Are your children fat? Why are they fat?

Tarzana

Wibbs wrote: »

As for those who claim to eat like horses yet remain skinny, a few experiments have shown that in the vast majority of cases they quite simply overestimate how much they eat and underestimate how much exercise they take(doesn't even have to be "classic" exercise, fidgets burn off calories). This subjective thing seems to be at work with fat people too. Basically skinny people self report as eating more than they do, fat people self report as eating less than they do and average weight people are better at self reporting what they actually eat.

I'd have to counter this - there are two skinny-ma-links in my life that I know for a fact eat very large portions at lunch and dinner with an average sized breakfast (missed the odd time). And they're early 30s, not adolescent or anything. They do a bit of exercise but not an awful lot, to be honest. Some people can eat a lot and not gain, and some can gain a lot very easily just going slightly over what they need.

Fighting Irish

I think the bad weather in Ireland plays a huge part

Tarzana

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I think the bad weather in Ireland plays a huge part

Much better weather in the fattest first world country!

Rough Sleeper

Tarzana wrote: »

I'd have to counter this - there are two skinny-ma-links in my life that I know for a fact eat very large portions at lunch and dinner with an average sized breakfast (missed the odd time). And they're early 30s, not adolescent or anything. They do a bit of exercise but not an awful lot, to be honest. Some people can eat a lot and not gain, and some can gain a lot very easily just going slightly over what they need.

You could be right in this specific example but in general I don't think you can accurately attribute someone's svelte figure to good genetics unless you follow them round for a period of months and track their caloric intake.

I often hear people saying something like "It's not fair, they always stuff themselves with fast food an chocolate and they don't gain a pound." Average BMR for a man is ~2500 calories. You could eat a hearty fry for breakfast (~500 calories), a chippers for lunch (say 1000 - 1500 calories) and still have room for a few Mars Bars while breaking even or staying in the red for the day.

Even in the example you've given it'd be possible for the average woman to maintain a stable weight provided they didn't snack excessively. (Dinner 800 kcal, Lunch 800 kcal, breakfast 400kcal - and the former two are very large portions for a lady).

FTA69

Tarzana wrote: »

I'd have to counter this - there are two skinny-ma-links in my life that I know for a fact eat very large portions at lunch and dinner with an average sized breakfast (missed the odd time). And they're early 30s, not adolescent or anything. They do a bit of exercise but not an awful lot, to be honest. Some people can eat a lot and not gain, and some can gain a lot very easily just going slightly over what they need.

I think Wibbs is right. I know a few slim fellas who are always asking me how to "bulk up" and moaning they can't put on weight even though they're "always eating" and it's just bullsh*t and self-delusion to be honest. Your shape isn't going to change overnight and will be dependent on your diet over a long period. It's actually quite difficult to assess exactly what and when you've eaten over a week's period and it's very easy to misjudge. The only real way to do it is to keep a food diary of exactly what you eat and I guarantee you many people will be surprised when it's layed out in front of them.

My buddy who "eats like a horse" did this and it turned out while he might eat a whole pizza at 7pm for dinner he'd skip breakfast the next day and only have a sandwich and wedges or something for lunch. Dinner would then be deferred to 8pm that day and would consist of similar crap. In short, he ate a couple of big portions of rubbish a day at wholly irregular times and that wouldn't consist of a regular calorie surplus. Hence he'll stay skinny with little or no muscle growth.

Likewise many fat people I know who "are always dieting" or "eat healthily" eat a lot more sh*t than they let on, have carb-heavy meals all the time ("sure it isn't dinner/lunch without a spud/bread") and regularly consume an excessive calories surplus over a very long period of time contributing to steady fat gain. Many of these also do the wrong sort of exercise, make excuses not to do any at all or do it irregularly and intermittently.

Shenshen

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

You could be right in this specific example but in general I don't think you can accurately attribute someone's svelte figure to good genetics unless you follow them round for a period of months and track their caloric intake.

I often hear people saying something like "It's not fair, they always stuff themselves with fast food an chocolate and they don't gain a pound." Average BMR for a man is ~2500 calories. You could eat a hearty fry for breakfast (~500 calories), a chippers for lunch (say 1000 - 1500 calories) and still have room for a few Mars Bars while breaking even or staying in the red for the day.

Even in the example you've given it'd be possible for the average woman to maintain a stable weight provided they didn't snack excessively. (Dinner 800 kcal, Lunch 800 kcal, breakfast 400kcal - and the former two are very large portions for a lady).

