|
|
|
|
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/22/2008 5:18:04 PM |
recent study indicated that there is a very strong correlation between poverty and obesity. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to be overweight. Now thing about that for a minute
Chances are, poorer people are not as educated as people with money too.
That is why you will see them make all kinds of stupid lifestyle choices, including smoking tobacco.
I disagree with the comment that healthy food is cheap. You would not know it from looking at my food bill. I eat a lot of lean meats, nuts, and fresh veggies.
I participate in my local Y and I also do a lot of cycling.
What is the solution if we want to reduce obesity ?
Make gym memberships tax deductable or free. The Y already has subsidized memberships for poor people.
Encourage people to buy and eat the healthy foods by taxing or banning the crap that is in our grocery stores.
Keep on putting the price of fuel up and make biking to work easier for people. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/22/2008 6:01:13 PM | "Make gym memberships tax deductable or free. "
See, the myths that won't die.
People are fatties overwhelmingly because they overeat, not because they don't exercise.
If they quit overeating, start eating nutritious food, they'll achieve normal weight without the false obstacle of exercise. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/22/2008 9:37:31 PM | Hmmmm... I AM poor... I AM overwieght.... but I am NOT lazy.... nor am I uneducated.
As for health food being expensive, (I am not so lucky to do this but) if you live in an area where you can do it... grow your own vedgitables. Grow herbs and spices that you can season your food with rather than using salt. I have a recipe to an awesome fresh salsa which costs about $5 to make and it makes LOTS of salsa. It would cost less than that if I could have a garden.
Also, tending a garden is great excersize. When I do get the chance to help someone with theirs, I make sure I do all the turning over of the dirt by hand (with a shuvel. I am not THAT crazy).
Of course I am single and live alone, so sometimes health food shopping is a bit easier for me, however, little things like buying a whole chicken and turning it into five or six meals is cheaper than a package of chicken breasts. Do the same thing with a steak. Cut it into four to five pieces to make several meals. Sometimes, stores will sell yogurt 10 for $5.
I understand that people are busy with work and family and everything, but taking a day a week to prepare your menu and the foods you will make, can be very benificial. Also... cooking things yourself. Even if that means cooking one day and packaging things up to be re-heated later. I will often times make a soup/stew and devide it into cantainers, which gives me dinner every night for a week.
Anyway, sorry this got long.... but not ALL fat people are lazy. Some of us are really seriously trying. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/22/2008 11:07:09 PM |
Anyway, sorry this got long.... but not ALL fat people are lazy. Some of us are really seriously trying.
isn't that the truth. I am very lucky that I don't have to be at work early in the morning, so I can go to the gym every morning. I know if I had to go after work, I'd be going less often.
You had some very good points. I think the biggest problem people have is fast food.
No matter how much some places advertise that "their fast food" is healthy, it's much healthier and has less calories and fat if you fix it yourself. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/23/2008 9:04:58 AM |
People are fatties overwhelmingly because they overeat, not because they don't exercise.
If they quit overeating, start eating nutritious food, they'll achieve normal weight without the false obstacle of exercise.
I could not agree more. Exercise helps, but it is not a magic solution, you have to control your eating to lose weight. I have a lot of adult beginning runners ask me "how many miles a week do I need to be running to eat whatever I want?", and a lot of them are honestly shocked when I tell them "you always have to watch what you eat". Another scary aspect is that many people do not even realize just how overweight they are. When everyone around you is overweight, it becomes the accepted norm. I was having lunch with a friend last week and commented on his weight. He agreed he was a "little overweight", I finally got him to admit that he was 230lbs (5'10"). I pulled out my BMI chart and showed him that health weight for his height was roughly 129 to 180 lbs. He was even more shocked when I showed him that he was well into "obese", and not "overweight". | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/23/2008 7:03:05 PM | | MOst liekly due to piss poor life styles sitting on peoples asses in front of the computer Crappy eating habits, elevted cortisol levels and hidden enviormental toxin clogging up our endocrine system increasing rates of prediabetes, | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/25/2008 12:02:56 AM | It is funny to read through a thread and listen to the different opinions and thoughts being spouted about.
Obesity is simple and yet so complicated.
Yes, of course, greater expenditure of calories than one intakes results in weight loss... However, achievement of such isn't always so simple.
There is definitely a correlation between people living in poverty and obesity. I can't speak the same for in the US but I do know that it exists in Canada. And, as much as some may wish to deny it, Steveincollingwood lists a few factors.
1. Healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food (at least in Canada it is often that way).
2. Some, not all, poverty-stricken individuals are uneducated and their lifestyle choices are affected by what they know. I am not saying they are stupid or anything of that sort.. but often they haven't learned how to eat/cook healthy, or how to spend the little bit of money they do have in such a frugal manner that they can purchase fresher and healthier foods. Even the food banks that are available to those with lower income tend to store carbohydrates, foods that are either canned or boxed, and junk food. There is very little fresh/frozen food made available, and so the options of what this portion of our society can lay claim to is very limited.
3. Excercising, while free in the concept that we can all walk/run without paying a fee, is in most circumstances at a cost. And, while the YMCA does offer assisted memberships, it never fails to amaze me that any of the people for whom such programs are made available are unaware of their existence.
4. Higher income people have opportunities to travel and see the world.. to experience other aspects of life that expand their minds, thoughts, and consciousness. Poverty stricken individuals often become locked within a small confine of life, never seeing beyond their own end of the neighbourhood. How does one dream or stive for more.. for better.. if the existence of more.. better is not known to them.
5. Obesity, or rather compulsive overeating, is considered an addiction. Often, the gratification one gets from eating the more fatty foods or high calorie foods opposes negative feelings (of self-image, of stress, of so many various emotions and situations). Research has actually linked such gratification to the pleasure areas of the brain.. and it has been shown that the release of endorphins when such food is consumed can be paralleled to that which occurs when a gambler gambles, an alcoholic imbibes, and so on.
... and of course, I could go on.
I agree that we need to educate ourselves and society about the benefits of healthy eating/living versus the fast-food, no hassle lifestyle choices that are available. I further agree that eating healthy is one main step and healthy activity levels is the next in reducing obesity. I do not agree with the rude and cruel mocking or mimicking of people who are overweight.
It is so easy to make fun of someone when we aren't walking in their shoes.
One last note.. I don't agree with some of the advice given on the first page of this thread.. although I haven't looked into 'fasting' per se. It is my understanding that maintaining an 'even' level of calories and sugar intake is ideal for weight loss... and fasting distorts that. However, the benefits of water consumption in losing weight cannot be overrated. For those of you interested, seriously, in making a lifestyle change, feel free to check out nutrisystem.com
Yes, I know, they sell their own 'main' courses.. and food. However, they provide so much more information beyond that. The support groups are boundless.. and you don't have to purchase their food in order to join the site or the support groups. There are even nutritionists available to speak with, information on what foods constitute what groups and their caloric/nutritional values so that you can start eating 'as though' you were on the nutrisystem food, even though you are eating regularly. Actually, there are some great cookbooks created by prior participants that provide the information on following the plan. And, believe me, it does work. Just keep in mind, that this is a lifestyle change... not just a short rearrangement of how you're eating.
Good luck to those struggling with their weight out here.. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/25/2008 12:28:48 AM |
Originally posted by Sylvia Collier
WORDS WENT HERE Well said.
It is no secret that socio-economic factors play a role in health and obesity is but one facet of health. It however often swept under the carpet by misguided people taking offence at daring to say poorer people are not as healthy.
Eating well costs money. It costs me $5.90 to order a pizza. It costs a hell of a lot more to put together a nutritious meal that meets all requirements and guidelines. There are benefits to economies of scale I miss out on, but I do not envy the poorer people trying to feed families. I know what it was like when I grew up.
Balanced diet, plenty of resistance and cardiovascular training is easy for me to say- and do. I have the time, money and inclination to do it. For those lacking in any of those, particularly, the money, it is not at all easy.
The worst part though is the resistance to education that so many people have. In the end, it is my tax dollars that fund the healthcare their dedicated ignorance results in. No one wants to follow a balanced diet with plenty of resistance and cardiovascular training, they want a quick, easy solution. They are even willing to spend money they should be spending on better food on the empty solution. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/25/2008 7:14:29 AM | In America, we are raised to "eat everything on your plate before you go out and play". Most of us were raised by mothers and grandmothers who would keep piling the food on the plate, then punish us if we told them we were full, by telling us we are ungrateful and need to finish everything. This imprint usually stays with people for many years after they move out. Remember, I said grandmother... which means her grandmother did it too. AND SHE probably had to suffer through the depression. Try telling THOSE people you had enough food!
The restaraunts portions have gotten bigger and bigger over the past 10 years. Some, like Applebees and Ruby Tuesdays, have finally jumped on board and realized they will make the same amount of money, and the customer will be happier, with what they are calling half sized meals.
What I am getting at, is here in America, most people are not taught about PORTION CONTROL until about the age of twenty, when they are in college. Some lucky ones learn about it while in sports in school. But even then, a growing teenage boy can eat a whole pizza and ask "what's next".
At the schools here in America, they have vending machines full of soda, chips, and candy bars. The cafiterias are offering frozen pizzas, cheese bugers, fried fish, etc. They too will pile it on until the child says stop. OR they will just let the kids buy whatever they want. Sure, they have sports and gym class. But how many kids really like gym class? Sometimes, even the jocks hated gym class.
If you give a kid the option of a candy bar or an apple... most kids will choose the candy bar. If yiou give them the option of a Mountain Dew or a Milk (Even chocolate milk), they will go for the pop. If we push to take the negative option out of the schools... they don't have a chance to eat the candy bar or drink the Mountain Dew.
I visited my mother in the hospital a while back and got hungry. So went to the vending machines. The only choices there... AT A HOSPITAL.... was soda and candy bars. WE WERE IN THE HEART UNIT!!! SO, I tried the cafiteria. They too only had fried foods and the like. I ended up finding a yogurt and bananna. But it made me mad that I had to HUNT for something healthy AT A HOSPITAL!!!
How are the people in America supposed to get a clue if even the hospitals are not pushing for a healthier lifestyle.
Something else very different about the poor people in America and the poor people in other countries..... the poor kids in America, they sit at home and watch tv or play vodeo games. Rarely are they encouraged to go outside and play. MOST never even learn where a tomato comes from. One teacher here in Columbus got repromanded for teaching her students that chicken nuggets came from a chicken which was killed for the food. She was told it would traumatize them too much. Other than what they learn at school and what they are watching on MTV or Nickilodeon, MOST poor children here, have NO OTHER education.
Poor children in other countries have to help their parents till the garden or raise the animals. Doing chores all day long. They learn a trade passed down from their parents... who learned it from their parents. Even those countries getting more and more developed, the Japanese STILL drink green tea daily. They STILL meditate. They STILL fish. STILL raise their foods. They STILL honor traditions.
compulsive overeating, is considered an addiction. Often, the gratification one gets from eating the more fatty foods or high calorie foods opposes negative feelings (of self-image, of stress, of so many various emotions and situations). Research has actually linked such gratification to the pleasure areas of the brain.. and it has been shown that the release of endorphins when such food is consumed can be paralleled to that which occurs when a gambler gambles, an alcoholic imbibes, and so on.
YEAP!!
Yesterday I was really REALLY craving potato chips. I had not wanted them for two years. They are not my normal "comfort" food. I chose to buy some fat free Pringles to satify the craving, But, knowing that needing something like that meant I was trying to cover SOMETHING up, I sat down and looked into the last few days to see why I would feel a compulsion to want them. I wasn't depressed. I hadn't been hurt by anyone. But it was important to me to find out why I wanted it... so I could change what was causing it.
Food is a drug!! Food is an easily achievable drug! It's right there... everywhere. I don't need to hit up a dealer for it. Don't need to be sneaky about it.I don't even need a lot of money for the good stuff!! I can go to the dollar store and buy a whole box of Little Debbies for a buck... and be in a comfort food heavin. MY weakness is steak with macironni and cheese on the side. I know I am REALLY sad if I want to eat THAT.
What I am getting at here is, yeap... it's a drug. And, sometimes, no matter how well educated someone is.... they will do anything for the high that drug will give. Even slowly kill themselves with it. AND... rich or poor... ignorant or highly educated... there comes a point where one CHOOSES to either stop the distructive patturn..... or continue down that path.
... and no amount of calling people "lazy fatties"... or demanding they eat less than 1000 calories a day... or suggesting starvation will push them closer to making that choice. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:15:12 AM |
... and no amount of calling people "lazy fatties"... or demanding they eat less than 1000 calories a day... or suggesting starvation will push them closer to making that choice.
No eating under 1000 calories is unhealthy and starvation like 1 or 2 meals a day is not an option. Thing is protein is very expensive compared to carbs and fat. Just have to control what you eat. If people actually keep a log of what you eat for a few days and write down the macros, then you will know how much and what you are eating exactly. From there you just have to tweak it to meet your needs. Also a lot of people try to eat twice a day and are not even losing weight. In fact, couple of my friends are gaining weight. They tell me how did I go from 280 lbs to 190. I try to explain to them eating 6 small portions a day would increase your metabolism and your body will keep on burning throughout the day. They still don't listen, nor do I talk to them much ... beyond lazy. This topic can go on forever, so many factors on why people are obese. My diet basically consists of oatmeal, peanut butter, almonds, brocolli, chicken, tuna, fruits/veggies, green tea, cottage cheese, brown rice, brown bread, whey protein, eggs, rice cakes and maltodextrin. Those are pretty much a staple to my diet and I am succeeding. If I want to eat junk food like ice cream, I would do it on a Sunday. Every Sunday, I eat w/e I want just to shock my body. Then go back to my diet. I sometimes eat 10k calories on a Sunday and I still lose weight and become leaner.
People tend to say they eat properly but they are lying. They are just lying to themselves. It's not obesity that's the problem, some people can't gain weight. Same shit I said above applies to them but they need to eat a lot more carbs and fats. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:18:52 AM | | If people truly cared about their bodies, they would take a few moments and do some research over the net and read about nutrition. Also I must say if you go to the gym, it gives you more motivation to eat properly. Money spent in the gym is well worth it, just focus and have goals. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/25/2008 8:26:39 AM | "Food is a drug"
Correction: "food-like substances" (like potato chips and Pringles) are like drugs, contrived by BigFood to contain salt, sugar, synthetic flavor/color enhancers to be very pleasing to the mouth, to keep you hooked, literally out of control of what you put in your mouth. A stimulated raving that makes decisions for you rather than you making your own decisions.
Blaming the "addiction" on the external substances is of course totally wrong, although the BigFood "dealers" remains fully culpable in actively, predatorily supplying and amplifying the addiction.
The real cause is the pain or discomfort that one is trying to assuage with the food-like substances. "Comfort food" for the discomfort. Remove the discomfort, the comfort food becomes uncompelling.
When even doctors and medical staff are untrained and ignorant in nutrition, when there are 10s of Ms of wealthy, educated, talented but self-destructive winners like Tim Russert walking around with permanent excess weight, hardening/closing arteries, diabetes, high blood pressure, popping multiple prescription medications, it's hard to blame low-income people for their ignorance of nutrition. Poor people do have the additional pressure of stretching their food budget to obtain sufficient calories, and nothing better for that than dead, anti-nutritious, high-calorie-density food-like substances. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:00:37 AM | WOW!! I have to say I am happily suprised by the comments posted since my last one. Being derrogatory and placing blame on people will never help to solve the situation, but open dialogue and discusssion, as has ensued, can. So thank you to all for your insightful comments and open, sharing, dialogues.
From my own research and interest I have learned that the lowest caloric intake possible while still maintaining meeting all dietary needs is 1200 calories (for women anyways - not sure about men). This is very difficult to achieve, but can be done. People who have over 100 lbs to weight shouldn't even go this low, but rather stay in the 1400 calorie range. And, as mentioned previously, SIX SMALL meals is much more beneficial than 1-2 large meals. The smaller ones allow the body to maintain more constant blood sugar levels which reduces cravings for sugar and other fatty foods.
And, removing the junk food from our schools/workplace is one step in the right direction. Of course, there will be fighting against it.. as well as with the idea to increase the cost of such foods so that they become less attractive, financially.
I like the swing of video gaming companies to now provide various programs that has the participant more actively involved while playing... but riding a little motorbike for a kid while learning, or standing up with a handset and bowling or swinging a pretend tennis racket, really cannot place the excitement, endorphins or heart pumping exercise one gets from actually doing these activities in real life. Of course, it is a start.
And, in case I didn't make it clear earlier, I don't blame the poor for their difficulties in making healthy choices.. or for the ignorance many have on how to make wiser choices. Obesity can/does become a vicious cycle.. We need to learn how to break it. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:22:32 AM | "SIX SMALL meals is much more beneficial than 1-2 large meals."
A big breakfast, after 7-8 hours of fasting when in bed, is the foundation of the day's nutrition. Then a couple smaller meals, or healthful snacks. 6 meals/day? Who can be bothered?
"The smaller ones allow the body to maintain more constant blood sugar levels which reduces cravings for sugar and other fatty foods."
A big breakfast will be releasing carbs all day as it passes through the GI tract, no need to top up repeatedly with more carbs. A low-carb/low-GI nutrition stabilizes glucose and prevents glucose crashes (hypoglycemia) that cause the hunger and craving. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/25/2008 2:23:50 PM |
"SIX SMALL meals is much more beneficial than 1-2 large meals."
A big breakfast, after 7-8 hours of fasting when in bed, is the foundation of the day's nutrition. Then a couple smaller meals, or healthful snacks. 6 meals/day?
Most people think that 6 small meals means a full plate of food. When in reality, a cup of yogurt and a small pot of hot tea is a small meal. A protine bar... is a meal. Glass of milk and a peanut butter bagel is a meal.
I learned the biggest meals should be breakfast AND dinner. Everything else in between is snackes to keep the matabolizm burning.
Who can be bothered?
That's why people have stopped calling it a "diet" and started calling it a "Lifestyle Change". Gotta make time to be bothered with it. Luckily I work from home and make my own hours. So I can work around my nutrician and work out schedules. However for those working in an office or whatever, when others go out to smoke... they can go for one of their 6 small meals.
"How bad do you want it" was what my trainer would always say. Want it bad enough? Make time for it! | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/25/2008 10:00:44 PM |
"SIX SMALL meals is much more beneficial than 1-2 large meals."
A big breakfast, after 7-8 hours of fasting when in bed, is the foundation of the day's nutrition. Then a couple smaller meals, or healthful snacks. 6 meals/day?
Actually, six is much healthier, and as SpiceyCougar has pointed out, doesn't actually mean 'full size' meals but rather small food portions. Of course breakfast is the most important, and dinner follows suit.. but the smaller ones in between keeps hunger and blood sugar levels on an even keel. I've experienced both, and I know which ones work better.
When I lost my 40 lbs back before Christmas, I did so via the six small meals, nutrisystem guidelines/support, and other support materials. After the first week or two I couldn't believe the change in my eating habits. At times I had to force myself to eat the allotted 1200-1400 calories.. However, there were a few times when my schedule got mixed up and I had to combine breakfast with morning snack and supper.. and it seemed I was hungrier all day.. It does make a difference.
There is ACTUAL research documenting the benefits of people eating smaller portions six times/day. I am not going to go find the research.. we can all do that on our own. The fact remains, however, that even when they had groups eating the EXACT SAME amount and type of food, but broke it down into 2, 3 and 6 meals per day.. the group who ate 6 times per day loss more weight. So, yes, I stand by my statement.. six small meals if you are serious about making a lifestyle change.
As for a 'small' meal.. again as SpiceyCougar stated, it is typically something as small as one piece of fruit and one serving of protein or dairy. It isn't recommended to ever have a piece of fruit on its own because of the higher sugar in it.. but to combine it with either protein or dairy helps to keep things level.
Honestly, it isn't very difficult to manage if you plan it out the evening before. Just choose your fruit/protein or dairy of the day. Morning snack can be a small apple and an 8 oz cup of fat-free yogurt... just as a quick example.
Of course, don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. Then again.. if you couldn't be bothered, then you probably don't feel the need to change your lifestyle that bad.. and/or are comfortable with whom you are or where you' re at physically.. which is all good anyways. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/26/2008 1:43:54 AM |
Originally posted by Sylvia Collier
From my own research and interest I have learned that the lowest caloric intake possible while still maintaining meeting all dietary needs is 1200 calories (for women anyways - not sure about men). This is very difficult to achieve, but can be done. People who have over 100 lbs to weight shouldn't even go this low, but rather stay in the 1400 calorie range.
Whoa, you were doing well otherwise.
Daily calorie consumtion varies massively depending on the individual. I need to eat +4000 calories in a normal workday just to maintain. Height, age, weight, body composition, gender, activity level all play a part. Much better to suggest people google up a basal metabolic rate calculator for a minimum they should eat rather than throw out a number- here is a very basic one that does not look at activity level: http://health.discovery.com/tools/calculators/basal/basal.html | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/26/2008 9:45:55 AM | Ive never been to the US but I hear the food portions are nice and huge and relatively cheap. also there seems to be a lot of high fat/salt/sugar foods everywhere.
YUM! | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/26/2008 2:22:11 PM | Whoa, you were doing well otherwise.
Daily calorie consumtion varies massively depending on the individual. I need to eat +4000 calories in a normal workday just to maintain. Height, age, weight, body composition, gender, activity level all play a part. Much better to suggest people google up a basal metabolic rate calculator for a minimum they should eat rather than throw out a number- here is a very basic one that does not look at activity level: http://health.discovery.com/tools/calculators/basal/basal.html
Yup, you're right.. it does massively depend on the individual... and perhaps I should have been more clear. Thank you for catching and correcting it.
I suppose, like the daily consumption of water being set at "8 - 8 oz" glasses per day being the accepted idom, I stepped out and gave what I understand as 1200 calories/day being the accpeted lower limit to MEET all nutritional needs.
Water consumption depends actually one weight, temperature, activity level and so on.. and they have calculators available for that as well. Likewise, for the 1200 cal/day.. it is the MINIMUM calories POSSIBLE to ALLOW for receiving all daily requirements. As such, in order to lose weight, one should NEVER go less than 1200 cal (and again, I'm refering to females at this point - I think males are actually higher). Of course, if you are active, have a higher metabolism, and so on, then eating more than 1200 calories will be necessary.. >>Give the calculator crazytimes listed a try..
Soooo.. does that sound more appropriate now crazytimes1 ;) | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/26/2008 8:18:45 PM |
Soooo.. does that sound more appropriate now crazytimes1 ;) Yes m'am. Just trying to make sure all the sane people are on the same page around here. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/26/2008 8:50:58 PM | "does massively depend on the individual."
familiar with the concept of the normal distribution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Normal_Distribution_PDF.svg
My guess is that for given lean weight/height, the normal distribution curve for caloric maintenance is a lot narrower that that you imply, with variance less that one. Y'all seem to be saying the cure very flat with a variance of 5 or more, which simply iow, we aren't snowflakes.
"Outliers" who supposedly need 4000 calories/day are obviously abnormal, at 2+ std deviations from the mean.
Removing the 'lean' requirement and allow the pathology of excess weight, then fat people need more calories because their hearts have to work harder to pump blood through all that fat (enlarging and thickening their heart muscles, like Tim Russert) and their muscles have to work harder to move their overweight bodies around.
" "8 - 8 oz" glasses per day being the accepted idom "
That's a myth put out by pepsi/coke/nestle to sell bottled tap water at 10,000x the price of tap water, while wasting oil to make billions of toxic plastic bottles. There is NO scientific evidence supporting 8 glasses x 8 0z, or any specific amount of water. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/27/2008 2:06:20 AM | That's a myth put out by pepsi/coke/nestle to sell bottled tap water at 10,000x the price of tap water, while wasting oil to make billions of toxic plastic bottles. There is NO scientific evidence supporting 8 glasses x 8 0z, or any specific amount of water.
I respectfully disagree. I don't know where you went to school, but even when I was a child, long before the 'bottled water' epidemic, the standard was 8 glasses of 8 oz of water. I'm not saying it is perfect or that there truly is a perfect amount. I'm saying that it is an accepted amount provided by health representatives all over (at least in Canada). However, the following links provide much more depth and a better description of the importance of water.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/water/NU00283
As for the normal bell curve, I'm quite aware of it and the SD's, including outliers. While 4000 calories may be an outlier and lay at 2+ standard deviations from the mean, so does the 1200 calories... it is probably actually nearer to the 3 SD mark... that meaning that the actual central or mean caloric intake, assuming everyone and their caloric intake ACTUALLY MATCHED a normal bell curve, somewhere around 2600 calories per day. I don't have the statistics but I would daresay that is an average caloric intake. In the meantime, please keep in mind, just because there is a 'normal curve' doesn't mean that all relationships match it perfectly. There are outliers and skewed curves for the very reason that in reality no actual relationship matches the bell curve exactly.
That being said, while heavier people require more calories to maintain their 'basal' metabolism, and perhaps burn more when they do expend energy.. the fact remains that those who are muscular and built, as opposed to 'nonmuscular/fat' have a much higher metabolism. Simply put, muscle burns more calories than fat (or the energy required to be burned to feed muscle is higher than the energy required to feed/store fat) Therefore, you should exercise and develop muscle tone and some strength when exercising and wanting to lose weight because once the muscles are developing/developed they will help to metabolize your excess calories much more quickly.
So as far as basal metablism is concerned, fatter people require more energy (basal being the energy the body requires to maintain a body at REST).. while muscular individuals burn energy faster via the energy required for the muscles..
One last comment.. I see a lot of people pulling up information for wikipedia, but I'd have you know that at the universities I've attended, never would an argument be accepted or information/research be allowed into a report if it came from wikipedia. It just isn't the most reliable source out here -- easiest perhaps, not most reliable. At least according to the professors/universities I've dealt with. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/27/2008 5:08:45 AM | "standard" word of mouth? common knowledge? any studies to support it? What "schools" teach 8 x 8? What schools teach anything about nutrition?
"accepted amount" Who accepts? Who authoritatively gives that info out, based on what science? Does it make any difference to your health if you consume 3 or 13 glasses of water from liquids and from food?
Here's a recent meta study by the most officially, professionally kidney-paranoid, kidney-protective group around, the American Society of Nephrology:
"Evidence lacking on health benefits of drinking lots of water"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/ason-elo032808.php
============
My comment about the standard distribution was very clear. The other posts were suggesting that everyone's wildly different in caloric needs, like snowflakes, a very flat bell curve, essentially everybody's an outlier. I'm saying no, the bell curve is more peaked than that.
"muscles ... metabolize your excess calories much more quickly"
If you're eating well, on average, then you don't consume excess calories and don't need to exercise muscles to burn it off, matching your caloric intake to the basal requirement.
The average USA adult, "statistical mean", especially women:
a) has no more muscle mass than what the person was born with (and due to lack of exercise, even that is atrophied) and
b) is overweight or obese (and unfit)
... so basal metabolism dominates calorie burning for nearly everybody, true on average EVERY day, even for competetive endurance athletes on days when they aren't competing or training intensively.
Yes, plenty of resistance to Wikipedia by the academic community, esp when assigning research to their students. Are they ****ing about their students looking in Wikipedia as an insufficient research effort? or that Wikipedia is so full of errors that it's useless? (rhetorical questions)
Without being the perfect oracle, Wikipedia is useful. Anybody whose research stops at Wikipedia isn't doing serious research. However, if other research agrees with a Wikipedia article, then referencing the Wikipedia article is valid.
If the academic community thinks Wikipedia is dominated by errors, then the academic community is welcome to correct them. Of course, there are endless, raging controversies within the academic community about the facts. So who's "right" among academics? | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/27/2008 6:58:21 AM |
familiar with the concept of the normal distribution? I minored in statistics thanks champ.
My guess Your guesses tend towards quite poor. Fascinating in the space of two sentences you go from patronising me about bell curves to making sweeping statements based on 'my guess'. That is a good debating technique, I bet it wins all the ladies hearts.
is that for given lean weight/height, the normal distribution curve for caloric maintenance is a lot narrower that that you imply
Let us examine that statement- "for given lean weight/height". Holy fuck kids, if you keep the two main variables the same the minor variables have a small effect on the distribution of the outcome? Be honest now- have you ever been taught statistics at a tertiary level? You would be laughed out of a first year tutorial with that kind of crap.
, with variance less that one. Y'all seem to be saying the cure very flat with a variance of 5 or more, which simply iow, we aren't snowflakes. Oh you tricky little hobbit you, what a cunning plan! Throw a few impressive looking words on the end of 'my guess' and 'keeping the main variables the same' and all of a sudden we have an argument right? Maybe in your tabloid newspaper fantasy world.
"Outliers" who supposedly need 4000 calories/day are obviously abnormal, at 2+ std deviations from the mean. Oh goodness no! Whatever will I do? Panic?
Your contributions are, as always, empty. Ignorance is not a basis for a discussion. | |
|
| 2/3d's US overweight or obese????
Posted: 6/27/2008 8:54:05 AM | "if you keep the two main variables the same the minor variables have a small effect on the distribution of the outcome?"
The variation basal metabolic rate is the object of the discussion, so it's not "minor", by definition.
How do you investigate its variation if you also allow your so-called "main" variables to vary freely?
eg, how to make any observation about the basal rate of an obese person when you can't separate normal (lean) basal rate vs inflated basal rate due to increased work of supporting all that grease? | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
