Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Obesity crisis in Ireland Mod Note post 1

145791014

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    Naos wrote: »
    Ok Wibbs.

    Why are you being so obtuse? A kilo of anything weighs the same as a kilo of anything else, everyone knows this. But the same volume of different matters can and does vary greatly in weight. A cubic metre of lead is going to weigh rather a lot more than a cubic metre of foam. Same applies to muscle and fat. I have no idea why you're pretending you weren't fully aware that this was what he meant.


  • Site Banned Posts: 512 ✭✭✭Dakotabigone


    1kg of Macdonalds is the same as 1kg of Supermacs who would have thought that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,000 ✭✭✭Stone Deaf 4evr


    1kg of Macdonalds is the same as 1kg of Supermacs who would have thought that.

    What does it weigh in Paris?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,738 ✭✭✭Naos


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    Why are you being so obtuse? A kilo of anything weighs the same as a kilo of anything else, everyone knows this. But the same volume of different matters can and does vary greatly in weight. A cubic metre of lead is going to weigh rather a lot more than a cubic metre of foam. Same applies to muscle and fat. I have no idea why you're pretending you weren't fully aware that this was what he meant.

    Because as far as being a boards, I like Wibbs and his take on situations/debates.
    I can't be bothered getting into a spat with him over the difference between something being heavier and something being more dense so figured I'd just leave it.

    If I was being finicky then point taken. I'll keep that particular thought to myself from now on.


  • Site Banned Posts: 512 ✭✭✭Dakotabigone


    What does it weigh in Paris?

    No supermacs in Paris.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,628 ✭✭✭orourkeda1977


    What does it weigh in Paris?

    Le un kilo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,558 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    zell12 wrote: »
    DailyMail - No wonder we've got an obesity problem
    – look how a Sunday roast has gone from sparse to supersize over the decades9485950-0-image-a-4_1549488778358.jpg

    In the UK, the 40s and 50s were a time of serious government dietary intervention in the form of rationing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,558 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    Zorya wrote: »

    And I know a lot of people seem to have some kind of fashionable contempt not only for aging but also for life itself, but only 5%, maximum 10%, of elderly people get dementia. I would say at 90% plus the odds are in our favour. Very, very many old people live on independently in their homes to advanced age, with a little bit of help maybe if needed, though many of the wiry ancients around these parts refuse even that. I have seen men well over 80 climb farm gates no bother to them. And indescribably old women cycling calmly in the hills.
    There was a time when people had a reverence for old people.

    Depends how long they live. Something like 7% of people aged 65 or more have dementia in the UK. That rises to 20% at 85-89 and keeps on going up thereafter.

    https://www.dementiastatistics.org/statistics/prevalence-by-age-in-the-uk/


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 195 ✭✭GAA Beo


    Whats the story with this "metabolic age" thing Varadkar done last night on operation transformation, is it pseudoscience? I can't say I heard or know too much about it. I find it hard to believe it's accuracy.


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    GAA Beo wrote: »
    Whats the story with this "metabolic age" thing Varadkar done last night on operation transformation,..........

    Utter bollocks IMO
    His exercise is long distance ish running and he's skinny fat so he has less lean muscle than many folk his age.
    You'll improve your metabolic age yy preserving and gaining lean muscle mass through exercise......... doing 5 and 10ks won't do that.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭pumpkin4life


    GAA Beo wrote: »
    Whats the story with this "metabolic age" thing Varadkar done last night on operation transformation, is it pseudoscience? I can't say I heard or know too much about it. I find it hard to believe it's accuracy.

    Varadker is skinny fat to fat, does running rather than lifting weights, looks older than he is, and said somewhere he eats close to a vegetarian diet before, which reduces testosterone even further.

    No surprise at all tbh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Varadker is skinny fat to fat, does running rather than lifting weights, looks older than he is, and said somewhere he eats close to a vegetarian diet before, which reduces testosterone even further.

    No surprise at all tbh.

    Not really something you want in a leader.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 195 ✭✭GAA Beo


    Varadker is skinny fat to fat, does running rather than lifting weights, looks older than he is, and said somewhere he eats close to a vegetarian diet before, which reduces testosterone even further.

