Fat People OverEating or genetic

Susannahmia

Meh I think it's a combination of the two. I put on loads of weight all of a sudden and was very overweight between the ages of 9 and 11. My diet had not changed and I was not a big eater. The minute I hit puberty it all disappeared. The weight gain was purely down to hormones. Similarly when I went on the pill I put about a stone on but am not overweight. However I really have to watch what I eat much more now compared to when I wasn't taking the pill, the hormones must lower my metabolism or something.

Then again most overweight people do overeat, that compulsion could be influenced by genes, and they might have to work harder than others to, control their intake and weight. Others may be just greedy or lacking in will power, but I don't think you can tar every overweight person with the one brush.

Cheeky_gal

Creature wrote: »

I blame the immigrants.

LOL!!!!

so I hear you're a racist now father?

Lockstep

Cheeky_gal wrote: »

LOL!!!!

so I hear you're a racist now father?

I'm not a fascist I'm a priest!
Fascists dress in black and tell people what to do whereas priests....MORE DRINK.


I won't bother putting my point across as it has already been done in a far more eloquent way than I ever could.

galah

Interestingly, there was an article in the Sunday Times about exactly this topic - and the gist of it was pretty much "If it's a genetic condition, should you not work extra hard to prevent the problem in the first place?"

(as in, if I know I have a genetic precondition to get lung cancer at some point, I'll do everything in my power to prevent that - as in not smoke, etcetc. It might still hit me, but it may not. But I can't just use it as an excuse...)

That should also go for obesity...

Dragan

Let me put it this way.

I honestly can't remember the last genetically fat person i met who didn't eat too much.

rubadub

Susannahmia wrote: »

Similarly when I went on the pill I put about a stone on but am not overweight.

Then again most overweight people do overeat,

Well I don't know your defintion of "overeat", I would say it is eating more than your basal requirements to sustain your current weight, or not adjusting it accordingly if you want to lose weight. By that definition not most overweight people overeat, ALL overwieght people overeat or did overeat to get that way.

That is like saying "then again most people with petrol flooding down the sides of their car put too much petrol in it".

I have heard many women saying they put on weight due to the pill. If you notice you are putting on weight you adjust your calories accordingly. 1lb of fat is lost/gained with approx 3500kcal. If you put on 1lb a week after going on the pill then reduce your daily intake by 500kcal, be it by eating less, exercising more or a combination. If you pump your tyres to the right pressure, then your car is more efficient, so now you put less petrol in per week. If you let air out then you can afford to put more petrol in.

A slow metabolism could be seen as a good thing, saving on your food bill. But most people with slow metabolisms have huge food bills, since it is not slow, they just eat too much.

If you are 30 and eating the same and (not) exercising the same as you did when you were 20 then expect to get fat.

Susannahmia

rubadub wrote: »

Well I don't know your defintion of "overeat", I would say it is eating more than your basal requirements to sustain your current weight, or not adjusting it accordingly if you want to lose weight. By that definition not most overweight people overeat, ALL overwieght people overeat or did overeat to get that way.

That is like saying "then again most people with petrol flooding down the sides of their car put too much petrol in it".

I have heard many women saying they put on weight due to the pill. If you notice you are putting on weight you adjust your calories accordingly. 1lb of fat is lost/gained with approx 3500kcal. If you put on 1lb a week after going on the pill then reduce your daily intake by 500kcal, be it by eating less, exercising more or a combination. If you pump your tyres to the right pressure, then your car is more efficient, so now you put less petrol in per week. If you let air out then you can afford to put more petrol in.

By overeating I guess I mean eating between meals and consuming more calories, fat than reccomended.

Yep as I noted further on in that post I do adjust my intake. My point was that the pill slows down my metabolism but as I am aware of it I control my intake moreso than I would have had to without the pill being a factor.

Voodu Child

Outside every thin girl, there's a fat guy trying to get in.

beans

Out of interest, what do you eat over the course of a normal day?

I'll take yesterday as being fairly representative - Two cups of coffee and a bowl of muesli for breakfast, followed shortly by a bowl of curried chickpeas for 'brunch', a few slices of toast, a roast dinner with trimmings and cheesy-bacony-baked potatoes around 6 and a pizza around 8, more chickpeas, some dark cholocate and some tea before bed.

Large volumes but I guess no crap, that must help

dfx-

I'm disappointed in this thread

Fat is great. Not spectacularly popular but great nevertheless.:cool:

Cunny-Funt

Here's one for yea's, I'm a lazy **** who sits on his ass all day. And I eat a **** load of crap all the time.

So by most peoples logic I should be a fat arse. But nope, I'm a skinny bollocks. I'd say about 10 stone. I just can't put on weight, and it's crazy for me to see how much different foods and such effect other people, yet does nothing to me cept gimmie spots if I'm eating too much junk.

