Obesity crisis in Ireland Mod Note post 1

FutureGuy

Wibbs wrote: »

Makes sense S as muscle is heavier than fat. So you're kinda like the rugby guys who would register as "obese" on BMI scales. If someone is shorter or taller it tends to go a bit off too.

I think a 7-point caliper test is fantastic and a far better indication of body comp than BMI.

Wibbs

I just tried my stats in a BMI calculator and apparently I'm "normal". T'is a rare test that says that about me.

Wibbs

FutureGuy wrote: »

I think a 7-point caliper test is fantastic and a far better indication of body comp than BMI.

I remember an ad for some diet thing or other in the 80's IIRC and the tagline was "can you pinch an inch" around your waist. Simplistic similar kinda thing I suppose?

That's before we get to hidden internal visceral fat. Which apparently is the more dangerous type. You can look average, even thin and your organs can be coated in fat internally.

facehugger99

GAA Beo wrote: »

Seen that on the news, they are obviously doing very well. Says it all doesn't it! The amount of take aways in our town is ridiculous, I assume it's the same in most others: subway, kfc, mcdonalds, 4 chineses, "italian" roma chippers, apache pizza, mizzoni, several kebab takeaways, indians, then several independent Irish outfits. No supermacs funny enough, they will probably throw in one soon.

Unreal the amount people are eating, most of these places are doing great business. Back in the day there was maybe 2-3 places. Thats not even counting the places now with deli counters and people getting the breakfast rolls etc.

It's true - I live in a small enough place (circa 15,000) and there's a Burger King, KFC, Supermacs, Micky D's, Domino's, plus at least 12 chippers ,6 or 7 kebab shops, half a dozen Chinese restaurants, 4 indian takeaways and every Spar, Centra and petrol station has a hot and greasy food counter - how the fcuk they all make a profit is beyond me but really scary.

Not to mention the numerous aisles at the Tescos, Dunnes and Lidls given over to convenience foods - i'm honestly surprised half the population hasn't dropped dead from cholesterol poisoning.

jonny74ie

rob316 wrote: »

Very strong gym culture in eastern Europe. Polish eat alot of simple home cooked food.

They also eat lots of fermented foods which works wonders for promoting healthy intestinal flora. Not like here where people are consuming way too much sugary foods that feed the bad bacteria.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

SusieBlue wrote: »

I just checked my BMI,out of interest.
According to the chart, I'm very overweight, and very close to becoming obese.

I'm a size 8-10 and have 17% body fat. My shape is lean and in proportion.
I'm not an athlete, I go to the gym 3/4 times a week, eat relatively well and get my 10k steps in.
I wouldn't consider myself to be super fit or anything like that.
Its no wonder people end up with complexes and eating disorders if they're using tools like that to determine whether they are at a healthy weight or not.

Its a very poor indicator. Body fat levels are so much more important than how much you weigh when you step on the scales.

I can only imagine the result it would have given me if I had used it last year before I changed my lifestyle a little bit and lost weight.

I’ve always found it bang on, to be honest. A little over the top of the healthy range, I looked chubby. Halfway through the overweight BMI category, I looked unmistakeably fat and at BMI 30, yup, I looked very, very, very fat. I’m an average, medium-framed woman. There’s nothing out of the ordinary about me and my body type. If I eat well and exercise, I look slim and good. If I go over the upper range of the healthy BMI for my weight, I begin to look chub.

And I don’t know you but to be blunt, in real life, anyone who I’ve heard complaining about its accuracy has been visibly overweight. I think for your average person, it’s a good general guide. I find it hard to believe that you are a size 8-10 and your BMI is nearly 30, unless you’re an athlete. I was so massively overweight at that BMI. Not just a little bit fat. Really, really fat. I’m short but height doesn’t matter. To reach that BMI at a tall height, you need to be a lot heavier than I was to reach 30. I wonder whether vanity sizing in shops has got out of control. If your measurements are larger than around 35-28-37, you’re larger than a size 10.

Wibbs

These generalised tests are pretty well... generalised. I mean above we have a woman who's a size 8-10 that's borderline obese on one such test and unless you're three feet tall no way is a size 8 within an asses roar of overweight. The calliper test seems far more rigorous and would allow for an individual's frame and general body composition. You could have two men the same height and taking the same measurements in clothes and one could have more lean tissue than the other.

I knew a lad years back and we were the same height and our frames were roughly similar, but he was heavier and just "bigger" for the want of a better word. More muscles, feck all fat. He ended coming down with some awful dose of an infection that required hospitalisation once or twice, but he thankfully recovered from it.

Anyway he lost a lot of weight during it and one time we were joking we were now the same weight, but god love him he looked like a ghoul at that weight. Like more suited to a trocaire box level. His girlfriend couldn't believe we were the same weight and got out the scales when I was in their gaff. He was actually a few pounds heavier than me.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

FutureGuy wrote: »

What's making things much worse is that if you try and point some of this online, you'll be accused of fat shaming. If you admit that you don't find a 20-stone woman as attractive as leaner and fitter women, you're a pig.

We are now being told that it's ok to be fat.

It's not ok. It's damaging. People need to take some responsibility for themselves.

I think the problem is that online in these types of threads, women’s weight tends to be focused on more than men’s even though a good deal more men are overweight or obese than women in this country. There was quite a disparity in the last stats I saw. 50/50 for women, whereas something like 70% of men were either overweight or obese.

LirW

I believe that the increase in obesity came with the shift in society that moved people working on fields and manually towards desks with little movement for 40 hours a week.
Nowadays both parents/partners work, so nobody is home, half the country spends a good chunk commuting as well.

This is the PERFECT breeding ground for the demand in fast and convenience food.
So now that many simply lack the time and skill of cooking, since it's not something that's really passed down and the average palate is rather unadventurous, it's not surprising that fast wins over nutritious.
There's only so much energy a working person with family commitments has, if you do 9-5 and have over an hour commute home, also need to squeeze an hour gym and a home cooked meal in, do a bit of housework and you won't be spending time with your children.

Unfortunately something has to give in these cases and cutting the healthy diet or regular exercise is the easiest. If you're working on a desk you have a hell of a lot to do to get your 10k steps daily.

And there's no point in a Holier than thou attitude by people that fit it all in. Not everyone's life is the same unfortunately.


Add: there are the money diaries in the journal and the amount of people that get regular takeaways and live of Chicken, steak and spuds and Spag Bol is astounding. But when you look at people's schedule it's not surprising to be honest.

TheBoyConor

Dalomanakora wrote: »

I really like IF just because it fits into my life easily.

I'm also in Slimming World, but the two combined work for me (before anyone complains about SW's war on fats, I use my "syns" and dairy allowances on full fat dairy), because I don't generally get hungry before 2-3pm. At that stage, I've already gone past my lunch break, so I just hold out a few hours til I'm home and voila, I can have a big ass lovely meal that fills me and keeps me happy.


It's more difficult when I'm bored on days off, but ultimately that's just me wanting to eat from boredom :pac:

I have a major issue with SW and the way they have this whole syns based points scoring system.
From the outset it creates a negative mindset surrounding food by calling certain foods or food types "syns". It is bringing in guilt and shame about food which is not helpful. That same guilt and shame can drive people to comfort eat. But hey, SW is a business and it is in their interests for their clients not to succeed and blame themselves when they don't so that they keep coming to SW.

SusieBlue

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’ve always found it bang on, to be honest. A little over the top of the healthy range, I looked chubby. Halfway through the overweight BMI category, I looked unmistakeably fat and at BMI 30, yup, I looked very, very, very fat. I’m an average, medium-framed woman. There’s nothing out of the ordinary about me and my body type. If I eat well and exercise, I look slim and good. If I go over the upper range of the healthy BMI for my weight, I begin to look chub.

And I don’t know you but to be blunt, in real life, anyone who I’ve heard complaining about its accuracy has been visibly overweight. I think for your average person, it’s a good general guide. I find it hard to believe that you are a size 8-10 and your BMI is nearly 30. I was so massively overweight at that BMI. Not just a little bit fat. Really, really fat. I’m short but height doesn’t matter. To reach that BMI at a tall height, you need to be a lot heavier than I was to reach 30. I wonder whether vanity sizing in shops has got out of control. If your measurements are larger than around 35-28-37, you’re larger than a size 10.

I've used two calculators, one gives me a BMI of 26.32, classing me as overweight, the other as extremely overweight (and closer to the obese end of the scale). I'm of average height and have a smaller frame.

I've been training consistently for just under a year, and have gone down 3 dress sizes but have only lost about 19lb.
I have previously been this weight in the past, but wore a bigger dress size, presumably because I had a lot more body fat back then.

I'd be consistently an 8-10 in most shops, River Island, Topshop, Asos etc, usually a 10 in jeans and an 8 in dresses because I prefer a tight fit.
Penneys definitely do vanity sizing, there is nothing "new and improved" about it, I bought a pair of size XS leggings in there last week and they were falling down on me. I am most certainly not a size XS so their sizing is all over the place.

My measurements would be smaller than those you listed as well, I just weigh a lot more than I look.

I put in my starting weight from before I started training last year out of interest and it classed me as severely obese. I was definitely chubby, definitely needed to slim down but most definitely not severely obese.
I'm not convinced on the accuracy of it as a tool at all.

If I had checked that last year before changing my lifestyle it would have put me in the depths of despair.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

Zorya wrote: »

I generally agree with you that a lot of people can make excuses. But that 8% figure in a time with less fast food, sugar, disposable income, drink, more exercise etc., suggests that there are a core of people who get over weight for what might be called complex issues. Some due to medication, some due to traumatic abuse, some due to illness, some due to grieving, and so on. So, one can't know looking at a person what is the reason they are overweight. Some people when desperately sad or worried will fade away and others will balloon up. There but for grace go I.

Agreed that some people are overweight for medical or psychological reasons -- but I don't think the number of genuine cases is especially large.

The vast majority of overweight people have piled on the pounds due to poor diet, lack of exercise, and a sedentary lifestyle. But they can't accept responsibility for their own weight gain, and so out come the sob stories about how they're overweight due to X, Y, and Z, none of which is their fault.

Human beings are very good at rationalizing, making excuses, blaming others, and avoiding responsibility.

In reality, though, most people are overweight because of an unhealthy lifestyle. Even moderate changes to eating habits and activity levels can be transformative over time. Lose just half a pound a week by eating slightly less and exercising a bit more, and you'll lose over two stones in the course of a year.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

SusieBlue wrote: »

I've used two calculators, one gives me a BMI of 26.32, classing me as overweight, the other as extremely overweight (and closer to the obese end of the scale). I'm of average height and have a smaller frame.

I've been training consistently for just under a year, and have gone down 3 dress sizes but have only lost about 19lb.
I have previously been this weight in the past, but wore a bigger dress size, presumably because I had a lot more body fat back then.

I'd be consistently an 8-10 in most shops, River Island, Topshop, Asos etc, usually a 10 in jeans and an 8 in dresses because I prefer a tight fit.
Penneys definitely do vanity sizing, there is nothing "new and improved" about it, I bought a pair of size XS leggings in there last week and they were falling down on me. I am most certainly not a size XS so their sizing is all over the place.

My measurements would be smaller than those you listed as well, I just weigh a lot more than I look.

I put in my starting weight from before I started training last year out of interest and it classed me as severely obese. I was definitely chubby, definitely needed to slim down but most definitely not severely obese.
I'm not convinced on the accuracy of it as a tool at all.

If I had checked that last year before changing my lifestyle it would have put me in the depths of despair.

There’s something amiss there. No two BMI calculators should be giving different results. There’s just one formula. If you are size 8-10, I think the one that gave you 26.something is the right one. But you shouldn’t be getting different results from different BMI calculators.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Amaris Repulsive Golfer wrote: »

Agreed that some people are overweight for medical or psychological reasons -- but I don't think the number of genuine cases is especially large.

The vast majority of overweight people have piled on the pounds due to poor diet, lack of exercise, and a sedentary lifestyle. But they can't accept responsibility for their own weight gain, and so out come the sob stories about how they're overweight due to X, Y, and Z, none of which is their fault.

Human beings are very good at rationalizing, making excuses, blaming others, and avoiding responsibility.

In reality, though, most people are overweight because of an unhealthy lifestyle. Even moderate changes to eating habits and activity levels can be transformative over time. Lose just half a pound a week by eating slightly less and exercising a bit more, and you'll lose over two stones in the course of a year.

Human beings are also very good at judging. Excess weight is a flaw that one carries on their person but we aaaallll have flaws.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

If you know your weight in kg and your height in metres, then:

BMI = kg/m^2

If someone is 1.8 m tall, his height in metres squared is 3.24. So his BMI is 80/3.24, or 24.7.

LirW

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Human beings are also very good at judging. Excess weight is a flaw that one carries on their person but we aaaallll have flaws.

Weight is a very obvious flaw unfortunately. For some reason fat people get told constantly that not worthy of respect, not worthy of love and not worthy of nice things to wear because, well, they're fat and have no self-control.
While a person that maintains a healthy weight despite a poor diet and no exercise or even people with eating disorders don't have to listen to the same.

No matter how much your weight is, you're still worthy of love and respect. I have no idea where this misconception comes from.

Zorya

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

but we aaaallll have flaws.

How very dare you!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LirW wrote: »

Weight is a very obvious flaw unfortunately. For some reason fat people get told constantly that not worthy of respect, not worthy of love and not worthy of nice things to wear because, well, they're fat and have no self-control.
While a person that maintains a healthy weight despite a poor diet and no exercise or even people with eating disorders don't have to listen to the same.

No matter how much your weight is, you're still worthy of love and respect. I have no idea where this misconception comes from.

Absolutely. Is that skinny fat person with hidden fat around their vital organs super healthy?

DEFTLEFTHAND

LirW wrote: »

Weight is a very obvious flaw unfortunately. For some reason fat people get told constantly that not worthy of respect, not worthy of love and not worthy of nice things to wear because, well, they're fat and have no self-control.
While a person that maintains a healthy weight despite a poor diet and no exercise or even people with eating disorders don't have to listen to the same.

No matter how much your weight is, you're still worthy of love and respect. I have no idea where this misconception comes from.

It's the same way how smokers get looked down upon or alchos or drug addicts.

We're naturally programmed to discourage unhealthy lifestyles. It's just what humans do.

However that doesn't give anyone the right to be cruel and nasty to people suffering from obesity.

Zorya

Funny thing is though that a fair amount of the skinny gal pals I have who are older are champion smokers. So, sure, they look skinny, but feck - it ain't the way to go.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Zorya wrote: »

Funny thing is though that a fair amount of the skinny gal pals I have who are older are champion smokers. So, sure, they look skinny, but feck - it ain't the way to go.

I remember Kate Moss stating that smoking was nearly like part of the job when she first entered the modeling profession 25 yrs ago. It suppresses appetite.

I'd imagine that it's still quite prevalent in the industry.

LirW

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's the same way how smokers get looked down upon or alchos or drug addicts.

We're naturally programmed to discourage unhealthy lifestyles. It's just what humans do.

However that doesn't give anyone the right to be cruel and nasty to people suffering from obesity.

The way we currently live has a lot to do with it.
We're seeing wealth and a well paying job as our top priority, beside that we need a nice home, a great car, we need to look good and we need to be available at all time. Also we should all have two healthy children that again will go into that cycle.
Now unfortunately many people have naturally poor stress resistance which drives people to smoke, to comfort eat, to drugs.

We're on a large scale completely dismissive of how important mental and physical health is, we're not teaching our children that health is wealth because we know they need to compete on other levels. Unless it's monetized health with gym classes, cross fit or slimming world we don't care too much.

Our general lifestyle is not healthy, we're overworked (and work is mundane in many cases and ties is into the unnatural seated position), we're constantly stimulated and we prioritise monetary wealth over a simpler, healthier life. Money can't buy you health unfortunately even if the weight-loss industry tells you so.

The problem on a large scale is a lot more complex than just praying down the nutritional pyramid and counting calories. It works for individuals but it doesn't help an unhealthy society as a whole.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Zorya wrote: »

Funny thing is though that a fair amount of the skinny gal pals I have who are older are champion smokers. So, sure, they look skinny, but feck - it ain't the way to go.

And super skinny is not even healthy or attractive anyway. Underweight is just as bad as being overweight.

ceadaoin.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I remember Kate Moss stating that smoking was nearly like part of the job when she first entered the modeling profession 25 yrs ago. It suppresses appetite.

I'd imagine that it's still quite prevalent in the industry.

I don't think thats all she and other models use to suppress her appetite and stay skinny tbh! Coke is rampant in the industry.

Ive known plenty of overweight smokers.

Zorya

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Ive known plenty of overweight smokers.

Yes that is true too.

wakka12

Just worry about your own health, it's their life and they can do as they please, they are adults that shouldnt need the government or others to step in to make decisions on their health for them , let them die early if they are that lazy

Edgware

The good news is that Supermac has major expansion plans nationwide. No more of that Operation Transformation rubbish

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

wakka12 wrote: »

Just worry about your own health, it's their life and they can do as they please, they are adults that shouldnt need the government or others to step in to make decisions on their health for them , let them die early if they are that lazy

People usually step in at this point and cite the cost to the health service. Brace yourself.

joe40

It seems to me that we are heading in a very two tier society, there are a large number of people very health focused, good diets, plenty of exercise moderate alcohol. I know some young people and the gym is an important social outlet.
Then there is the other extreme, far too much fast/processed food, sedentary lifestyle etc.
When bad habits and poor lifestyle choices are embedded, they are very difficult to break. I'm all for personal freedom but I hate to see overweight kids, it will be very hard to then lose weight in later life.
Once you have excess weight your body will fight to keep it.

Sabre0001

There is certainly an element of laziness (and some time issues) at play - kids getting sausage rolls before school, whatever crap is in the canteen (something could be encouraged from a higher up power here) or sweets, and ready meal dinners.

Kids aren't walking to school. At least those push scooters get them moving a little - but they need to remember to switch legs or we're going to have issues with teenagers and adults who veer to a side when walking (or get stuck in loops). I'm also unsure as to how much activity is being encouraged in school - is P.E. still done in schools (particularly in secondary now that it's an examinable subject), are kids still encouraged to play in schoolyards now that parents will sue over any little bump or bruise?

However, people are still in the dark regarding calories and particularly portion size - we burn through sweets and snacks in particular, but I imagine we also grossly overestimate how much "good stuff" we should eat - meat, pasta, potatoes, etc. I would like to see calories listed on menus - people say it ruins a night out / treat, but it doesn't have to. It just gives you more knowledge so you know "I'm likely going to have 1,500 calories later...I'll eat less today / the rest of this week to balance".