    No surprise at all tbh.
    I don't think Varadkar looks much older than he is really, if he does it's probably because of his hairline which he can't really control tbf.

    So this would suggest weights are much better than running for a man on the metabolic age scale?I eat plenty of meat and lift weights but don't run much. But I'm overweight at the moment. Do you think metabolic age thing is accurate though?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    How old is he anyway, 47, 48?

    He looks ok for that age.


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    GAA Beo wrote: »
    .............. Do you think metabolic age thing is accurate though?

    I have no clue what my metabolic age is but I can maintain 85kg bodyweight by eating 3000kcals/day.
    I do next to no cardio work, all weights.
    I couldn't give 2 fooooooooooks what my metabolic age is.

    Many folk reckon BMI and metabolic rate are fairly spoofy metrics.

    If your waist is under half your height you are likely not too bad :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭pumpkin4life


    GAA Beo wrote: »
    I don't think Varadkar looks much older than he is really, if he does it's probably because of his hairline which he can't really control tbf.

    So this would suggest weights are much better than running for a man on the metabolic age scale?I eat plenty of meat and lift weights but don't run much. But I'm overweight at the moment. Do you think metabolic age thing is accurate though?

    I used to be overweight and I'm now 10-11% bodyfat. Reversed it by:

    Lifting weights.
    With the exception of green veg and pints, not really eating/consuming carbs/sugar at all.

    Been doing that for the past few years.

    Obesity is insulin and leptin. Has very little to do with calories in/calories out.

    So from my case, absolutely, but theres a good bit of writing on it.


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I used to be overweight and I'm now 10-11% bodyfat. Reversed it by:

    Lifting weights.
    With the exception of green veg and pints, not really eating/consuming carbs/sugar at all.

    Been doing that for the past few years.

    Obesity is insulin and leptin. Has very little to do with calories in/calories out.

    So from my case, absolutely, but theres a good bit of writing on it.

    That's completely untrue.

    I can assure you that your calories in and out are not different to when you were obese.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭pumpkin4life


    Augeo wrote: »
    That's completely untrue.

    I can assure you that your calories in and out are not different to when you were obese.

    No, they were completely different. All calories are not alike, and some foods have a very different impact on your body than others.

    Valoren explained it extremely well earlier on:
    valoren wrote: »
    The obesity crisis is really an insulin crisis.

    You eat easy access processed foods and blood sugars (glucose) go crazy, insulin secretes to reduce it.
    With insulin in the blood stream doing it's job, it's an on or off biological state i.e. you can't utilise stored fats when it's in your blood. As you're constantly eating within this state you just gain more and more stored fat, that free energy has to go somewhere. With men it goes around the gut and for women, the hips, the bum and thighs.

    Once you control insulin secretion, you actively prohibit and prevent the eventuality of obesity.
    Which foods are beneficial to that? It's the classic healthy diet. Non starchy veggies (broccoli, peppers etc), high fiber food, lean meat, fish (particularly salmon), nuts, antioxidants like berries. We all know (or as adults should know) the foods which are not healthy for us. These moreish, tasty foods are now staples whereas they should be deemed treats to have every now and then.

    It's an insulin/leptin problem. You fix those two hormones in your body going mad and you will not be overweight.


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    .............


    It's an insulin/leptin problem. You fix those two hormones in your body going mad and you will not be overweight.

    East less calories than you consume and you will not be overweight.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 195 ✭✭GAA Beo


    How old is he anyway, 47, 48?

    He looks ok for that age.
    Just gone 40, I thought he was about 43 or 44.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    GAA Beo wrote: »
    Just gone 40, I thought he was about 43 or 44.

    Jesus yeah, I'm shocked that I didn't know that.

    I always assumed by his appearance that he was mid to late 40s.

    He looks like one of those middle aged D4 Dads.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    _Brian wrote: »
    If she wants to loose more weight she needs to be burning significantly more calories than she is consuming. This is a life long habit of being fat that she is trying to shed and it takes hard work.
    Busy people can be fat, they’re still eating more than they’re burning, that’s how it works.