All my friends Ive grown up with now have those beer bellys yet I'm still the very same as when I was 16. & their all joining gyms and **** to try and lose it. I wanna join to feckin GAIN some. Otherwise if it gets windy over here I'll be gone!:mad:

So I figure there must be some people out there who are the opposite and if they eat a mars bar they'll gain a stone lol

rubadub

Susannahmia wrote: »

By overeating I guess I mean eating between meals and consuming more calories, fat than reccomended.

I have heard people using calories/fat interchangeabley, sure fat is high in calories per 100g, but fat does not necessarily make you fat, in fact a diet high in fat is good for fat loss, that is a diet with a high proportion of your calories coming from fat.

I have 2 mates who were drinking coors lite on night, they said "yeah, it has no fat in it, want to lose the belly". They could not understand that no beer has fat in it asking "how does it make you fat so? how come guinness gives you a beer belly?" and then thought I was joking when I said guinness is less likely to make you fat than more beers, i.e. lower in calories per ml/unit alcohol. This is a common misconception, I personally follow a diet which is high in fat, in order to lose fat. I also drink ~25pints a week and lose fat at the same time.

If a lot of people saw me eating you might say "he eats loads", when in fact I eat few calories, it might just look like a lot of food.

beans wrote: »

I'll take yesterday as being fairly representative - Two cups of coffee and a bowl of muesli for breakfast, followed shortly by a bowl of curried chickpeas for 'brunch', a few slices of toast, a roast dinner with trimmings and cheesy-bacony-baked potatoes around 6 and a pizza around 8, more chickpeas, some dark cholocate and some tea before bed.

Large volumes but I guess no crap, that must help

Depends on if they were large volumes, there is no way of saying without a scales. What you describe could be 1500kcal or 5000kcal.

And I eat a **** load of crap all the time.

How you ever bothered to work out how much you eat?
If you really want to put on weight try eating peanuts, 100g a day on top of your normal diet should put on 1lb a week. Most are oblivious to calorie content of foods, so "loads" could be loads of low cal food. Like I mentioned chicken vs noodles. I get the same calories eating and entire small chicken as you will from a normal pack of supernoodles.

monosharp

Well I'm overweight myself and I do (or did) think medical reasons are complete bs. Now I know for myself its what i eat and lack of exercise full stop. No question about it.

But ...

I work with this guy who is very skinny and eats like a horse and hes being doing it since I've met him and apparently this is fairly normal for him. (hes not as tall as me)

The ONLY explanation has to be high metabolism. I eat a LOT less (half at most) than him (and the same crap) and he ain't gaining any. (granted I'm losing some but I really don't think its down to my diet which is as bad as ever)

Maybe theres another explanation ...

Oh and I'm abroad and since I've being here I've being drinking green tea like its going out of fashion and apart from feeling a LOT better I have lost a considerable amount of weight and I'm putting that down to the tea. Apparently it highers your metabolism considerably.

Anyways, in answer to the question. I think for 99% of people (including myself) stating genetics or medical conditions as the reasons for being a fat f&ck are complete bs.

But I do believe that a very small amount of people can be seriously affected by their metabolism (re my mate who could eat 6 times a day at burger king, never walk more than 20 yards and still never put on weight)

p.p.s > Green tea really does kick ass. Regardless of the weight thing, I feel so much better and it can only be the tea because my diet has not really changed otherwise.

Green tea, I love you.

Rb

People will always try and blame something else, rather than accepting the responsibility.

Fat people are in that condition because they don't eat healthily or exercise at all. They can blame whatever they want, but thats the bottom line and EVERYONE is aware of it.

Girls in particular want to blame everything else but themselves though, I haven't seen too many men making up excuses for their weight. I know personally I've lumped on a bit of weight since I stopped exercising and my diet turned to ****, I'm not "fat" per se, but I could certainly do with losing a bit, which is my intention for the near future.

Fat people also don't seem to be able to accept the fact that society no longer views their condition as OK. Given the amount of research in the area, everyones aware of the dangers behind it, how it's caused etc. and no longer accept it (nor the excuses), yet fat people will bang on with "Omg it's whats on the inside that counts, how could you be so shallow etc etc etc". Everyone could be a healthy weight with a bit of effort, but another trend with fat people is...laziness.

You eat healthily and take exercise for an hour or so a day and you WILL lose weight.

Cunny-Funt

rubadub wrote: »

How you ever bothered to work out how much you eat?
If you really want to put on weight try eating peanuts, 100g a day on top of your normal diet should put on 1lb a week. Most are oblivious to calorie content of foods, so "loads" could be loads of low cal food. Like I mentioned chicken vs noodles. I get the same calories eating and entire small chicken as you will from a normal pack of supernoodles.

heh, so peanuts are my miracle food eh? I may just try it.

