nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Truth about Obesity

learn_more

A shocking deliberate ignorance of the contents off food.

And a shocking attitude of spending less in lieu of eating well.

Every foodstuff has varying percentages of protein/carbohydrates/fats. ( macros)

That's 3 things. Even someone with the lowest IQ ever can understand this.

Tactic 1: Playing Dumb

Playing Dumb: Please tell me what macros are in every single foodstuff you can buy, otherwise I haven't a clue.

Playing Dumb: I buy a pizza and I don't know what it's made up off, veg and bread. Don't know what veg is, don't know what bread is.

Playing Dumb: I don't know how to cook. Boiling something is completely beyond my skill set, yet sticking a pizza in the oven , is.

Tactic 2: Normalising Junk food.

1. Full English breakfast.

Junk food: Greasy sausages, ketchup, baked beans ( sugar) , sauces. Fried.

2. Fish and chips.

Junk Food: The kind you get in a take-away. The Brits say it's their signature dish. No wonder the French hate the English. Yummy deep fried food.

3. Italian food ( pasta and pizza )

Junk Food: Nothing wrong with pasta but the sauces Irish ppl eat with it are full of sugar and salt. Tasty. Sure.

4. Drink

Junk Food: All fake drinks like cola and orange flavoured drinks. Horrible sugar infested drinks that are per gulp are quite expensive.

5. Breakfast cereals

Junk Food: Weird unnatural 'things' in your cereal bowl. Pour on full fat milk to make is seem your being healthy.

Tactic 3: Emotional Excuses

1: My lad loves his coco pops in the morning.
2. I love to see the joy on my kids face when I give them a few coco bottles
3. They keep badgering me for a few treats, I just have to give in.

The Truth

I don't think there is a person with 2 brain cells who doesn't know what good food is.

People who eat unhealthily surround themselves with people who eat unhealthily, and if that means their children will be unhealthy too, then so be it.

And this is my final point. People would rather spend less of their wages than spend it on good food. Stinge. You can buy a peppeorin pizza in tesco for 99cent. It's quite tasty too. Once every 2 months though, not ever other day.

I worked in catering as a cook for years. Most of cooking is laboriousness chopping and cleaning. This is the thing ppl want to avoid and pretend 'they cant cook'.

Final final point: If the government put a huge tax on sugary drinks and junk food, I'd be all for it. I think the motivation for eating bad food is born out a tightness of money, and if cheepiness and lazyness were taken out of the equation, I bet ya, suddenly ppl would be able to cook proper food.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

pwurple

Maybe it's not that simple. Maybe genetics play a part. Maybe hormones play a part. Maybe culture plays a part.

I have two children. 1 is bang on in the middle of every percentile chart. Average height, weight, 50th percentile all the way. Just like me pretty much in terms of size profile. Average boring boring.

Her younger sister is 99th percentile for height and weight. She's 3 years younger, but about the same height and weight has her older sister. They are given the same things for breakfast, lunch and dinner every day. No cereals, porridge and home made bread all the way. Milk or water to drink, only. Plenty of fish in their diets. Not even a fruit juice has passed their lips. We homecook everything they eat, and grow a shedload of it. I give the same portion sizes, they were both breastfed at the start. Child 1 eats 3/4 of it and says I'm full. Child 2 eats the whole lots and cries until there is more. She takes her sisters leftovers.. She is just hungrier all the damn time.

Same house, same food, same parents. Two different outcomes.

All my husband's sisters are around 6ft and in the 25-28 BMI range I'd guess. They eat real food, but with my two kids and the differences I see between them, I'm convinced at this stage that his family are just larger humans than me.

Wibbs

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Disagree with this.

That kind of diet (I don't eat paleo ftr) saved my ass and it worked far better than any counting calories/macro bullshìt did before.

So you basically ate a diet of meat and two veg like your grandparents? Grandparents who weren't fat no doubt? It has nada to do with any paleo/caveman diet. That shíte's bogus as all hell. Atkins is a slightly different angle of quackery. But yes these do work. Why? Because you won't stuff your face with stodge and pizza and pasta and all that crap. Stuff we didn't eat two generations back.

