma).

~Jason

Most of the fat we store comes from excess carbohydrates, not fat, in our food intake. So advising people to eat more carbohydrates when they're probably getting too many to begin with isn't a great idea. I agree that the atkins diet is retarded, but that doesn't mean that eating a little less carbs wouldn't be beneficial to a lot of Americans.

BMI is about as worthless as a bodyfat % number. How your body feels and how you look in the mirror are much better indicators of health than some artificial number like BMI.

[dragonfliet]

The fat we store comes from excess CALORIES (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002468.htm). You are thinking about how Carbs break down into sugars, and sugars, when not used does turn into fat. This is true, but any excess calories turn into fat--this has nothing to do with Carbohydrates.

Obesity is rising because of extra calories from sugars (and corn syrup, etc.) and portion size. Do you see Italy on the list of fat countries? No, despite the fact that the "typical" Italian eats more bread (http://www.aboutcolonblank.com/2008/02/11/what-people-eat-around-the-world-photoset/) in a week than I eat in a month.

Portion control is a big issue. People don't need to eat less bread, they need to eat less everything.

Lastly, I'll say it again--while BMI is no be all, end all method of measuring population health (obviously), it is a very good indicator of weight. People with a BMI of 30 are most definitely obese in almost every single instances. The number of people who have a bmi of 30+ that are actually healthy (due to muscle mass) is going to be such an insignificant number it's not really worth discussing. If you had any idea how to calculate statistical significance, however, this would be fairly obvious. This article isn't talking about making everyone the same bodytype, but of raising awareness that people are getting too fat and that it's unhealthy and they need to change. What is the point of railing against a good system and complaining that it's not perfect? Is there really a better method? FYI: looking in the mirror and liking how you look is a TERRIBLE scale. Not only does it completely ignore the (growing) problem of anorexia and people that are visually happy with being obese, it lacks the ability to be measured and so becomes a completely subjective scale making any sort of scientific discussion infinitely difficult.

~Jason

[[VaLkyR]Anubis]

That's nothing new to me,many germany TV channels made several reports and documentations about this problem.At school and home I don't see many "fat" people,but when I see some of them,holy moly......

[TomWithTheWeather]

Yeah, because he summarized the best book on food ever written. ;)

Go read it.

I was wondering if anyone would catch my references to the book. :p

I did just read that, and holy crap it's an eye opener. I suggest anyone who cares about food read it. Even if you don't care about food and where we get it, you should still read it; it'll change the way you look at food.

Here's a few interviews with the author.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRp9QX6DSmo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD6kGwg-s9I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-t-7lTw6mA

[dotnetbeast]

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/110985.jpg

I dont know why, but this pic remids me of the end of the Hulk tv show (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Ux0KxPO_g&feature=related).

[Vers Vlees]

Ah yes fatass yanks what else is new? :p However fear not Yanks for we Euros are also being overrun by Macdonalds, KFC, Burger King and Domino's like unwashed barbarians over ran the Roman empire. We too are getting fatter so you Yanks will no longer be alone in your fatness. However our governements are quick to respond. How might you think? Well with taxes, fat taxing the "evil food" its the European way.

[Azura]

Idiots have latched onto Atkins ideology and think that somehow high fat, zero carbohydrate diets are healthy. They are not. You need carbs, starches, etc. as part of a healthy diet (as TWTW ripped off from The Omnivore's Dilemma).

Eat less, exercise more, stop frying things, stop being ignorant.

Isn't the Atkins diet advocating a high-protein, low-fat diet ? There is this weird rival theory that goes ape on fat though. I never figured out how it is supposed to work though. Maybe the body absorbs so much fat that it triggers some elimination mecanism.

Also, frying isn't that bad as long as you keep to low quantities and oils of vegetal origin. In fact, mediterranean cooking is often fried but uses stuff like olive oil. And look how healthy some people down south are.

P.S: I forget to mention that the reason why excess weight is such a problem is because our ancestors often went hungry. Fat is just a way to store nutrients for those times when the hunt wasn't succesful and fruit was scarce. Then agriculture came along.