For the crap I eat I eat a lot of crisps, chocolate.. hell gummy bears etc. Then a lot of pasta, rice, bacon and a hell of a lot of cheese. I get Chinese take away constantly. Chicken fried rice ftw

rubadub

monosharp wrote: »

I work with this guy who is very skinny and eats like a horse and hes being doing it since I've met him and apparently this is fairly normal for him. (hes not as tall as me)

The ONLY explanation has to be high metabolism. I eat a LOT less (half at most) than him (and the same crap) and he ain't gaining any.

This sounds like my mate who attacks food, it is like he doesnt like eating it, he wolfs it down, so people presume he eats loads. Then I shared a flat with him for around 6 months and saw what he really ate, feck all, 2 meals a day, eating like an animal but feck all when you tot it up, he also threw a lot out, which I see a lot of thin people do.

Studies have shown metabolism does not vary as much as people make out. If it did you would hear about it more in livestock, where animals could be given individual portions etc. I hear they do breed chickens that grow fast, not sure if they grow big on half the food intake of others. If you truely did eat less than half your mates food and you were both in comas then I reckon there would be millions of doctors coming to examine the bizarre case where one guy can live on less than half the food of a smaller guy.

I have heard the average consumption is 3500+kcal a day in Ireland, as you are overwieght you could well be on that, but if you were on just 2500kcal you are saying your mate downs 5000kcal a day.

I am not saying you are lying, just probably not fully realising what is going on, what he truely eats or does at home etc, and possibly like the majority of people you are not calculating actual calorie intake, and making poor estimates of how many calories people are really taking in.

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

heh, so peanuts are my miracle food eh? I may just try it.

For the crap I eat I eat a lot of crisps, chocolate.. hell gummy bears etc. Then a lot of pasta, rice, bacon and a hell of a lot of cheese. I get Chinese take away constantly. Chicken fried rice ftw

Peanuts are very high in calories, and high in fat (albeit "good" fat). So if you really want to put on weight and do not enjoy eating it can be an easy way to get in more calories. But it sounds like you do like your food already. You should try and calculate how much you do eat, just for a few days or so.

Susannahmia

rubadub wrote: »

I have heard people using calories/fat interchangeabley, sure fat is high in calories per 100g, but fat does not necessarily make you fat, in fact a diet high in fat is good for fat loss, that is a diet with a high proportion of your calories coming from fat.

.

Woops! Didn't mean to make it sound like I thought they were the same thing, it was just a list really. I know the difference don't worry.:)

Jesus Wept

beans wrote: »

I have either a fast metabolism or a tapeworm, not sure which yet. Net outcome is I eat and eat, and stay fairly svelte for my height

Based on my interweb research sometime ago, a tapeworm suppresses your appetite, not increases.

Cunny-Funt

A tapeworm, now there's a terrible thought.

Toots

Give it a few weeks and eating a tapworm will be the latest fad diet.

I think there's probably a very small amount of people who are overweight for medical reasons, and I emphasise small amount. Most people who use 'Ive got a slow metabolism, or I've got thyroid problems' are just making excuses for poor diet and lack of exercise.

Referring to the original post, if the girl did indeed have a thyroid problem which was contributing to her weight, I'm sure eating two whopper meals did nothing to help matters. That said, I think it's horrible to slag someone just for being overweight.

I'm carrying a little extra baggage myself and find it really hard to lose it. I know there's something in my body that's different to my Mum and sister, cos they can eat rings around themselves and not put on a pound, but I really have to count the calories (like my Dad). However, I didn't put on weight by binging on salads, I put it on by eating too many takeaways late at night and washing it down with litres of coke. I think some people are just able to eat more than others and burn it off, so if you're the sort that can't you're making an informed choice if you eat crap, you get fat! Don't go making excuses for yourself and hiding behind imaginary medical conditions!

Sam Vimes

Lux23 wrote: »

I do believe that a person is genetically predisposed to be being overweight in the same way that some are able to eat what they want but never gain weight. But being genetically predisposed to weight gain doesn't mean it can't be prevented, you just have to be more careful with what you eat. Im sure there are a few people who do have problems with their weight and dieting doesn't really help.

metabolism doesn't change the laws of physics. it takes a certain amount of energy to take a step. if the amount of energy expended taking steps exceeds the amount of energy ingested, the only way to gain weight is if someone is sneaking into your room at night and injecting you with lard

a bloke i know told me he was trying as hard as he could to put on weight but couldn't and didn't know why. i suggested cutting down on football four times a week

rubadub

Susannahmia wrote: »

Woops! Didn't mean to make it sound like I thought they were the same thing, it was just a list really. I know the difference don't worry.:)

Yep I thought you did know, since you seemed to know a thing or two mentioning metabolism etc. Thing is most people are ignorant about it all. It is disgraceful that it is not taught to everybody in school, PE never had any education about the physical body when I was in school.

Thing is many people do think you only get fat by eating fat. So you have sleazy marketing people with their "low fat" muffins which have savage amounts of sugar in them. Sugar puffs are close to 50% sugar. All these marketers prey on ignorance. "Milk is only 4.5% fat"- yeah but many will drink 1000g of milk in one sitting.

I used to think I ate a normal to large bowl of museli years ago, then I weighed it one day, I was eating up to 1000kcal of it, including the milk. And then some people will think museli is "healthy" so you can eat all you want.

Here is a good sites showing food an calories (though some are actually incorrect, which is very common on the net)
http://www.nhs.uk/pages/gallery.html
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm

Smellyirishman

I'm the skinny guy who can "eat what he wants". Perhaps, it just turns out I didn't want to eat an awful lot or very nutritiously. People will react differently to the same levels of kcals but if you want to gain or lose weight it's a simple matter of adjusting this number. I find it difficult to eat the amount of food required for me to gain a reasonable amount of weight but I know that's all it is.

When I fall back into old habits it's actually quite shocking how little I eat.

WhiteWashMan

calories in > calories out = fatty.

simple equation people.

you dont have to starve yourself, you just have to eat properly.
and you dont have to be a gym junkie, but you do have to do some excersize. (try vacuuming, that'll work up a sweat!)

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/11/health

People who use an artificial sweetener may be at greater risk of obesity than those who use normal sugar, American scientists warned yesterday. Researchers raised concerns after experiments with animals showed they ate more food and put on more fat if saccharin was part of their diet. The researchers believe that zero-calorie artificial sweeteners may disrupt the body's ability to associate sweet tastes with high calories. This could make it harder for people to regulate their food intake, so they over-eat.
...
"The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with a high-calorie sugar," the authors write in the journal Behavioural Neuroscience.

So when you see some lard arse ordering a Mac Meal with a diet coke in a fast food joint you know it's the diet coke doing the damage.

Faith

There are genetic factors at work in some people. Look up "ghrelin" and "leptin" in wikipedia if you're interested. They're relatively new discoveries by the scientific community. However, they're not a factor in most people.

Also, there's a category of people referred to as the "fidgeters". They're people who eat a lot, but fidget a lot too and are thin. You don't realise how many calories you actually burn when you're continuously fiddling!

But no, most fat people are fat simply because they have no self-control. I watched a friend of mine eat FIVE bowls of cereal in a row and she wondered why she was putting on weight.

Fighting Irish

roughan wrote: »

i was in town the weekend and there was a girl in the pub about 20 Stone
people were looking at her and then someone slagged her and her mate heard them and went over saying she had a underactive thyroid and slow metabolic rate and stuff . Later on i hit burger king and there was the same girl with 2 whopper meals 2 large chips and onion rings stuffing her face

are people are using all these medical conditions as excuses to hide the fact that they are fat and its their own fault ?

Did you sit with her?

Or can you just tell exactly what she was eating from the look on her face?

Sure lets all make up random stuff :rolleyes:

Won the lotto today!

Fighting Irish

But ye people need to control their eating

Lockstep

Faith wrote: »

You don't realise how many calories you actually burn when you're continuously fiddling!

Sexercise FTW

Sugar Drunk

Rubabdub is talking a lot of sense. Its what you are eating as opposed to how much. The latest epidemic in the office at the moment is the 'pink and whites' ...AGAIN. Women believing they are losing weight by eating these pieces of sugar wrapped in wafer - why? because they have no fat in them. I have tried again and again to explain to them that these are full of sugar which will convert to fat in their bodies faster than anything else as they are sitting at a desk all day!:eek: One idiot told me I hadnt a clue what I was talking about. now bearing in mind I am about 6 sizes smaller than her who would you believe?

As for the fast metabolism I can eat a lot without putting on much weight but thats mainly because I do a lot of excercise everyday. I have been trying to switch to healthier options as I dont necessarily believe that thin =healthy. Now that I am eating better snacks (thank god for the nutrition and diet forum), it always seems to my colleagues that I am eating loads. I am eating more than them and more often but what I am eating has less calories and is smaller portions.

I get sick of hearing teh whole 'I cant help it if I am fat' routine. i worked with a girl of 28 who was obese. I am not joking If I stood behind her you wouldnt see me. Ir used to depress me I mean what kind of life is that for a girl of her age? She used to claim she ate hardly everything but she was constantly asking her mates to pick her up something from the shop or vending machine. She honestly did not realise that all those sugary snack combined with zero excercise was the problem (most excercise this girl ever did was lifting the tv remote).
This girl and another I worked with were also victims of 'eating little in public'. In work some days it appeared they ate nothing, but when they went home it was calorie overload. It still counts if no one sees you eating it!. Not joking a girl once went to lunch with this obese girl and the obese girl buttered a swiss roll and ate it....and she wondered why she was fat?????

LouOB

rubadub wrote: »

Yep I thought you did know, since you seemed to know a thing or two mentioning metabolism etc. Thing is most people are ignorant about it all. It is disgraceful that it is not taught to everybody in school, PE never had any education about the physical body when I was in school.

Thing is many people do think you only get fat by eating fat. So you have sleazy marketing people with their "low fat" muffins which have savage amounts of sugar in them. Sugar puffs are close to 50% sugar. All these marketers prey on ignorance. "Milk is only 4.5% fat"- yeah but many will drink 1000g of milk in one sitting.

I used to think I ate a normal to large bowl of museli years ago, then I weighed it one day, I was eating up to 1000kcal of it, including the milk. And then some people will think museli is "healthy" so you can eat all you want.

Here is a good sites showing food an calories (though some are actually incorrect, which is very common on the net)
http://www.nhs.uk/pages/gallery.html
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-200-calories-look-like.htm

Why are crumpets in there twice - have craving now

Hail 2 Da Chimp

Sugar Drunk wrote: »

Not joking a girl once went to lunch with this obese girl and the obese girl buttered a swiss roll and ate it....and she wondered why she was fat?????

Hahaha, thats hilarious!

Terry

Faith wrote: »

There are genetic factors at work in some people. Look up "ghrelin" and "leptin" in wikipedia if you're interested. They're relatively new discoveries by the scientific community. However, they're not a factor in most people.

Also, there's a category of people referred to as the "fidgeters". They're people who eat a lot, but fidget a lot too and are thin. You don't realise how many calories you actually burn when you're continuously fiddling!

But no, most fat people are fat simply because they have no self-control. I watched a friend of mine eat FIVE bowls of cereal in a row and she wondered why she was putting on weight.

Listen. I fidget with myself all day and I'm still a fat bastard.
There has to be more to it than that.

neuro-praxis

Ok. I refuse to believe that there are not metabolism issues at play. Take my own immediate family for example. My mother and father have the exact same diet except for one difference - my father grazes in the biscuit tin and eats fruit, slices of cheese and crisps all day, and every time he nips out he sneaks a bag of chips or a hamburger from the local chipper, or a cream bun from the bakery! He also drinks about twice as much as my mother (maybe 10 pints per week). My mother walks for an hour every morning and my father sits on his behind. And yet it is my mother who is overweight.

Now, my mother is overweight because she has overconsumed over the years, particularly when she gave up smoking, and she didn't exercise for years. Nobody doubts that at all. But if all metabolisms are the same surely my father should be overweight too, but he's not. He's like a lat.

g'em

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Ok. I refuse to believe that there are not metabolism issues at play.

Subtle differences in metabolisms have been conceded. The answer is to still to eat less.

neuro-praxis

No g'em, I agree.

I am not saying it isn't clear how a fat person can lose weight. However it is possible for a thin person to be a lazy overeater too but it won't be visible.

Plus if we're going to be pedantic, the answer is to eat less calories than your body burns...not to eat less food.

BaZmO*

Dragan wrote: »

Bah freaking hum bug!

Sure, you might be predisposed to storing more fat than other people but the only way to do that is to eat more than you need.

All genetic predisposition determines is the NUMBER of fat stores a person is likely to have from a young age....and even then these can be forced to split and multiply over time.

It's the same as the whole "people who can eat whatever they want" thing. It's total rubbish. In my entire life i have never seen ONE of these people eat an amount of food that actually impressed me. It's always "oh i eat chips and chocolate and rubbish ALL the time" but then it turns out they eat one meal a day and thats it.

People are ****tards who will look to either one extreme or the other because they feel really unhappy about being in the middle.

Now......you get fat because you eat too much.....the reason your not getting fat is because your not.

Simple.

He speaks the truth!

Especially the bit in bold. When I was in my late teens early 20's I "used to be able to eat whatever I wanted" and there wasn't a pick on me, but I also didn't have a car, didn't work sitting at a desk all day, and didn't eat regular meals (I'd quite regularly pig out at lunch time but then wouldn't have a dinner). When all those circumstances changed I started to put on weight.

To counter the weight gain I now go to the gym regularly and try to eat as healthily as I can but I also don't go overboard by denying myself foods that I like.

As has been mentioned before, diets are useless in the long run for maintaining your weight. They're fine to start off with if you have a lot of weight to shift but it has to be a lifestyle choice.

And yes the genetic excuse is BS. There was a programme on the tv a couple of weeks ago where they took a few people that claimed to be overweight due to their genetics. They tested them and found out it was just their over eating and lack of regular exercise that was the main factor to them being overweight.

cozmik

Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories a hour.