    If you continuously burn more than you consume then your body has to draw on its fat reserves to fuel itself, it can’t get the energy from anything else.

    I’m not saying she’s lazy, but being busy doesn’t mean she is burning off the calorie. And activities are secondary, eating controlled volumes of calories is the primary. If she’s not loosing weight then she’s missing something or just being untruthful about what she is consuming.

    You’re missing the point. For someone who has been very overweight all their lives, hunger is going to much more of an issue than someone who hasn’t. Again, there is hard science behind this but it will be ignored because it doesn’t suit. Could you fight massive hunger for decades? I think even the person with the greatest willpower would struggle. But something something personal responsibility. Despite the person writing the post being human and therefore flawed. :D


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You’re missing the point. For someone who has been very overweight all their lives, hunger is going to much more of an issue than someone who hasn’t. Again, there is hard science behind this but it will be ignored because it doesn’t suit. Could you fight massive hunger for decades? I think even the person with the greatest willpower would struggle. But something something personal responsibility. Despite the person writing the post being human and therefore flawed. :D

    I was overweight for most of my 20s and 30s. 15 years ish.
    I dropped 3 stone in 6 months. Now I wasn't a huge, fat tub admittedly but something something personal responsibility kicked in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Augeo wrote: »
    I was overweight for most of my 20s and 30s. 15 years ish.
    I dropped 3 stone in 6 months. Now I wasn't a huge, fat tub admittedly but something something personal responsibility kicked in.

    Yeah, there are outliers, for sure. Looking at any stats I can find though, the recidivism figures are high. Very high. There’s a reason for that. But, le sigh, what’s the point in pointing to the posted studies again?

    I’ve been overweight and very briefly obese. The overweight and obese times were not a large period of my life and I was a slip of a thing through all my formative years. So weight loss wasn’t that big an ish for me. My sister was always a bit pudgy as a child as she did eat more than me and that grew into obesity as an adult. She lost a LOT of weight a few years ago and has gained most of it back. Comparing us side by side, I can see how much harder it is for her than me to lose weight. It’s truly more of a struggle for her. For many reasons.

    So let’s talk about personal responsibility. Comparing myself to my sister - I’m not a more disciplined person than her. I have an advantage in ONE arena in that I can eat smaller portions and be satisfied and not want to eat all the biscuits. Go me. Woo.

    But of two of us, I’m overall the greater fück up. Won’t go into that. We’ll be here all day.

    So I just CANNOT abide all the smug self-fart-smelling bilge that accompanies this subject. People who are overweight are judged on a moral level. That’s complete and utter shïte.

    Oh and of the two sisters, guess which one of us developed cancer in her 20s? Not my sister. And not a young person’s cancer either. A cancer that has some links to lifestyle. Believe me when I say, cancer wards are lined with vegans, vegetarians, former marathon runners and gym bunnies. And people obliquely question them about how it happened. Judging. Blaming. We humans are great at it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    Said this before a bunch of times, I used to have a small dick when I was obese - like really small. Picture a cocktail sausage poking out of Leo Sayer's hair and you're basically picturing me naked, when I was big. Sorry for the imagery. In fact, I didn't even have a dick. In a flaccid state, I only had a bit of foreskin. Had I been circumsised, you would've just seen my helmet. Picture Darth Vader poking his head out of a window. Sorry for this imagery again, but it's important you get the point.

    Now, I did have a knob, but much of the shaft was buried beneath some pubic fat, which concealed most of my dick in a flaccid state. In an erect state, a lot more came out obviously, but even then some inches were hidden. When I lost weight, I rediscovered quite a lot of the knob I thought had been lost to obesity forever, but I don't know if I can emphasise how crushing and lonely my teenage years were. Who can you talk to about having a small dick? Even your one from Samaritans was laughing down the phone. She wasn't. I didn't ring them obviously that was a joke.

    The crazy thing is, I wasn't the exception. I'm probably breaking the obese man's Omerta here, but if you see a really fat male in the street, best believe they have a small dick. The fatter the man, the smaller his knob; not because they're all just really, really unlucky in the genetic lottery, but because you can't gain huge amounts of weight without a lot of it going in the pubic region, which can envelope your poor willy.