Portion control is a big issue. People don't need to eat less bread, they need to eat less everything.

This was pointed out in one article in the New Scientist. It is cheaper and more profitable for the food industry to package large portions of food.

[Airmoran]

Isn't the Atkins diet advocating a high-protein, low-fat diet ? There is this weird rival theory that goes ape on fat though. I never figured out how it is supposed to work though. Maybe the body absorbs so much fat that it triggers some elimination mecanism.
Not quite. Atkins diet advocates a high-protein, high-fat, but low-carb diet. You can basically eat everything from bacon to (bun-free) cheeseburgers, as long as you cut out virtually all carbs. From what I understand, the science behind it is vague and often debated over.

So hey, f*ck it. Nobody's gonna write dissertations on the dangers of smaller portions and regular exercise, right?

[Azura]

Hmm, so where does the body get fuel with a diet like this ? I've cut sugar to a minimum myself but I still allow for slow sugars from sources such as brown bread. Otherwise I'd be incapable of doing any exercice at all.

[TomWithTheWeather]

Diet fads like Atkins are mostly a bunch of silly rubbish.

All you need to do is not eat crap, not eat too much, and get a little exercise or stay fairly active.

[Angel_Mapper]

The fat we store comes from excess CALORIES (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002468.htm). You are thinking about how Carbs break down into sugars, and sugars, when not used does turn into fat. This is true, but any excess calories turn into fat--this has nothing to do with Carbohydrates. Yeah, I thought it was a pretty simple equation. Calories in - Calories expended = weight change.

[Azura]

Diet fads like Atkins are mostly a bunch of silly rubbish.

They're also quite dangerous. If I was to change the way people eat I'd certainly avoid increasing meat consumption. There just won't be enough of it around and a lot of it is already of poor quality due to factory farming. I'm happy with my whey proteins.

[TomWithTheWeather]

They're also quite dangerous. If I was to change the way people eat I'd certainly avoid increasing meat consumption. There just won't be enough of it around and a lot of it is already of poor quality due to factory farming. I'm happy with my whey proteins.

Over the last 50 to 100 years, the Western diet has seen an increase of meat consumption from roughly a 1/2lb per person a week to a 1/2lb per person per day. We didn't used to be this fat. Industrialized factory farms have been the main reason why this has happened. Meat is just so much more abundant and thanks to a factory farm's controversial methods, meat is a lot less nutritious than it would be if it came from a naturally raised animal.

I don't advocate a purely vegetarian diet; humans did evolve to eat meat and veggies after all. I have however scaled back drastically the amount of meat I eat in an effort to be a little more in sync with my bodies natural design and requirements. And when possible, I shop at the store that sells pasture-raised meat, though it is a little more expensive unfortunately. :(

[Azura]

I don't advocate a purely vegetarian diet; humans did evolve to eat meat and veggies after all. I have however scaled back drastically the amount of meat I eat in an effort to be a little more in sync with my bodies natural design and requirements. And when possible, I shop at the store that sells pasture-raised meat, though it is a little more expensive unfortunately. :(

Good for you. Eating meat in excess is useless anyway because most of it would end up in the toilet. I mean the body needs only so much meat to repair or enhance tissue. The rest is pure waste and could even provoke disease. Plus, the taste so many people crave is often artificial, boosted by MSG or other artificial flavour enhancers, and the stuff found in fastfoods is often processed with lots of added fat (remember how tasty that bacon rind was when it came off a barbecue ?).

As for getting some good meat, I don't have the means to pay more for less. I am however confident that anything from the local butcher is of far better quality than what you'll find in a supermarket and it's possible to save a few pennies by buying in quantity (this is where a freezer comes in handy). Failing that you can always make friends with a few farmers in your area.

[Wail of Suicide]

Yeah, I thought it was a pretty simple equation. Calories in - Calories expended = weight change.

Not necessarily, because some peoples' bodies have different natural equilibriums and respond differently to environmental conditions. I recently read an article about a study (I can't remember if this (http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/132/10/3155)is the source, but it's at least on a similar topic) looking at a people with antibodies that occur when exposed to a particular virus. Apparently people who had the antibodies were also ~10% heavier than people without, and this held true even to mice. At least according to the paper I linked, this occurs in monkeys even when the test and control groups are given the same food and quantity.