Oh and for me calories are a a bit of a nonsense. Kinda like BMI. At best a vague guide for the low of brow. In reality they mean feck all when looked at more closely. EG "alcohol has lotsa calories". Eh yeah, of course it does, it burns like feck and you could run your car on the pure form. However your body treats it(basically) like a poison and seeks to excrete it. It doesn't "turn it into fat". You won't, nay can't get fat on vodka and tonic. You get fat on beer from the sugars, the pseudo oestrogens and the sugar laden filthy kebab afterwards.

Plus "calories" from meat are very different to "calories" from cake. Put it another way; test a lump of coal for calories. It'll come back very high in same. Adding powdered coal to your food won't put a single ounce on your arse or gut, no matter how much you add.

wakka12

screamer wrote: »

Obesity is a complex and multi faceted issue. One factor you forgot is time - good takes time to prepare and cook. Time is a precious commodity that a lot of people don't have between huge work schedules and commuting etc so it's quicker to pickups takeaway or something that can be thrown in the oven or fryer...... but sure keep tarring everyone there with that ould brush......

Emphasis on 'quicker' , its completely possible to eat healthily even with the most hectic work schedule. You're just making excuses for your unhealthy eating if you think otherwise.

Alf Veedersane

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I'm increasingly skeptical about calories in/out, especially because your body is a non linear system which doesn't seem to obey the laws of thermodynamics.

Any 'diet' that you have engaged in that resulted in losing weight was because you burned more calories than you consumed.

Calories in/calories out is a model. A good model will capture enough of a system's complexity to ensure it useful but encompasses some but all factors in an effort to make it user friendly.

Yes, things are not that straightforward in the body: it’s essentially impossible to pin down an exact value for either “calories in” or “calories out” under reasonable conditions.

Carbs, protein and fat take different amounts of energy for the body to process. They can also influence hormones like leptin and thyroid hormones that change your metabolic rate. Other hormones, like cortiso,l alter the relative amounts of each type of fuel your body is using, i.e. fatty acids, proteins, or carbohydrate.

But the fact is that calories in/calories out is a model. It's not a perfect model and no one thinks it captures all oft he complexity of the human body.

But it works well enough.

Wibbs

pwurple wrote: »

They eat real food, but with my two kids and the differences I see between them, I'm convinced at this stage that his family are just larger humans than me.

Yep. People differ quite a bit. Some are just bigger than others out of the box. There's simply more flesh and bone to start with. Earlier in the thread a chap the same height as me chimed in with what it seems is a healthy weight for him, but at which weight I'd be a porky feck. My frame can't handle much extra and you'll see half a stone/ a few kilos on me.

I would say though that this range is fine within some boundaries which you'd find in a healthy population. So bigger and smaller, but not anorexics or the obese. The latter are more in evidence. Now we're nowhere near the US, or even the UK from what I've seen, but what is seen as "normal" has got bigger.

pumpkin4life

Wibbs wrote: »

So you basically ate a diet of meat and two veg like your grandparents? Grandparents who weren't fat no doubt? It has nada to do with any paleo/caveman diet. That shíte's bogus as all hell. Atkins is a slightly different angle of quackery. But yes these do work. Why? Because you won't stuff your face with stodge and pizza and pasta and all that crap. Stuff we didn't eat two generations back.

Oh and for me calories are a a bit of a nonsense. Kinda like BMI. At best a vague guide for the low of brow. In reality they mean feck all when looked at more closely. EG "alcohol has lotsa calories". Eh yeah, of course it does, it burns like feck and you could run your car on the pure form. However your body treats it(basically) like a poison and seeks to excrete it. It doesn't "turn it into fat". You won't, nay can't get fat on vodka and tonic. You get fat on beer from the sugars, the pseudo oestrogens and the sugar laden filthy kebab afterwards.

Plus "calories" from meat are very different to "calories" from cake. Put it another way; test a lump of coal for calories. It'll come back very high in same. Adding powdered coal to your food won't put a single ounce on your arse or gut, no matter how much you add.