    If you want to stop young lads from getting obese, tell them this. Don't tell them about diabetes and heart disease and all this bollox. Statistically most of them will swerve those health complications for decades, but what they can't prevent is a significantly smaller dick. It's inevitable. They don't know that they're eating away their genitals, effectively, but they need to know. They also need to know that the damage is reversible, and that weight loss will restore their genital region to its factory settings, but they probably don't.

    *I'm talking about really fat men here. I don't want some 15-stone man, with a normal penis, thinking I'm spreading lies about him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    If you want to stop young lads from getting obese, tell them this. Don't tell them about diabetes and heart disease and all this bollox. Statistically most of them will swerve those health complications for decades, but what they can't prevent is a significantly smaller dick.

    I dunno about that. I could afford to lose a few inches.


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ..................y stats..........

    .............
    Oh and of the two sisters, guess which one of us developed cancer in her 20s? Not my sister. And not a young person’s cancer either. A cancer that has some links to lifestyle. Believe me when I say, cancer wards are lined with vegans, vegetarians, former marathon runners and gym bunnies. And people obliquely question them about how it happened. Judging. Blaming. We humans are great at it.

    Sorry to hear you developed cancer.
    You mention facts, facts dictate that obesity is a contributor to many serious illnesses.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    Augeo wrote: »
    Sorry to hear you developed cancer.
    You mention facts, facts dictate that obesity is a contributor to many serious illnesses.

    Obesity increases risk, sure. And healthy-living lowers risk. But healthy-eating doesn’t eliminate risk. It’s not a force field against ill-health. And so many people believe that it is. (This I’ve discovered since I was diagnosed. Some people genuinely believe that ill-health won’t ever befall them if they eat well and exercise. And that belief can lead to these folks being diagnosed with serious illnesses later than they should because they think it couldn’t possibly be anything serious).

    There are many things that humans do that contribute to ill-health. Obesity is one, sure. Drinking too much is another. Being thin but with fat around the vital organs is another. But at a glance, the thin person with organ fat or who drinks a bit too much won’t be judged like the obese person will. Is that right? Not to me. In fact, drinking too much is very comfortably socially acceptable in this country.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,047 ✭✭✭Unearthly


    I remember in 2009 just after college I had about 6 or 7 months off as I was finding it hard to get a job. Spent most of it watching TV and eating crap. Went up to 13 stone. I felt uncomfortable sitting on couch, laying in bed as I could feel the layers of fat on me. Then I felt it in my neck.

    It was enough motivation to help sort it out. I personally found the journey of losing weight very enjoyable. Seeing the weekly progress, weighing myself to see how much I lost, feeling fitter and less out of breath during exercise, researching and coming up with new ideas for food.

    Maintaining my weight as I'm doing now is less fun tbh


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Augeo wrote: »
    Sorry to hear you developed cancer.
    You mention facts, facts dictate that obesity is a contributor to many serious illnesses.

    Obesity increases risk, sure. And healthy-living lowers risk. But healthy-eating doesn’t eliminate risk. It’s not a force field against ill-health. And so many people believe that it is. (This I’ve discovered since I was diagnosed. Some people genuinely believe that ill-health won’t ever befall them if they eat well and exercise. And that belief can lead to these folks being diagnosed with serious illnesses later than they should because they think it couldn’t possibly be anything serious).

    There are many things that humans do that contribute to ill-health. Obesity is one, sure. Drinking too much is another. Being thin but with fat around the vital organs is another. But at a glance, the thin person with organ fat or who drinks a bit too much won’t be judged like the obese person will. Is that right? Not to me. In fact, drinking too much is very comfortably socially acceptable in this country.
    I once heard a doctor of health professional being interviewed about health promotion. He was asked what was the single most important thing a person could do for their health, his answer was "choose your parents carefully"
    Lifestyle choices obviously impact our health but you're right it does not eliminate risk. Cancer can be down to just ****ty bad luck.
    I'm not saying we should not strive to reduce risks by leading a healthier lifestyle but there are other significant factors at play for individuals