If your body thinks your natural equilibrium should be 15-20lbs higher than what traditional medical science otherwise would, losing that weight is going to be really, really hard, and chances are it's going to come back as soon as you enter any sort of physical comfort zone.

According to the paper linked, these antibodies are present in 30% of people considered obese, but only 5% of those considered normal weight.

[Angel_Mapper]

I don't see how any of that changes the laws of physics. If you consume less calories than you expend, you'll lose weight.

[Wail of Suicide]

I don't see how any of that changes the laws of physics. If you consume less calories than you expend, you'll lose weight.

Yes, but if your body is saying, "I'm starving! Lets turn this metabolism down a notch or two so we waste less energy," you're going to be expending fewer calories even if your food consumption remains static.

A new study (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229) comparing the effects of traditional calorie-restricted low-fat diet against a calorie-restricted "Mediterranean" diet and a low-carbohydrate non-calorie-restricted diet.

In this 2-year dietary-intervention study, we found that the Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets are effective alternatives to the low-fat diet for weight loss and appear to be just as safe as the low-fat diet. In addition to producing weight loss in this moderately obese group of participants, the low-carbohydrate and Mediterranean diets had some beneficial metabolic effects, a result suggesting that these dietary strategies might be considered in clinical practice and that diets might be individualized according to personal preferences and metabolic needs. The similar caloric deficit achieved in all diet groups suggests that a low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie diet may be optimal for those who will not follow a restricted-calorie dietary regimen. The increasing improvement in levels of some biomarkers over time up to the 24-month point, despite the achievement of maximum weight loss by 6 months, suggests that a diet with a healthful composition has benefits beyond weight reduction.

[Airmoran]

Yes, but if your body is saying, "I'm starving! Lets turn this metabolism down a notch or two so we waste less energy," you're going to be expending fewer calories even if your food consumption remains static.
What you could try there is eating more frequently, but with much smaller portions each time.

Eat (at most) a bowl of food, then eat again 1-3 hours later when you're hungry again. You'll raise your metabolism and you won't be hungry. Try to cap your fat intake to something like 20g a day. Of course, none of this is gonna help you much unless you're also willing to exercise daily.

Oh yeah, the "eat less more frequently" diet is also useful if you're trying to build muscles.

[Wail of Suicide]

What you could try there is eating more frequently, but with much smaller portions each time.

Eat (at most) a bowl of food, then eat again 2.5-3 hours later. It'll raise your metabolism and you won't be hungry. Try to cap your fat intake to something like 20g a day. Of course, none of this is gonna help you much unless you're also willing to exercise daily.

/non-sequitur

[Airmoran]

Pff, no more of a non-sequitur than your posts!

[Angel_Mapper]

I see what you're saying there, but even if you have to work out more to burn the same amount of calories, it still just comes down to eating less than you expend.

[dragonfliet]

Yes, but if your body is saying, "I'm starving! Lets turn this metabolism down a notch or two so we waste less energy," you're going to be expending fewer calories even if your food consumption remains static.

A new study (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229) comparing the effects of traditional calorie-restricted low-fat diet against a calorie-restricted "Mediterranean" diet and a low-carbohydrate non-calorie-restricted diet.

In this 2-year dietary-intervention study, we found that the Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets are effective alternatives to the low-fat diet for weight loss and appear to be just as safe as the low-fat diet. In addition to producing weight loss in this moderately obese group of participants, the low-carbohydrate and Mediterranean diets had some beneficial metabolic effects, a result suggesting that these dietary strategies might be considered in clinical practice and that diets might be individualized according to personal preferences and metabolic needs. The similar caloric deficit achieved in all diet groups suggests that a low-carbohydrate, non–restricted-calorie diet may be optimal for those who will not follow a restricted-calorie dietary regimen. The increasing improvement in levels of some biomarkers over time up to the 24-month point, despite the achievement of maximum weight loss by 6 months, suggests that a diet with a healthful composition has benefits beyond weight reduction.

Things to do when your body is saying it's hungry, but you don't need the calories:

Like Airmoron said: eat less more frequently, this will boost metabolism and stave off hunger

Drink a glass of water (or two!) before every single meal. This will help fill your stomach, so you feel full without getting extra calories.

Chew on ice. The mechanical action of chewing can help to alleviate hunger.

Eat a mint (chewing on a mint leaf is a better alternative if you're up to it). Mint causes EXTREMELY mild nausea, so sucking on a mint can help to curb appetite.

If you ARE going to snack, snack on a high non-water soluble fiber, low calorie snack such as an apple or celery. An apple generally only has ~50 calories but is a decent size (to fill you) and has plenty of dietary fiber to keep you regular (which helps to maintain a healthy body).

And yes: Necessarily, the amount of calories you take in-the calories your expend = net calories. If you expend MORE calories than you take in, you lose weight (as you must burn off your fat reserves to make up for the caloric imbalance), if you expend LESS calories than you take in, you gain weight (as you store excess calories as fat). While how many calories you burn depends from person to person (metabolisms vary), the math stays the same.

Oh, as to the atkins diet, the reason that it works (I THINK) is that since you're consuming SO MUCH FAT and protein, your body freaks out and starts trying to get rid of the fat it's stored, as its getting bombarded with it and doesn't need to store it at all. I hope someone with a deeper understanding can correct me if I'm wrong though. Just eating less and exercising more is healthier though, as it avoids that pesky cholesterol problem that made Dr. Atkins die in his 50's or 60's because of heart problems (and overweight I might add).

~Jason

[hilo_]

Oh, as to the atkins diet, the reason that it works (I THINK) is that since you're consuming SO MUCH FAT and protein, your body freaks out and starts trying to get rid of the fat it's stored, as its getting bombarded with it and doesn't need to store it at all. I hope someone with a deeper understanding can correct me if I'm wrong though. Just eating less and exercising more is healthier though, as it avoids that pesky cholesterol problem that made Dr. Atkins die in his 50's or 60's because of heart problems (and overweight I might add).

~Jason

The atkins diet is a ketogenic diet. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/keto.htm Cycling carbs is a much better approach than atkins.

Don't forget weight training. Having more muscle mass = more calories being burned, even at rest. Eating small, frequent, clean meals + weights + cardio is the best combination IMO.

I also highly doubt that most people get enough protein every day. If you're not on a special diet, your protein intake should be roughly equal to your carb intake. 40/40/20 ratio is a good one to shoot for (40% carb, 40% protein, 20% fat) in each meal.

Also, not all sources of carbs are created equal. People are often tricked into thinking things like bagels and pretzels are good for you, but they have a high glycemic index (break down into glucose rapidly), yielding a more drastic insulin spike than low GI foods. Basically it means your body is more prone to storing fat when you splurge on those foods.

An exception to this would be post workout when an insulin spike is beneficial because nutrients can be delivered to your muscles better.

[T2A`]

Also, everyone should be aware that your body doesn't absorb 100% of the stuff that's in what you eat. The equation should actually be centered around the amount of calories and whatnot actually absorbed, but you can't really measure that. :p

I heard that over in Euroland they've stopped using calories as a measure because it's inaccurate (or summat) and instead go by joules. D:

[Plumb_Drumb]

just stop drinking Monster and reading BU all day.

The new diet.

[pine]

Diet fads like Atkins are mostly a bunch of silly rubbish.

All you need to do is not eat crap, not eat too much, and get a little exercise or stay fairly active.

This.

It's not rocket science ffs. People just don't do it, because that's not our lifestyle these days. Unhealthiness is a lot more convenient.

[Plumb_Drumb]

This.

It's not rocket science ffs. People just don't do it, because that's not our lifestyle these days. Unhealthiness is a lot more convenient.


this

[Plumb_Drumb]

this.

oh sorry I hit the wrong button.

[pine]

I heard that over in Euroland they've stopped using calories as a measure because it's inaccurate (or summat) and instead go by joules. D:

Is there a difference? Both are just measures of energy afaik. The way to measure exactly how many calories something has is to burn it and I think joules can be measured the same way (except calories would be considered potential energy I guess, and joules are for the energy released).

[Underscore]

^^ edit: damn beaten!

I heard that over in Euroland they've stopped using calories as a measure because it's inaccurate (or summat) and instead go by joules. D:

That's just because joules are an SI unit and such units are preferred in these newfangled modern times. Calories measure the same thing, and the accuracy of any measurement is independent of the units used to express it.

[toniglandyl]

1 joule = 0.239005736 calories
basically, 1 calorie is the energy necessary to heat 1gram of water by 1 degree kelvin.

so it's better to go with joules :)

[Azura]

I heard that over in Euroland they've stopped using calories as a measure because it's inaccurate (or summat) and instead go by joules. D:

I asked Jules but he didn't know what to answer.

[Balton]

1 joule = 0.239005736 calories
basically, 1 calorie is the energy necessary to heat 1gram of water by 1 degree kelvin.

so it's better to go with joules :)

because joule's are smaller, making measurements more finer? hm...

[toniglandyl]

because joule's are smaller, making measurements more finer? hm...

well it's better to talk in joules because it's easier to use in formulas, and then change the total in calories.
having a "1 unit = the energy to do this" is kinda limiting, no ?

but I think we're going off-topic now :P

[Underscore]

because joule's are smaller, making measurements more finer? hm...

Yeah but people say the same thing about fahrenheit and that's just crazy

[Balton]

well it's better to talk in joules because it's easier to use in formulas, and then change the total in calories.
having a "1 unit = the energy to do this" is kinda limiting, no ?

but I think we're going off-topic now :P

I was just flabberghasted at the easy explanation why joules are better than kalories. My biology teacher was not able to explain the difference to me, which made me despise joules and stick to kalories instead. The more you know.

[B]

I want:

- 2 Tripple Whoppers with bacon and extra cheese.
- Large fries with extra mayo.
- a 24x box of chicken nuggets (bbq sauce)

And a diet-coke....you know, because I'm watching my weight....

[dotnetbeast]

I want:

- 2 Tripple Whoppers with bacon and extra cheese.
- Large fries with extra mayo.
- a 24x box of chicken nuggets (bbq sauce)

And a diet-coke....you know, because I'm watching my weight....

NO CUSTOM ORDERS!!!!!!!

[B]

It's at Burger King, I get it my way! :mad: :D

[Balton]

the closest BK for me (6mins by foot) has been closed down for something like 2 months "due to grave hygiene infringements". Tasty :rolleyes:
I rather support smaller but independent shops.

[Angel_Mapper]

Where they hide their grave hygiene infringements better?

[Balton]

Where they hide their grave hygiene infringements better?

being independant doesn't mean they are better by default but BK and McD mostly employ kids from my hood that just finished school(or were kindly kicked off). So don't be surprised if your shop's closed down.
Also, I know where to eat good :)


AND!


how much do you have to pay at the big fast food chains to get a meal that makes you full? I inhale one big mac and I am already down 3,20€. Then I could inhale two more.
One Döner Kebap, with extra fries IN the döner and hot sauce costs me 2,90€ and I am full for at least the next four hours. (avoid places that sell a Kebap for 1-2 €!)
The only true advantage of the big chains is that they can allow themselves to stay open 24/7

[Hadmar]

having a "1 unit = the energy to do this" is kinda limiting, no ?How so?

[dotnetbeast]

It's at Burger King, I get it my way! :mad: :D

Then you must live by a nice Burger King then :lol:

[Azura]

I was just flabberghasted at the easy explanation why joules are better than kalories. My biology teacher was not able to explain the difference to me, which made me despise joules and stick to kalories instead. The more you know.

Maybe it's because joules is simply standard international (an extension of the metric system):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joules
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_unit

[dotnetbeast]

I have a question. Anyone here get that funny taste in their mouth after they have eaten some fast food, that nasty after taste that tastes like someone there slipped some laxatives in your food?


Because I taste that now.


*plop*
Ugh.