Yep. The paleo diet is crap because of its hypothesis: you don't get fat if you "eat like a caveman". You have people wonder what to eat, or count calories, or to starve themselves, which doesnt work. Paleo is a pretty sound solid guide in terms of healthy eating, (just loads of meat fish and veg) one of the sounder easier ones to understand, especially if you don't know why the fùck is going on with your health and you're looking for a plan to apply.

Personally, I think its sugar/excessive carbohydrates and metabolism dysfunction and insulin sensitivity which is the issue.

Good stuff (I agree) about calories especially on the cake/meat thing.

andekwarhola

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

I'm just under 6ft tall and 13 stone and I love bacon and cheese fries. I eat far worse than some people I know that are in very bad shape.

It would be very easy to hold your views if you are not prone to putting on weight...

Presumably you're young enough? If so, throw another 15 years into the mix and report back.

jameorahiely

It's glandular, everyones.

pwurple

Wibbs wrote: »

pwurple wrote: »

They eat real food, but with my two kids and the differences I see between them, I'm convinced at this stage that his family are just larger humans than me.

Yep. People differ quite a bit. Some are just bigger than others out of the box. There's simply more flesh and bone to start with. Earlier in the thread a chap the same height as me chimed in with what it seems is a healthy weight for him, but at which weight I'd be a porky feck. My frame can't handle much extra and you'll see half a stone/ a few kilos on me.

I would say though that this range is fine within some boundaries which you'd find in a healthy population. So bigger and smaller, but not anorexics or the obese. The latter are more in evidence. Now we're nowhere near the US, or even the UK from what I've seen, but what is seen as "normal" has got bigger.

Absolutely.
I am currently working with a self-described 'health nut'. She only eats from health food shops, imported quinoa, protein powders etc. Breakfast bars. herbal teas. Talks non stop about food.
But I have never met a more unhealthy looking 20-something woman in my life. She is underweight, very very picky about food, and obsessed with working out. Her skin is in bits. She has what looks to me like a hormone imbalance from being underweight (basically facial hair she has to remove every day). She said she has re-flux, pain and diarrhea almost constantly.
There is a wide enough range of normal, but my goodness people are completely obsessed with the extremes. I know very few obese people, and very few malnourished. but sure some overweight and underweight. I just wish everyone would leave each other alone though and stop banging on about it, because this poor yoke I work with thinks of nothing else and is headed to an early grave from what I can see. And honestly, I can see why. She has been bombarded almost constantly with it for her whole life. It's crazy.

KungPao

I've slowly went from 80 odd kgs to 73kg since I gave up pork and poultry plus lamb etc. I think our addiction to sausages and rashers and processed chicken is a big reason for the weight gain in Ireland.

I still drink beer, eat chips (but usually homemade and oven cooked) and have treats like crisps and the odd takeaway. No real sacrifices made, but lost weight. I just keep an eye on portion sizes and don't stuff my face till I can't move any more.

For some people it can be hard to shift weight but many are in denial and are just looking for excuses.

Hammer89

It's pretty ironic that your man's username is 'learn more' and yet he hasn't bothered to learn anything about over eating before launching this mess of a thread.

learn_more wrote: »

I worked in catering as a cook for years. Most of cooking is laboriousness chopping and cleaning. This is the thing ppl want to avoid and pretend 'they cant cook'.

Oh, sorry. I was under the impression that you had no idea what you were talking about, but then I read you worked "in catering as a cook for years".

And obviously chopping carrots and parsnips every day makes you an expert as to why people over eat, in the same way that barmen who pull pints are experts on alcoholism and the girls who work in Paddy Power are qualified to speak authoritatively about gambling addictions.

Wow.

sbsquarepants

There's no conspiracy by food companies, or self help book companies or any other bollox like that.

It's very simple - society moves faster than evolution. We evolved for millennia, eeking out an existence as glorified scavengers. Less food and hard work to get it meant people stayed slim, by and large. Any excess food your body evolved to store for the inevitable shortages it would experience in the near future.