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    Picture a cocktail sausage poking out of Leo Sayer's hair
    Great, you bollocks. I just pissed meself. :D:D:D:D

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    joe40 wrote: »
    I once heard a doctor of health professional being interviewed about health promotion. He was asked what was the single most important thing a person could do for their health, his answer was "choose your parents carefully"
    Lifestyle choices obviously impact our health but you're right it does not eliminate risk. Cancer can be down to just ****ty bad luck.
    I'm not saying we should not strive to reduce risks by leading a healthier lifestyle but there are other significant factors at play for individuals

    Weirdly, my parents were very strict with the goodies when we were children. And we ate out like once a year and maybe only had two takeaways a year.

    So I guess I’m just reeeaaallly unlucky. :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    joe40 wrote: »
    I once heard a doctor of health professional being interviewed about health promotion. He was asked what was the single most important thing a person could do for their health, his answer was "choose your parents carefully"
    Lifestyle choices obviously impact our health but you're right it does not eliminate risk. Cancer can be down to just ****ty bad luck.
    I'm not saying we should not strive to reduce risks by leading a healthier lifestyle but there are other significant factors at play for individuals

    Weirdly, my parents were very strict with the goodies when we were children. And we ate out like once a year and maybe only had two takeaways a year.

    So I guess I’m just reeeaaallly unlucky. :(
    I didn't think of it in terms of how we were reared, more the genes we inherit.
    Sorry to hear about the diagnosis hope all well.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,618 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    You’re missing the point. For someone who has been very overweight all their lives, hunger is going to much more of an issue than someone who hasn’t. Again, there is hard science behind this but it will be ignored because it doesn’t suit. Could you fight massive hunger for decades? I think even the person with the greatest willpower would struggle. But something something personal responsibility. Despite the person writing the post being human and therefore flawed. :D

    I appreciate it’s a struggle, it’s anstruggle because the person over ate and under exercised for so long ignoring their persona responsibility.

    Now it’s stil the burn more than you eat, no matter what else, these facts never change.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    _Brian wrote: »
    I appreciate it’s a struggle, it’s anstruggle because the person over ate and under exercised for so long ignoring their persona responsibility.

    Now it’s stil the burn more than you eat, no matter what else, these facts never change.

    Yes, that’s a scientific fact. But we’re not in test tubes. We’re living, breathing things. And obdurately quoting the laws of thermodynamics or whatever doesn’t change that.

    It’s easy to be blasé about “sure what’s a little hunger” if you’re not the one affected. To maintain that calorie deficit you are so nonchalant about, some people will have to deal with immense hunger. Forever. Every single day, day in, day out for the rest of their lives. It won’t lessen with time. Could you do that? I couldn’t. I feel lucky that pretty small portions sate me.

    There’s a reason why there’s such recidivism amongst long-term people who lose weight. I find it interesting how few people are curious about why. And bleat about personal responsibility. There is nobody in this thread who doesn’t in some way ignore personal responsibility. Not a one. So what makes one person’s failing more egregious?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,669 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Yes, that’s a scientific fact. But we’re not in test tubes. We’re living, breathing things. And obdurately quoting the laws of thermodynamics or whatever doesn’t change that.

    It’s easy to be blasé about “sure what’s a little hunger” if you’re not the one affected. To maintain that calorie deficit you are so nonchalant about, some people will have to deal with immense hunger. Forever. Every single day, day in, day out for the rest of their lives. It won’t lessen with time. Could you do that? I couldn’t. I feel lucky that pretty small portions sate me.

    There’s a reason why there’s such recidivism amongst long-term people who lose weight. I find it interesting how few people are curious about why. And bleat about personal responsibility. There is nobody in this thread who doesn’t in some way ignore personal responsibility. Not a one. So what makes one person’s failing more egregious?

    I was very fat untilIi was 17, there was no mystery to it I was shoving all the wrong kind of food in my gob and too much of it.

    I cut out sweets chocolate and crisps and walked every day, nearly 30 years later I've never put the weight back on.