Lockstep

My sister is 11, skips breakfast and is as thin as a pin. Although she's trying to keep in shape etc she can't face breakfast.


I remember reading somewhere that breakfast helps keep you skinny, how does that theory go again?

dsmythy

cozmik wrote: »

Banging your head against a wall uses 150 calories a hour.

Same number of brain cells too.

Toots

kickoutthejams wrote: »

My sister is 11, skips breakfast and is as thin as a pin. Although she's trying to keep in shape etc she can't face breakfast.


I remember reading somewhere that breakfast helps keep you skinny, how does that theory go again?

You need something to set you up for the day, if you go all day without eating something your body will store what you eat as fat in case it gets starved again apparently.

Also could be that if you don't eat a breakfast you'll be hungrier for the rest of the day and more likely to be snacking. I know that's the case for me anyway.

rubadub

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/11/health

Quote:
People who use an artificial sweetener may be at greater risk of obesity than those who use normal sugar, American scientists warned yesterday. Researchers raised concerns after experiments with animals showed they ate more food and put on more fat if saccharin was part of their diet. The researchers believe that zero-calorie artificial sweeteners may disrupt the body's ability to associate sweet tastes with high calories. This could make it harder for people to regulate their food intake, so they over-eat.
...
"The data clearly indicate that consuming a food sweetened with no-calorie saccharin can lead to greater body weight gain and adiposity than would consuming the same food sweetened with a high-calorie sugar," the authors write in the journal Behavioural Neuroscience

So when you see some lard arse ordering a Mac Meal with a diet coke in a fast food joint you know it's the diet coke doing the damage.

Perhaps, but it is still the big mac doing the damage, the diet coke might have led him to eat it, but not making him fat. Slick sleazy marketing can lead people to overeat foods they ignorantly believe to be "healthy". As I said before it there was some magical drug that had these extraordinary effects on metabolism that some claim, then it would be fed to livestock and people in famine stricken regions.

Faith wrote: »

Also, there's a category of people referred to as the "fidgeters". They're people who eat a lot, but fidget a lot too and are thin. You don't realise how many calories you actually burn when you're continuously fiddling!

And the people who see mates/colleagues who "eat all they want" may not see what they get up to in their spare time, they could be running around and eating feck all! but they presume they go home and become couch potatoes gorging chinese, like themselves.

Sugar Drunk wrote: »

The latest epidemic in the office at the moment is the 'pink and whites' ...AGAIN. Women believing they are losing weight by eating these pieces of sugar wrapped in wafer - why? because they have no fat in them. I have tried again and again to explain to them that these are full of sugar which will convert to fat in their bodies faster than anything else as they are sitting at a desk all day!

I heard of one woman who thought the more lean cuisines you eat the thinner you get! this ignorance is funny but it is more disturbing than funny and should be taught at school. A mate of mine was scoffing whole packs of go-ahead biscuits thinking they were "health food"

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Plus if we're going to be pedantic, the answer is to eat less calories than your body burns...not to eat less food.

Yes, and you first have to figure out how many calories your body burns before you can calculate what you need.

BaZmO* wrote: »

When I was in my late teens early 20's I "used to be able to eat whatever I wanted" and there wasn't a pick on me, but I also didn't have a car, didn't work sitting at a desk all day, and didn't eat regular meals (I'd quite regularly pig out at lunch time but then wouldn't have a dinner). When all those circumstances changed I started to put on weight.

The other thing that changed is that you got older, all things being the same you would still need less calories. I know a girl who cannot see why she put on weight, now 30 or 31, but is eating the same as she did in her teens.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

My sister is 11, skips breakfast and is as thin as a pin. Although she's trying to keep in shape etc she can't face breakfast.

I remember reading somewhere that breakfast helps keep you skinny, how does that theory go again?

Dunno if you are being sarcastic. The theory is that if you eat in the morning it has a lot of physiological effects on the body. It gives you energy for the day, so you have less cravings for energy/calories/food during the day. It also boosts your metabolism so you need more food just to sit around all day keeping yourself warm and your bodily functions operating. Breakfast should be your biggest meal of the day. If you do not enjoy eating and really want to put on weight, then skipping breakfast might well be a good idea, since you will tend to get way more hungry. At 11 a child is developing and needs a lot of calories to grow properly.

Most people are ignorant of calories needed. In my house (and in most I reckon) my father got the biggest dinner, he was in his 40's and overweight with a slow metabolism, needing maybe 2000kcal for his slow lifestyle, while the 2 teenage boys in the house developing new muscle/tissue and developing FAR faster than Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime were given smaller dinners! we should have been fed like a bodybuilder at that age, and then mothers go wondering why their kids eat so much junk food? their bodies are screaming for calories. "where do they put it all", into developing- thats where, and a kid having to go and buy their own food is not likely to make a wise choice.

Hydroquinone

kickoutthejams wrote: »

My sister is 11, skips breakfast and is as thin as a pin. Although she's trying to keep in shape etc she can't face breakfast.


I remember reading somewhere that breakfast helps keep you skinny, how does that theory go again?

Eleven year olds are not adults, so discussions about adult stuff like this do not apply to her. Yet. Wait till the hormones kick in, anything could happen. Some twig-like children get fat and some don't. Some kids who are chubby lose their puppy fat and some don't.
The rules for children are different to the ruiles for adults. But I'm surprised at any mother who lets an eleven year old out of the house without any brekkie.
My ma would have flayed me alive with a wooden spoon if I'd tried that.

WhiteWashMan

kickoutthejams wrote: »

My sister is 11, skips breakfast and is as thin as a pin. Although she's trying to keep in shape etc she can't face breakfast.


I remember reading somewhere that breakfast helps keep you skinny, how does that theory go again?

if you dont feed your body in the morning after you wake, youre body starts eating into its reserves, and enters a 'starvation' mode whereby it starts to store any food it gets as fat.
so normally where you would start to burn off any foods you take in, when you enter starvation mode, you start to store it.

so, not only do you feel crappy in the morning becuase you have no energy, but you start to add to your weight as well as soon as you do eat something.

at least, thats what the theory is. it generally takes around 2 days for your body to go into keytosis, the state where it actually starts to eat body fat stores as its sole source of energy. you can lose weight this way, and its rapid weight loss, as no calories in a lot less than what you actually use. you also lose your appetite which helps with the no eating

wouldnt recommend it though tbh. you do need to ensure you keep your suppliments up. its basically the way any of the 'shake' diets work. no food, just nutrient shakes, burn off the fat over time. I lost a stone in a week doing this a year or two ago. problem is, unless you readjust your body strictly, you will put on the weight straight away as it will take in everything and store everything as fat again


anyway, breakfast is good for you as it not only gives you energy for the day, but it stops your body from storing large amounts as fat stores.
although, im not sure what a 'proper' breakfast should be.

Dudess

the dee wrote: »

I think it's mostly diet and lifestyle - but that doesn't mean people are lazy. I know lots of people who try really hard to lose weight but can't seem to shift it. A friend of mine is on a constant diet because whenever she deviates from this she piles on the weight.

See I don't buy that. If your lifestyle comprises eating mostly healthy food and doing regular exercise you will lose weight, no question about it. I think your friend's problem is that she goes on diets - i.e. she's going about it the wrong way. I'm assuming she decides to drastically rehaul her lifestyle of eating unhealthy food and doing no exercise, and imposing a strict regime on herself which doesn't allow for even a tiny blob of mayonnaise on her plate now and again cos that's jam-packed with fat (and she plans to follow this miserable regime until the extra weight is gone - a temporary solution in other words). Then she feels hungry, deprived and miserable. So she decides "sod it" and goes on a binge, feels even more miserable and exercise is out of the question. Of course she's gonna feel that way - she's human.
If she forgot about losing weight for a while and simply focused on getting the right nutrients every day and doing some regular exercise and viewed this as her day-to-day life, NOT a diet, the fat would go - slowly, but it would go. And because this is her day-to-day life she can easily afford the odd treat, and it wouldn't make much of a difference in the greater scheme of things.

Everyone's different and it can be really hard to lose weight.

It's not actually hard to lose weight, it's hard to do the stuff that's required to lose weight - if you're unused to doing it. But again, if you think "I'm gonna go on a diet, I'm gonna lose x amount" you're making it even harder again. How about just thinking "I'm gonna eat healthily and do some form of exercise - whatever I enjoy - for the rest of my life. And if I feel like a treat, I'll have one but I won't binge. And I won't feel guilty whenever I do decide to have something naughty".
When you say she piles on the weight if she "deviates": treating herself to a Kit Kat isn't gonna cause her to pile on the weight, but binging every day (because it's the "last chance" to do so) until the next time it feels "right" to start a diet is.
And weighing scales can just cause disappointment and disillusionment. If you retain fluids, that can show up on the scales as extra weight. Plus, if you're building up muscle, well that actually weighs more than fat. Don't bother with scales. Measuring tape ftw. Oh, and see how clothes fit.
It should be more about losing fat than losing weight.

Fighting Irish wrote: »

Did you sit with her?

Or can you just tell exactly what she was eating from the look on her face?

Sure lets all make up random stuff :rolleyes:

Won the lotto today!

What's got you in such bad form? Think the OP just saw the girl with all that junk food in front of her. Are you simply trying to provoke a pointless argument or something...?

Chunks

walking into my building today and I get stuck behind a massive monster of a fat bitch (you know the kind, waddling along, blocking other people coming from behind, sweating profusely...). She was making her way to the lifts too. She gets through the door before me and walks up beside the lifts and stands there. I arrive a few seconds behind her and notice that she hasn't pushed the call button. she looks up at me as if to say 'Why haven't you pushed the call button?' . So I go over and push it.

The lift that is closer to me arrives and she hurriedly waddles over and pushes her way in ahead of me despite the two of us being the only people getting the lift. She stands at the back of the lift and I stand beside her. At this stage she's huffing and puffing after that 2 yard 'sprint' to get ahead of me. I have to step out and reach across her to push my floor number. After I had stepped back and leant against the wall of the lift I hear

'Could you press 7 for me there too please?'

I looked at her with complete and utter disbelief! she was closer by a clear 2 feet!!:eek:

So in conclusion it is irrefutable proof that fat people, especially fat women, are lazy beyond belief!

/* further addition

Dudess, I like your style! No messing around, straight to the point. Nice.

and yes, while in utter disbelief I stepped round the whale to press the button. I'm kicking myself for not knocking the chicken wing out of her mouth and telling the Orca to do it herself. God help her next time

nmk

Hi, I've been following this thread for a few days, very informed/sensible posters I have to say

Hydroquinone wrote: »

Eleven year olds are not adults, so discussions about adult stuff like this do not apply to her. Yet. Wait till the hormones kick in, anything could happen. Some twig-like children get fat and some don't. Some kids who are chubby lose their puppy fat and some don't.

I read this article a couple of months back http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/42879.php
It states that nowadays, kids are typically not losing their puppy fat. I know it's just one study but you can see the logic if kids never have a healthy eating period to refer back to when they're making their own choices about food. It's scary to think they could be facing heart failure and other complications by 30 This is an issue close to my heart, and I'd agree that focussing on getting the appropriate nutrients in is far better than spartan diets.

Dudess

Chunks wrote: »

walking into my building today and I get stuck behind a massive monster of a fat bitch

That's a bit extreme. So you view her lifestyle as terribly unhealthy - I do too. But it doesn't affect you or I.

Can I ask why you were taking the lift and not the stairs?

Dudess, I like your style! No messing around, straight to the point. Nice.

I actually consider my style fairly softly-softly. You have to remember that some people have emotional issues surrounding food, food addictions etc and it's not easy for them to just give up eating high-calorie foods. There's a lot of psychological crap going on (meh, can't think of the proper medical term ). But I do think if people could just change their thinking from "I have to start a diet on Monday, I won't touch a crumb of fatty food, so I'm gonna treat myself as much as I want between now and then because I have a 'licence' to do so" to just eating healthy food as much as possible and exercising, while still doing stuff they enjoy, they'd find the answer.

Chunks

Dudess wrote: »

Can I ask why you were taking the lift and not the stairs?

Touché Nah I do enough work after work everyday to warrant spoiling myself with the lift.

Ok, you my be softyly-softly but I liked your post though. to the point, no messing around...

Wibbs

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Now, my mother is overweight because she has overconsumed over the years, particularly when she gave up smoking, and she didn't exercise for years. Nobody doubts that at all. But if all metabolisms are the same surely my father should be overweight too, but he's not. He's like a lat.

Straightaway you're not comparing like with like. Men and women store fat differently and at different rates. Testosterone alone makes a big difference. Men would have a higher metabolic rate. Middle aged spread in an otherwise healthy male would have a lot to do with reduced male hormone that comes with age. If you gave a woman a dose of testosterone, as well as making her hairy it would also make it much easier for her to lose weight. As an aside, with all this talk of pseudo oestrogens in our food and water, is it possible that it has some effect on the obesity we see and middle aged spread in younger men? It would be a vicious circle too, as the more fat you put on the more oestrogen would be floating around(AFAIR fat cells release small amounts of oestrogen) Just a thought.

I'm skinny, simply because I would eat much less than my friends and what I would eat would be smaller proportions. I would very rarely eat pasta or bread. Can't stand either and I've never eaten a chinese takeaway in my life.

I see this with skinny versus fat mates. In every single case the fat ones eat more and they eat far more stogy foods. I've one female friend who is skinny and all her female frinds trot out the usual "she can eat what she likes". I've seen what she eats. She would have two meals a day. Old fashioned meat and two veg kinda thing and if you just saw her eat her dinner you would think she had a healthy appetite. That said she would very very rarely snack and she always leaves something on her plate. The one thing I have noticed is that some of the fat ones don't eat that much now, but ate a lot a few years back, built up the weight and now eat pretty normally. It seems easy enough to maintain the fat on a fairly normal diet.

It's like smoking, it's better not to start down that road as it's harder to quit.

V good posts from rubadub BTW