All very true, and I've maintained my seriously obese weight throughout most of my adult weight by eating exactly the same as a slim person.

The problem is not necessarily to maintain weight. People might go through periods of serious stress in their lives, causing them to overeat massively and gain weight to the point of morbid obesity (I would be one such example). They then will have very little problem eating the recommended amount of calories each day and maintain the weight they have gained practically indefinitely.

The problem is to reduce the amount of calories they consume each day to way below that level, either by restricting diet or by increasing their level of activity.
And once the weight has been lost, the next (and usually the bigger challenge) is keeping the weight off. Most people who tried it will tell you about the yo-yo effect - there have been a few studies I've heard of showing that if people who lost a serious amount of weight went back to the recommended average calorie intake, their weight would jump up again significantly. The implication seems to be that not only do obese people need to reduce their calorie balance until they reach their desired weight, they need to keep it lower for a yet unspecified amount of time to then maintain the lower weight.

Essentially, overeating = gaining weight, eating recommended amount of calories = maintaining weight, not losing weight.

Zubeneschamali

Tail Docker wrote: »

Could just be jammy genes though.

Genes can't explain why people today are fatter than previous generations.

Tarzana

FTA69 wrote: »

I think Wibbs is right.

Like I said, I actually know these guys eat huge portions, one of them is my boyfriend, the other is his former roommate. I know what they eat and how much. I'm not making it up.

My BF will eat a pizza for dinner, and will still have breakfast the next day, and a large lunch and a large dinner. And rinse and repeat.

Wabbit Ears

There is no education in irish schools and never has been about diet. People dont know what damage they are doing by (sorry for flogging the point) letting a 3 year old eat in Mc Donalds once a week. Its ok, its a treat...and so on...
So unless you teach yourslef about good food or had good parents who taught it to you, basically society is fooked, it isnt prepared to deal with the very sudden shift from home cooking to shíte in a microwave, high fructose corn syrup everything and 4 thousand calorie meals.

Rough Sleeper

Tarzana wrote: »

Like I said, I actually know these guys eat huge portions, one of them is my boyfriend, the other is his former roommate. I know what they eat and how much. I'm not making it up.

My BF will eat a pizza for dinner, and will still have breakfast the next day, and a large lunch and a large dinner. And rinse and repeat.

You can do this without exceeding the caloric maintenance level of an average male.

Any key?

Shenshen wrote: »

All very true, and I've maintained my seriously obese weight throughout most of my adult weight by eating exactly the same as a slim person.

The problem is not necessarily to maintain weight. People might go through periods of serious stress in their lives, causing them to overeat massively and gain weight to the point of morbid obesity (I would be one such example). They then will have very little problem eating the recommended amount of calories each day and maintain the weight they have gained practically indefinitely.

The problem is to reduce the amount of calories they consume each day to way below that level, either by restricting diet or by increasing their level of activity.
And once the weight has been lost, the next (and usually the bigger challenge) is keeping the weight off. Most people who tried it will tell you about the yo-yo effect - there have been a few studies I've heard of showing that if people who lost a serious amount of weight went back to the recommended average calorie intake, their weight would jump up again significantly. The implication seems to be that not only do obese people need to reduce their calorie balance until they reach their desired weight, they need to keep it lower for a yet unspecified amount of time to then maintain the lower weight.

Essentially, overeating = gaining weight, eating recommended amount of calories = maintaining weight, not losing weight.

Best and healthiest way to lose weight is to lower calorie intake AND increase exercise.

I think the yo-yo problem for quite a few people comes from the fact that during their weight loss programme they work out a good bit. Once they are at a weight they are happy with people don't always maintain a somewhat healthy diet AND stay active. Or if they do one they don't do the other.

You really do need to do both, not just to be "slim" but to be healthy,avoid diabetes and heart disease at least in my experience

Shenshen

Any key? wrote: »

Best and healthiest way to lose weight is to lower calorie intake AND increase exercise.

I think the yo-yo problem for quite a few people comes from the fact that during their weight loss programme they work out a good bit. Once they are at a weight they are happy with people don't always maintain a somewhat healthy diet AND stay active. Or if they do one they don't do the other.

You really do need to do both, not just to be "slim" but to be healthy,avoid diabetes and heart disease at least in my experience

I try and avoid generalisations. People have told me throughout my life that to lose weight, I would need to reduce the calories I eat, and that exercise can help a little but will have little impact overall.