    If a person really wants to lose weight they can do it.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I was very fat untilIi was 17, there was no mystery to it I was shoving all the wrong kind of food in my gob and too much of it.

    I cut out sweets chocolate and crisps and walked every day, nearly 30 years later I've never put the weight back on.
    Fair play G, but there's a huge difference between someone at 17 doing it and someone of 37 or 47.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,477 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Fair play G, but there's a huge difference between someone at 17 doing it and someone of 37 or 47.

    Yeah but on the impressive side 30 years ago he realized what he was doing wrong where there wasn't all kinds of nutritional info available, or easily available.

    Nowadays even with all the info available there are still those who aren't convinced about why they are overweight. Slow metabolism, lack of exercise, genetics are the preferred excuses explanations rather than the obvious one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,484 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    As for where to go, theres loads of Eurocamp (and other operators at the same sites) along the Adria coast beside Venice which seems like a handy place if youre not driving. You'd need to spend 30 or 40 euro on a taxi to get there and back from Venice airport. From looking for a week in that area in August, theres a massive difference between the simpler sites which for me were coming out at 800ish for a week for a caravan in a place with a basic pool and beach access and the mega sites like Union Lido (which have cart tracks and I dont know what) which were about 2grand a week.
    There’s a reason why there’s such recidivism amongst long-term people who lose weight. I find it interesting how few people are curious about why. And bleat about personal responsibility. There is nobody in this thread who doesn’t in some way ignore personal responsibility. Not a one. So what makes one person’s failing more egregious?
    I would suggest it's because they do a diet, rather than make sustainable changes to their diet. Too big a change in too short a time frame, rather than a gradual change over the medium and long term.

    What I eat now is nothing like what I was eating when I started to focus on losing weight - actually it was just pretty much portion control at that point. I was never hungry the whole way through to be honest. That's not to say it was easy, but I'm not sure it was hunger rather than temptation of nice stuff tbh. If I was hungry it was because I had to make up for a poor choice somewhere else.

    I did it tracking calories, which I still do as I ain't going back. But I always kept my few pints, my beer and crisp night once a week. Always had my dessert after Sunday lunch etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,477 ✭✭✭AllForIt



    It’s easy to be blasé about “sure what’s a little hunger” if you’re not the one affected. To maintain that calorie deficit you are so nonchalant about, some people will have to deal with immense hunger. Forever. Every single day, day in, day out for the rest of their lives. It won’t lessen with time. Could you do that? I couldn’t. I feel lucky that pretty small portions sate me.

    There’s a reason why there’s such recidivism amongst long-term people who lose weight. I find it interesting how few people are curious about why. And bleat about personal responsibility. There is nobody in this thread who doesn’t in some way ignore personal responsibility. Not a one. So what makes one person’s failing more egregious?

    I'm sorry but this is just not correct. I don't doubt this is the way you genuinely feel about it but your wrong.

    First of all if your hungry on your diet which by diet I mean a calorie deficit diet to get down to your optimal weight then you doing it all wrong.

    Secondly whatever strategy you employ to maintain a calorie deficit you do not have to do it forever as you say - if you are doing it right of course. You do it until your at an optimal weight, duration of which all depends on how overweight you are.

    I suspect when you speak of 'hunger' your not talking about actual starvation but your hunger psychologically for the foods that you would prefer to eat.

    My short advice to you is vegetable fiber rich foods and lean protein meat in moderation is the way to go. Because they fill you up, keep you satiated for longer than carby foods, staving off the hunger pangs for longer, and are so much lower in calories that it's not that hard to keep in a calorie deficit to loose that weight.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭pumpkin4life


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Fair play G, but there's a huge difference between someone at 17 doing it and someone of 37 or 47.

    Yeah thats the thing.

    When most people are fat, they're fat and they remain fat for the rest of their lives.