Problem is now, those shortages simply don't arise - there are no lean periods, or if there are as in self imposed diets, they tend to be followed by binges.
It's is perfectly simple - if you are fat, you eat too much. We should stop telling ourselves lies and looking for scapegoats - it's black and white. If you're fat, you have over eaten, end of story. If you want to loose weight - eat less food. Unfortunately that doesn't sell books, however effective it is.
People want to be told it's not their fault, they won't pay to hear that it is!

aaronjumper

All this anger and condescension is making me hungry. Luckily I've crisps right here.

Shenshen

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There's no conspiracy by food companies, or self help book companies or any other bollox like that.

It's very simple - society moves faster than evolution. We evolved for millennia, eeking out an existence as glorified scavengers. Less food and hard work to get it meant people stayed slim, by and large. Any excess food your body evolved to store for the inevitable shortages it would experience in the near future.

Problem is now, those shortages simply don't arise - there are no lean periods, or if there are as in self imposed diets, they tend to be followed by binges.
It's is perfectly simple - if you are fat, you eat too much. We should stop telling ourselves lies and looking for scapegoats - it's black and white. If you're fat, you have over eaten, end of story. If you want to loose weight - eat less food. Unfortunately that doesn't sell books, however effective it is.
People want to be told it's not their fault, they won't pay to hear that it is!

I think it's always easy to say "eat less food". As you yourself stated quite clearly, you're fighting your own biology and millenia of evolution whenever you try. So while it's a very simple 3 words, they hide a reality of a world of pain and misery for many people.

It's a bit like saying the solution to avoiding STDs and unwanted pregnancies is "don't have sex". Another three easy words that try and fight human nature and fail miserably.

I'm not saying I've got the answer to solve the problem, but I can't help thinking that if the solution was actually this easy, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

Parchment

Genetics play a huge part in it. Your weight doesn't determine your health or fitness.

I am a tall size 10 and have been left for dead by people much larger than me in many running races.

We come in all different shapes and sizes - look at the animal world, its the same for us. Some of us are larger, some of us are smaller, taller, thinner, broader...whatever.

It is important to care for your health, get exercise and eat well most of the time but being thin or not obese doesnt mean you are healthy. Some people are just not meant to be thin - its not in their genetic makeup.

ScumLord

Bros, bros, the OP has read his first self help book, He's on a personal journey of learning and self exploration, he doesn't know it's going to end in disappointment and a head full of irrelevant nonsense that alienates him from normal society... Bros.

dub_skav wrote: »

Also, the term macros is used, so you know it's an expert speaking.

The only macros I know of are in Access and excel. Bro.

Shenshen

Parchment wrote: »

Genetics play a huge part in it. Your weight doesn't determine your health or fitness.

I am a tall size 10 and have been left for dead by people much larger than me in many running races.

We come in all different shapes and sizes - look at the animal world, its the same for us. Some of us are larger, some of us are smaller, taller, thinner, broader...whatever.

It is important to care for your health, get exercise and eat well most of the time but being thin or not obese doesnt mean you are healthy. Some people are just not meant to be thin - its not in their genetic makeup.

I've actually recently been wondering if we've got it a bit arseways and if obesity is not the actual problem itself but merely a symptom. I wonder if the real problem is not so much the food we eat or don't eat, but the exercise we get.
So maybe we shouldn't throw everything we can at getting people to get thin, but try and get people to work out more physically.

beggars_bush

Flimpson wrote: »

The truth about obesity is that it's caused by consuming too much calories and expending too few. That's the extent of it - not sure overthinking it is necessary.

WHY people consume too much calories can be a more complex matter (yeah sometimes just sheer gluttony/laziness, but other times food addiction, food as a go-to to deal with trauma - like how alcohol can be abused).

Not all calories are equal though

A calorie from a carrot is different to one from a doughnut

Parchment

Shenshen wrote: »

I've actually recently been wondering if we've got it a bit arseways and if obesity is not the actual problem itself but merely a symptom. I wonder if the real problem is not so much the food we eat or don't eat, but the exercise we get.
So maybe we shouldn't throw everything we can at getting people to get thin, but try and get people to work out more physically.

People tout exercise and fitness/diet as how you sculpt your body and lose weight.

It should be promoted as a way to feel good and keep healthy. Removing the aesthetic element from exercise makes it accessible to everyone - its about feeling good and looking after yourself - not losing weight....as some wont lose weight as thats not how their body works.

I say this as someone who battled with exercise obsession for many years.

ScumLord

Shenshen wrote: »

I've actually recently been wondering if we've got it a bit arseways and if obesity is not the actual problem itself but merely a symptom. I wonder if the real problem is not so much the food we eat or don't eat, but the exercise we get.
So maybe we shouldn't throw everything we can at getting people to get thin, but try and get people to work out more physically.

I'd agree with that. I don't really accept that "processed foods" are as bad as people make out. It's just really effecient food. If you were to use up the energy it wouldn't be a problem. I remember seeing videos of a heavy weight UFC champion years ago going to a restaurant with friends and ordering dozens of burritos, he thought the best thing about being a heavyweight champion was he could eat as much as he liked because he trained so hard.

Glenster

learn_more wrote: »

A shocking deliberate ignorance of the contents off food.

And a shocking attitude of spending less in lieu of eating well.

Every foodstuff has varying percentages of protein/carbohydrates/fats. (macros)..............................

Immediately stopped reading at macros,

macros = a big, boring and ultimately ignorant rant about food science from someone who follows too many exercise people on snapchat

[Deleted User]

I like how he's come right out with the IQ stuff, instead of just implying fat people are stupid as well as lazy, like the majority who've come out with exactly the same thing with different phrasing many times before.

OP, I'm sure you're a model of moral and physical superiority and AH is enriched and chastened by your insights. Thanks for sharing.

storker

Shenshen wrote: »

I wonder if the real problem is not so much the food we eat or don't eat, but the exercise we get.
So maybe we shouldn't throw everything we can at getting people to get thin, but try and get people to work out more physically.

Could be, but they do say that more weight is lost in the kitchen than in the gym. One thing I would agree with the OP about is cooking. I'm not saying it's easy as piercing the film and putting something in the microwave, but it isn't anything like as difficult as is sometimes made out - in particular by those companies whose aim is to sell convenience food. Remember that ad with the woman taking the pneumatic drill into the kitchen with hard hat and goggles so she could make soup? Funny, to be sure, but note the implied messages "this is too difficult", "it's not worth it", "let us do it for you". Rubbish, you chop some vegetables, put them in a pot, add some stock, boil/simmer until soft, blend, done.

Yes it is difficult to have the energy for cooking when you get in from work, especially if both are working, but it just takes a bit of planning and scaling up i.e. make lots in the one session get two or three dinners out of it except one (especially good for one-pots). Also there is no shortage of quick and easy recipes for midweek.

I think back to my parents time, they ate red meat (but less frequently than we do), fish (more regularly than we do), cheese, full-fat milk, white bread, etc, and fried in lard - and if you look at the family photos, you'll see very few overweight people. I think the main difference is they snacked a lot less and walked a lot more. Also biscuits and cakes were more of a treat than they are today, and of course the convenience foods just weren't there. I also suspect that the composition of bread has changed and the even white bread was healthier back then than it is today. Now that I think of it, they probably danced a lot more too. Seriously.

Do I qualify for a tactic number?

kunst nugget

beggars_bush wrote: »

A calorie from a carrot is different to one from a doughnut

Sniff… poor doughnut calories. It's not their fault they were born into an unjust and inhumane society…

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all calories are created equal!!!"

Shenshen

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd agree with that. I don't really accept that "processed foods" are as bad as people make out. It's just really effecient food. If you were to use up the energy it wouldn't be a problem. I remember seeing videos of a heavy weight UFC champion years ago going to a restaurant with friends and ordering dozens of burritos, he thought the best thing about being a heavyweight champion was he could eat as much as he liked because he trained so hard.

I've got my grandmother in mind - she couldn't comprehend why I was a fat child, when she herself would have eaten portions 3 to 4 times the size of what I was eating when she had been my age. But then she would have been working on the farm from daybreak to sunset, heavy manual work, she must have easily gone through 5 - 6k calories a day.

It's a bit more than that, though. Medical research relies heavily on correlations in order to provide statistics about health. It's very hard to actually prove cause and effect, as bodies are such complex machines. And I'm wondering if we're not focusing too much on obesity as being the cause of many ailments when in reality it's just another effect.
What if obesity doesn't "cause" type II diabetes? What if it's really caused by a lifestyle that's too sedentary, but such a lifestyle is also more likely to cause obesity?

I'm not a medical professional, I'm hardly even an amateur. I'm just generally curious, is all.
And I'm one of those people who are morbidly obese, but perfectly healthy (I get regular check-ups) and reasonably fit (I've no problem going for a 30km cycle over a good few hills once or twice a week, I swim, I hike, and if the weather is too bad for all of these I do a bit of yoga). If obesity was the cause of so many problems in so many people, I'm just wondering why I have none of those problems, being in my 40s now and having been obese since late childhood.

Shenshen

storker wrote: »

Could be, but they do say that more weight is lost in the kitchen than in the gym. One thing I would agree with the OP about is cooking. I'm not saying it's easy as piercing the film and putting something in the microwave, but it isn't anything like as difficult as is sometimes made out - in particular by those companies whose aim is to sell convenience food. Remember that ad with the woman taking the pneumatic drill into the kitchen with hard hat and goggles so she could make soup? Funny, to be sure, but note the implied messages "this is too difficult", "it's not worth it", "let us do it for you". Rubbish, you chop some vegetables, put them in a pot, add some stock, boil/simmer until soft, blend, done.

Yes it is difficult to have the energy for cooking when you get in from work, especially if both are working, but it just takes a bit of planning and scaling up i.e. make lots in the one session get two or three dinners out of it except one (especially good for one-pots). Also there is no shortage of quick and easy recipes for midweek.

I think back to my parents time, they ate red meat (but less frequently than we do), fish (more regularly than we do), cheese, full-fat milk, white bread, etc, and fried in lard - and if you look at the family photos, you'll see very few overweight people. I think the main difference is they snacked a lot less and walked a lot more. Also biscuits and cakes were more of a treat than they are today, and of course the convenience foods just weren't there. I also suspect that the composition of bread has changed and the even white bread was healthier back then than it is today. Now that I think of it, they probably danced a lot more too. Seriously.

Do I qualify for a tactic number?

There certainly was less sweet stuff around in the form of cakes and chocolates, but sugar was already cheap enough - my grandparents would always have 3 or 4 teaspoons in their coffee. And I'm not sure if white bread was any healthier back then.

But yes, more walking, more effort in keeping the house clean, working in the garden or the allotment (in the case of my parents and grandparents)... just a whole lot less sitting down in general.

Maximus Alexander

Wibbs wrote: »

Now we're nowhere near the US, or even the UK from what I've seen, but what is seen as "normal" has got bigger.

This is definitely true. I never had a lot of weight on me, I was always relatively 'slim' (well, bar a six month period when I was about 12 but we won't talk about that

). But a year or so ago I started getting seriously into running. I didn't even lose (much) weight. Just my legs and stomach toned up and some of the fat burned off.

I'm 6'2 and weigh about 76kg. It's pretty much bang on a perfectly healthy weight for me. And for months people were telling me "Jaysus there's not a pick on you" and "You're wasting away!" Relatives would be serving me extra large portions if I was over for dinner. People in work trying to make me eat extra cake if it was someone's birthday.

You'd swear I had gone anorexic, but it's actually just that people now think lads who would probably be overweight are healthy and everything else is skewed accordingly.

storker

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Relatives would be serving me extra large portions if I was over for dinner.

It's an established medical fact that if you don't have a huge meal when visiting your mammy, you will die of starvation shorting after leaving.

RobertKK

Genetics play a certain role as well as the other obvious things.

I find it hard to put weight on, but then my mother and her family side were all on the thin/slim side of things. Same with my father's side but to a lesser extent.
But all were very active.

Others have genetics that make it far easier to put weight on, but then diet and exercise needs to be more closely watched.

Flint Fredstone

andekwarhola wrote: »

Presumably you're young enough? If so, throw another 15 years into the mix and report back.

Mid 30s. Talk to you in 15 years.