I've now stopped listening to what statistics say and found out that for me, exercise is in fact the key. I've lost a good amount since I started daily exercise about 2 years ago.

Statistics are great to tell you about averages in populations, but not quite so good when it comes to individual situations.

Wibbs

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

I often hear people saying something like "It's not fair, they always stuff themselves with fast food an chocolate and they don't gain a pound." Average BMR for a man is ~2500 calories. You could eat a hearty fry for breakfast (~500 calories), a chippers for lunch (say 1000 - 1500 calories) and still have room for a few Mars Bars while breaking even or staying in the red for the day.

+1. I saw this with an ex of mine and her roommate. The roommate was a big lass and she would regularly say that the ex "eats like a horse and never puts on an ounce, yet I can't look at food but I put on a dress size". Now I lived with this ex for a time so I saw what she ate and she ate feck all(and walked everywhere). Breakfast would consist of a steaming mug of nuclear coffee, lunch would be a small roll and half the time she wouldn't have a lunch and her dinner would be a wolfed down "meat and two veg" of an OK size. Because of their different work schedules(and the flatmate would head home at the weekends) the flatmate only ever saw her eat her dinner in the evening and concluded she ate like a horse. On the rare occasions the flatmate was around for a weekend she was eating two or three times the amount of food over a day.

Even in the example you've given it'd be possible for the average woman to maintain a stable weight provided they didn't snack excessively. (Dinner 800 kcal, Lunch 800 kcal, breakfast 400kcal - and the former two are very large portions for a lady).

Portions have defo gotten larger in my lifetime. Hell go out and look at an antique set of plates and check out the sizes compared to new plates today. The other factor is the genders differ in calorie needs. You sometimes see this if a couple start living together and she puts on the weight, but he stays the same. She's often unconsciously eating his portion sizes. Men with generally more lean mass can afford to eat more. Muscle chews through calories like a rabid dog. It's a very calorie expensive tissue, even when at rest. Hence pro bodybuilders have to positively shovel food in to supply it. It's even a theory why some earlier humans went extinct and we didn't. They were too damned muscular and when lean times hit they were more vulnerable. We skinny bastids with our pot bellys in the good times could survive the bad times more easily. They were a three litre "gas guzzlers" and we were 800cc hybrids. (IIRC estimates for Neandertals suggested they required 3500+ calories a day just to stay alive).

Shenshen wrote: »

Essentially, overeating = gaining weight, eating recommended amount of calories = maintaining weight, not losing weight.

+1 and very good point and I've seen this myself with mates who put weight on. For whatever reasons they started to eat more over a period of time, the weight crept up until one day they decided to do something about it. They had to eat less than they did before they put the weight on for it to work and do it for longer than it took to put the weight on. Not easy. Now these were guys trying to shift a stone or two, not four or five or more and the weight gain was fairly rapid and they were men so had a headstart anyway from a physiological point of view.

Shenshen

Wibbs wrote: »

Muscle chews through calories like a rabid dog. It's a very calorie expensive tissue, even when at rest. Hence pro bodybuilders have to positively shovel food in to supply it. It's even a theory why some earlier humans went extinct and we didn't. They were too damned muscular and when lean times hit they were more vulnerable. We skinny bastids with our pot bellys in the good times could survive the bad times more easily. They were a three litre "gas guzzlers" and we were 800cc hybrids. (IIRC estimates for Neandertals suggested they required 3500+ calories a day just to stay alive).

I've always wondered about the evolutionary aspect of obesity - I can't help wondering if the ability of so many people to store energy in the form of fat so effectively isn't something that evolution would have selected for previously.
Surely when food is in short supply, eating as much as you can when it's available is a good strategy for surviving the times of low food supply or even famine that you could almost certainly expect ahead?

Until quite recently, an instinct to overeat when possible would have been extremely beneficial. You would be a survivor. Now, with so much food available, an instinct like this can cause people serious damage.

Only previously, with less food and less nutritious food available, that instinct would not have led to people becoming obese. It would just have enabled them to survive longer and better, and to reproduce more.
Now we've got more food available than we can possibly need, and now that instinct becomes visible and noticeable by people becoming obese.

eyescreamcone

uch wrote: »

Dont go with that shít, I'm a fat little bolix, but my adult chizzlers are slim and tall, and my missus isn't that tall

Haha
Your kids?!
Haha

chellyry

conorh91 wrote: »

Was reminded of this by the Kindergarten thread, but in this case the consequences are more serious than personal appearance.

More than one quarter of 9-year olds in this country are already overweight or obese.

This statistic increases even further as children grow into teenage years.

We are walking into a serious health problem, it's time to stop tip-toeing around it.

Why are children growing up in a state of poor health? Are your children fat? Why is that?

Nope my boy isn't fat. He's only allowed a sweet once a week if he has been good for the week (apart from when the bold grandparents sneak them in - which isn't too often because they know he'll just tell me every single time ). Only started this recently too.

I'm so glad I didn't give in when he was younger though. When I'd bring him to anyone's house I'd bring my own bag of fruit and healthy food for him so that he would have something to eat when the others ate sweets. And the result is that he LOVES fruit. When I go to the supermarket he's begging me for fruit, which I gladly buy him. He'd happily sit down and eat a full punnet of strawberries/blueberries/grapes in one sitting if I let him. When he goes to the fridge it's to get fruit, not crap.

And not a hope in hell would I let him have MacDonalds yet, or anything out of a deep fat fryer for that matter. I want to hold off for as long as possible in the hope that he won't crave these foods more when he's older.

And he looks for veg with his dinner too. He'll eat up all of the carrots/corn on the cob before he'll have started the spud.

Tarzana

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

You can do this without exceeding the caloric maintenance level of an average male.

Trust me, based on their physical activity, they very much exceed what they need calories-wise. Non-physical office jobs, not very much exercise. Easily more than 2500 consumed per day. Easily. And I believe that the 2500 calories per day figure for men is too high anyway, unless in a physical job. I'm sorry that it goes against the general thesis, but some people can eat too much and not gain.

sfcdub

From being in schools, its not as if they don't get enough exercise, 45 minutes worth of breaks and at least an hour, added with more if the staff are proactive in having the kids up and about. And they're not all in playing the XBox all day, I'd say 75% or more of a typical primary class (2nd-6th class) are a member of some sort of club, be it football/gaa, scouts, dancing, etc.

The carbs could be the key. Lots have bans on junk food and sugar in the kids' lunches, but ya still see kids coming to school with lunchboxes filled with slice after slice of bread.

bboybaboy19

Tarzana wrote: »

Trust me, based on their physical activity, they very much exceed what they need calories-wise. Non-physical office jobs, not very much exercise. Easily more than 2500 consumed per day. Easily. And I believe that the 2500 calories per day figure for men is too high anyway, unless in a physical job. I'm sorry that it goes against the general thesis, but some people can eat too much and not gain.

2500 is very much on the money for the average. My daily intake to maintain weight was worked out at 3900 for my size muscle mass fat and activity level. I'm not anything special in terms of size either. Bigger than average but still on the small side IMO.

And yes on the carbs comment just there. Cut down them to less than 100grama a day and weight loss becomes effortless

recylingbin

Because bullying is a no no nowadays. At least 20 years ago, the fat kid got a run. And had his lunch money taken.
Win win.

conorh91

Cantstandsya wrote: »

The OP seems to be looking for parents to come into this thread, see his question and voluntarily offer themselves up as sacrificial lambs to the slaughter.

...So, let’s concede the point. Some kids are fat and some parents don’t give a **** about it. The parents might rightly be lambasted but it’s hardly the kids fault is it? So what’s the solution? We can all congregate on boards.ie feeling smug or maybe, as a society, we could accept some form of programme designed at reducing these fat kids’ plight? Of course many of the self-righteous boasters on here would baulk at any effort to help out those less fortunate kids who don’t have responsible parents as the only real options are likely to involve either taxing junk food or restricting access to it and advertising of it.

I hope you're not including me in that latter category.

I didn't start the thread to lambaste anybody. I started the thread because obesity is dangerous for human health, and hastens an individual's demise, and i am confused why parents allow it to happen in their families.

Death is inevitable. But hastening another individual's death, or visiting illness upon them without their control is a crime. Knowingly hastening your own child's death, or knowingly visiting illness upon your own child is something my brain just cannot process. I literally need it explained to me. I am asking because I am curious to know why people are doing it.

Rough Sleeper

sfcdub wrote: »

The carbs could be the key. Lots have bans on junk food and sugar in the kids' lunches, but ya still see kids coming to school with lunchboxes filled with slice after slice of bread.

But hambos and jambos have been staples of Irish kids' lunches since the invention of the sliced pan, and the diet of the older, thinner generation seemed very carb heavy - a dinner isn't a dinner unless there are at least big spuds on the plate. I don't think you can really single out that factor.

Bog Standard User

how many of ye look similiar to to this guy?

Fat Guy

Glock Lesnar

Skinny fat is the new thin, so many lads I went to school with have fallen into the trap already now that their sport careers are winding down, nothing worse than breasts and child bearing hips on a man.

bboybaboy19

Bog Standard User wrote: »

how many of ye look similiar to to this guy?

Fat Guy

That's not fat. That's morbidly horribly obese!

He could lose 60kg and still be fat I'd reckon

homemadecider

fleet_admiral wrote: »

My son eats what he wants and he gets a mc donalds once a week, He is as thin as a lat though as he gets mountains of exercise

fleet_admiral wrote: »

he is just coming up on 3 so I intend to get him involved with the cooking very soon

You bring a 2 year old to MacDonalds once a WEEK?? What is wrong with you? I'm guessing you are a portly parent?

Wibbs

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

But hambos and jambos have been staples of Irish kids' lunches since the invention of the sliced pan, and the diet of the older, thinner generation seemed very carb heavy - a dinner isn't a dinner unless there are at least big spuds on the plate. I don't think you can really single out that factor.

Aye, however portions of "meat and two veg" were smaller. I'd not be surprised to learn that one old stylee plate of lamb chop, peas and a couple of spuds would amount to half the calories of a take out chinner dinner and a third the calories of a bucket from KFC. Plus the same meat and two veg was/is bereft of most additives common today. Not just the MSG, but novel proteins that have only been in the Irish diet for a generation, crap meat heavily disguised with dubious sauces and spices(which are also a relatively recent addition to the Irish gut).

It would be my humble/theory/utter madness[delete as applicable] that different populations respond to different diets and traditional diets that are healthy for one population may be low level "poison" for another. EG soya and soy based products. Great if you're of Asian extraction, your peeps have been eating it for 2000 years so you've adapted to it. Pasty lad or ladess from Mayo, not so much. It's a new protein to the Irish gut. What's most likely to cause allergic reactions? Proteins. You may not have an obvious allergic reaction but it may be low level bad for you. Another example; milk and milk products. The same lad or ladess from Mayo will get benefit from it, but if you're of Indian extraction pebbledash the jacks time.

Take Coeliac disease, Irish folks have the highest percentage of it in Europe. One theory has it that this is because we substituted grains with the potato for a few centuries so the gluten protein adaptation of the agricultural revolution died off a little. If true this shows a pretty rapid selection for such a thing. That said when tracking genetic changes selected for diet since the agricultural revolution changes can be quite rapid. The ability to metabolise lactose in milk spread remarkably rapidly in the European neolithic.

homemadecider wrote: »

You bring a 2 year old to MacDonalds once a WEEK?? What is wrong with you? I'm guessing you are a portly parent?

Sounds like your high horse is both portly and tall.

berrygood

Where are all these fat children? I can only think of two in the area where I live. And I certainly don't see it when I'm out and about. Puppy fat, yes, but not obese. I see far more obese adults.

conorh91

Wibbs wrote: »

It would be my humble/theory/utter madness[delete as applicable] that different populations respond to different diets and traditional diets that are healthy for one population may be low level "poison" for another.

Working from memories of Leaving Cert Biology here, but yes I think the above is established in fact. Processed sugars had a devastating effect on populations in Oceania and Australasia. There is a serious obesity problem in those places because of the European diet's effect on the native populations DNA/RNA. It's all to do with epigenetics.

I'm sure someone will prove me wrong but that's my understanding.

Wibbs

I'd agree BG. I've found myself in the company of folks at weddings, christening, funerals and the like and in a fair few cases the general adults in the families present are pretty much all portly, but their kids aren't. They're the skinniest in the room. Funny enough in opposite land Spain has the highest childhood obesity problem in the EU, yet fat adults are rare to see on the streets of Spanish cities. When you do see someone like that they're very large, the early onset "middle aged spread" much more common here in people in their 20's is almost absent.

Just IMHO the very large and the very thin are generally outliers and have been and will be always around and are not a good basis to look at an overall population, it's the size of the "average folks" that tells you far more.