    There won't be a solution to so called obesity problem.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I'm not convinced there is an obesity crisis. Look around you and most people, men and women, are good looking nowadays. The "obesity crisis" was stopped before it got out of hand and it is less common to eat junk food now than it used to be. It's rare I see someone just eating a bag of crisps or a bar of chocolate in public these days the way they would have 10 or 15 years ago. Anecdotally, even kids and teenagers don't eat nearly as much junk as my peers and I did when we were younger, and the junk they do eat has less sugar and the drinks in particular are disgusting artificial-sweetener-containing crap that has either lower amounts of sugar or none.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,477 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    I'm not convinced there is an obesity crisis. Look around you and most people, men and women, are good looking nowadays. The "obesity crisis" was stopped before it got out of hand and it is less common to eat junk food now than it used to be. It's rare I see someone just eating a bag of crisps or a bar of chocolate in public these days the way they would have 10 or 15 years ago. Anecdotally, even kids and teenagers don't eat nearly as much junk as my peers and I did when we were younger, and the junk they do eat has less sugar and the drinks in particular are disgusting artificial-sweetener-containing crap that has either lower amounts of sugar or none.

    Yes, we never looked so good. Don't see what the problem is myself. The whole issue is completely overblown.

    rs_634x825-180830110622-634-tess-holliday-cosmopolitan-083018.jpg?fit=inside|900:auto&output-quality=90


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    AllForIt wrote: »
    I'm sorry but this is just not correct. I don't doubt this is the way you genuinely feel about it but your wrong.

    First of all if your hungry on your diet which by diet I mean a calorie deficit diet to get down to your optimal weight then you doing it all wrong.

    Secondly whatever strategy you employ to maintain a calorie deficit you do not have to do it forever as you say - if you are doing it right of course. You do it until your at an optimal weight, duration of which all depends on how overweight you are.

    I suspect when you speak of 'hunger' your not talking about actual starvation but your hunger psychologically for the foods that you would prefer to eat.

    My short advice to you is vegetable fiber rich foods and lean protein meat in moderation is the way to go. Because they fill you up, keep you satiated for longer than carby foods, staving off the hunger pangs for longer, and are so much lower in calories that it's not that hard to keep in a calorie deficit to loose that weight.

    Answer me a straight question - did you look at any of the links provided earlier in the thread that address the physiological reasons why keeping weight off is so much harder for anyone who has been obese long-term?

    This is not stuff I’m just pulling out of my arse. This is hard science. These people will feel hungry at the calorie deficit and if they reach goal, they will continue to feel that hunger. They’re not doing it wrong. Most can deal with the hunger for a while but eventually it gets too hard to live with. This is for physiological reasons, not psychological.

    Oh, and I’m not overweight. I’m not sure where you got the impression that I was. So I’m bemused by your dietary advice to me at the end of the post. I lost a good chunk of weight a few years back. Wasn’t hard because I’d spent most of my life at a healthy weight. And honestly, I don’t rate your advice. Fat is not the enemy, my weight loss diet involved unprocessed meats of varying fat contents, some gloriously fatty. I also ate lovely carbs. I just adjusted portion size and really cut down on my sugar intake. People can stick their skinless chicken fillets and less-5%-fat round mince up their hoops. It’s very possible to have a variety of different foods (some high fat) and maintain a healthy weight (unless you are the aforesaid long-term obese person) if you reduce your portions. Sugar is the only thing I think needs to be almost completely cut out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    If I have porridge, bread or a scone for breakfast, that's it - hungrier than usual for the day, and way more sugar cravings.

    Two eggs or an egg and a rasher - full until lunch, and only wanting tuna or boiled chicken with lots of salad.

    Protein is the way forward.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    AllForIt wrote: »
    Yes, we never looked so good. Don't see what the problem is myself. The whole issue is completely overblown.

    <Cosmo cover image>

    How many people do you think are going to look at her and think “I want to look like that.”? Seriously? Her appearance on the cover might bolster some of those of similar weight but there’s nothing aspirational about it. Having her on the cover is a token gesture.

    Svelte models are still in the vast, vast majority and remain the aspirational touchstone.
    If I have porridge, bread or a scone for breakfast, that's it - hungrier than usual for the day, and way more sugar cravings.

    Two eggs or an egg and a rasher - full until lunch, and only wanting tuna or boiled chicken with lots of salad.

    Protein is the way forward.

    I’ve never found that. A mix of protein and carbs is the ideal for me. Just protein doesn’t satiate me. Nor just carb.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,482 ✭✭✭Gimme A Pound


    Yeah it does vary to be fair. Porridge keeps some people going until lunch.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    I came across an interesting pieces recently about how more processed foods, such as say white bread, take less energy to eat and digest, than wholemeal, or mince vs a piece of steak. They reckoned something so small would add 1kg a year to you potentially.

    So not necessarily even the calorie content of a piece of food, but the actual energy requirement to process it is important too.


  • Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ......... To maintain that calorie deficit you are so nonchalant about, some people will have to deal with immense hunger. Forever. Every single day, day in, day out for the rest of their lives. It won’t lessen with time...........

    That's horsesh1t.
    200g of carrots has 80kcals.
    200g of Spinnach has 46kcals.
    90g of rice has 300kcals
    200g chicken breast 300kcals
    500g greek yoghurt 300kcals
    A pear 100kcals
    A tomatoe 25kcals
    3 egg ommelette 300kcals
    A slice of bread 100kcals including a scrape of spread.
    Spices and many sauces have little to no calories

    You can eat loads and be on a 200kcal/day deficit very very very easily and be full all the time.

    Your hungry forever theory is utter and complete spoof, ignoring the 30 stone folk who quite likely are hopeless cases. Most obese folk are overweight by amounts that can be addressed relatively easily if the will is there, the will quite often just isn't there.

    The general concensus is eat whole, unprocessed foods to a large degree.
    Ignoring that, you can drop a kg in 2 weeks with a 550kcal deficit a day :)
    that accepted I track my calories and have never noticed weight altering with what I eat, calories in v calories out seems to be the 95% critical factors.
    I came across an interesting pieces recently about how more processed foods, such as say white bread, take less energy to eat and digest, than wholemeal, or mince vs a piece of steak. They reckoned something so small would add 1kg a year to you potentially.

    So not necessarily even the calorie content of a piece of food, but the actual energy requirement to process it is important too.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,514 ✭✭✭valoren


    Hammer89 wrote: »
    Said this before a bunch of times, I used to have a small dick when I was obese - like really small. Picture a cocktail sausage poking out of Leo Sayer's hair and you're basically picturing me naked, when I was big. Sorry for the imagery. In fact, I didn't even have a dick. In a flaccid state, I only had a bit of foreskin. Had I been circumsised, you would've just seen my helmet. Picture Darth Vader poking his head out of a window. Sorry for this imagery again, but it's important you get the point.

    Now, I did have a knob, but much of the shaft was buried beneath some pubic fat, which concealed most of my dick in a flaccid state. In an erect state, a lot more came out obviously, but even then some inches were hidden. When I lost weight, I rediscovered quite a lot of the knob I thought had been lost to obesity forever, but I don't know if I can emphasise how crushing and lonely my teenage years were. Who can you talk to about having a small dick? Even your one from Samaritans was laughing down the phone. She wasn't. I didn't ring them obviously that was a joke.

    The crazy thing is, I wasn't the exception. I'm probably breaking the obese man's Omerta here, but if you see a really fat male in the street, best believe they have a small dick. The fatter the man, the smaller his knob; not because they're all just really, really unlucky in the genetic lottery, but because you can't gain huge amounts of weight without a lot of it going in the pubic region, which can envelope your poor willy.

    If you want to stop young lads from getting obese, tell them this. Don't tell them about diabetes and heart disease and all this bollox. Statistically most of them will swerve those health complications for decades, but what they can't prevent is a significantly smaller dick. It's inevitable. They don't know that they're eating away their genitals, effectively, but they need to know. They also need to know that the damage is reversible, and that weight loss will restore their genital region to its factory settings, but they probably don't.

    *I'm talking about really fat men here. I don't want some 15-stone man, with a normal penis, thinking I'm spreading lies about him.

    A campaign could be started on this approach calling it "Can you see your Knob?"

    1. Get naked.
    2. Stand erect. Your posture, not your knob.
    3. Staying in an upright posture, shoulders back, look down.
    4. If you can see your knob, you're grand.
    5. If you can't see it, you need to shift the pounds.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement