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
Why is being fat/obese socially acceptable?
Options
Comments
-
I beileve you mean 'taught properly'..............clearly English grammar isn't a strong point in education either! :Sby trying hard are we talking about the women in the gym who wont lift more than 4kgs then go home and lift up there children no bother
funny how these people who cant lose weight due to some genetic condition have become a lot more popular these days.
when 90% of peoples shopping come in cardboard boxes and 2 for 1 offers it ends in a situation like this
nutrition and exercise should be thought properly in schools. 2 hours a week to save a lifetime worth of misery0 -
-
-
I am trying to picture this and can't. 13 stone for that height and 'reasonably slim'. height typo?
I hope you keep training and get the better of that wagon btw;). I don't agree with people being fat but she has no licence for direct personal abuse. Nice irony if she is chubbing up!
Was thinking that too, doesn't quite compute?
How great about yer woman though, talk about karma
Can't believe she said that to you what a cow... 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
A standard three-dot ellipsis would have been fine, and the LEN function in excel counted them for mestripysocks85 wrote: »Can't believe anyone just had the gall to count how many flippin' dots I put in.... Also, I believe the knowledgeable ones would allow for this as it denotes thinking, delay in response...
Anyway, I'm not a huge proponent of prescriptive grammar, your English is otherwise sound, and this is wildly off-topic...so peace out.0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
I think there is a genetic component alright. A couple of different genes most likely? Gene's affecting how the body regulates insulin, the amount of fat cells you have "out of the box", efficiency of the liver, muscle mass, hormonal differences(maybe biologist/medic types could weigh in here with other or different mechanisms?). Men generally find it easier to drop weight than women too. Testosterone "burns" fat and builds muscle mass which in turn uses way more calories than fatty tissue just sitting there. So there's defo gender diffs. Obese men also tend to have lower levels of testosterone than "normal" sized men and as men age the test level drops so middle aged spread comes into it?I think there is a fat gene. Or maybe it's the way family eating habits are passed down. I dunno but all of the women in my family are overweight bar one or two and they are the ones with slim mothers (in laws). Is it the parenting or the genes? I don't know.
These genes were obviously an advantage in the past over those who couldnt put on weight. Maybe this fat virus switches on one or more of these genes in susceptible people?
Then you have the environment. Clearly people were skinnier in the past and in the case of women of a different shape as the clothes size record shows(more hourglass, less apple shaped). So between the two we arrive at today.
Whats changed? More carbs in the diet. More (bad)veggie oils. Less animal fat. Bigger portions(look at antique dinner plates, they're smaller).
More novel foods too. Novel foods local populations maybe arent adapted to yet. Soya is considered a "healthy" food, yet has only been eaten in the west in the last 20 years. The Asians have had it for 2000 years(and in much smaller portions and mostly in different forms), so have had time to adapt. May sound a wierd one, but the fastest genetic changes in our species have been in the last 10,000 years, mostly to do with diet adaptations. Hunter gatherers are usually lactose and gluten intolerant. Many Asians, especially Indians are lactose intolerant as dairy doesnt figure in their diet. Its fne for most europeans. Same with alcohol. Many Asians are missing the gene that breaks down alcohol as they brewed teas to sterilse water. Ireland has a very high proportion of coeliacs(gluten intolerance) which some think may be due to our dependence for a few centuries on the potato, not wheat for starch. If true it shows how slow adaptation may be or how fast we lose the ability to break down certain foods. Add in that soya products may have a hormonal effect as chemicals present mimic oestrogen and dropping that into a population may have an effect. Other novel foods may have similar effects. Young Latin men and women tend to be smaller than Irish and British. Clothes sizes seem to show that too. They tend to eat what they've always eaten though. Less maccy dees and more trad tappas type snack food etc.
Then you have the exercise thing too...
In my humble, if I was raising genetically "irish" kids I would try to avoid bread and wheat products, avoid soya like the plague, only use olive oil, add more veg and lean meats and fish. And reduce portions. Basically eat what the great grandparents ate and leave the car at home more.
He had the testosterone advantage right off the bat. So even if you were eating the same portions he was ahead on points. Duble his advantage if you were on the pill. Plus I have noticed more women get into settled mode physically than men. Men tend to get into settled mode emotionally though. In general and IMH of course. I know men who piled on the weight too, but Ive known more far men notice or complain of the GF putting on weight, than the other way around. And Ive heard more women notice or complain that the BF doesnt make the emotional/romantic effort he used to than the other way around.I moved in with him. He was the same height and about 9 stone, had a 28" waist and lived off pizza and beer. Yeah, I was weak willed and when he'd suggest a 3 course take away I'd go for it, a tub of haagen daaz, sure! Why not.
He remained 9 stone. I went up to 19. :eek:
Fair play.2 years on I'm living alone and down to 14 stone. Still a ways to go but I'll get there.
Possibly for the same reasons above.Saw her recently. She's living with him and she must be about 3 stone bigger........
TL;DR? well this block of text will end the thread
: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.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
Yes and no. Its far more complex than that. It seems inherited traits due to environmental stresses maybe have some basis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism#Current_views_on_.22Lamarckism.22Links? What you're talking about sounds very much like Lamarckian evolution, which was discredited in the 19th century.
In any event it doesnt have to be lamarckism in the classical sense. If nothing else nutrition could affect the quality of sperm/eggs, will influence the development in the womb and it seems influence preferred tastes in the offspring. http://www.parentingscience.com/prenatal-learning-about-food.html People having children later with possible age related gene damage in the gametes may make the children more prone to weight gain. May even be an adaptation? An organism that reproduces later than normal may select for conservation of fat, in case the parental delay was down to low resources in the environment. That my just thought of wacky one though It would be interesting to compare children of older parents(without older siblings) and children of younger parents to see if theres a diff?
I do remember a couple of studies in rodents that showed the diet of the grandparents affected the health of the grandchildren and that it took at least 2 more generations of proper nutrition to get back on track compared to controls.
Recently I read of a study that showed people who ate certain foods all their lives had different levels of particular bacteria to digest said foods and the bacteria hitched onto the foods themselves. Cant recall the food type though. But our guts are complex things with way more going on than the yakult ad suggests(there are bugs that eat carbs from the gut and if you starve them release chemical signals that make you crave sugars), so the bacteria complex may something a lot to do with it without any lamarckism being involved.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.
0 -
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59087
Partially. I know a woman who is overweight. Now she used to eat a lot years back(and readily admits same) and gained the weight accordingly. Now she eats normally and healthily(I holidayed with her once) and some weight has dropped off, but nowhere near to her old size. There was a horizon programme about this about two years ago and researchers found that if you put on a large amount of weight, even if you cut way below the normal intake of calories the fat was very hard to shift. You had to eat quite a normal amount to maintain the weight gain. As if the body had a memory of the previous size and got stuck there and wanted to go back, contrary to the notion that the body always wants to be healthy. Going up was easy, going down was much harder, certainly by diet alone. Exercise was a major help, but depending on the size reached in the first place mobility was a factor. In one experiment an obese man didnt eat at all for just over a year. Just liquids and supplementation. So was just living off his fat reserves and yes he lost a lot of weight but even after that time hadnt gone back to normal.Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »Tell him to do resistance training or some form of real excercise instead of walking. Burns a tiny amount of calories. Also are you sure he's not lying. Overweight people are notorious for under-reporting food intake. Its hugely problematic in nutrition/dietetic research.
Healthy eating and exercise that includes the family type advice yes, putting pressure and possibly triggering a lifetime of extra emotional pressure or worse an eating disorder, no Thrice no.Is your daughter shorter than the rest? Can you guarantee she doesn't snack any more than the others. How old is she? I mean I don't wanna make her feel bad but it someone's prone to storing more fat they should probably eat less.
One can disagree all one wants but research is showing that there are a helluva lot of complex variables at work. While eat less move more is the general gist, those values and results vary quite markedly between people and depend on how heavy a person gets in the first place. Dropping two stone? Pretty easy. Dropping ten? Exponentially more difficult, not five times.I disagree.
People differ too much. EG I'm pretty skinny. A smidgin over 10 stones at 5'11. Feel better maybe half a stone under that and I dont look particularly scrawny even in the nip :eek:. I eat very little. way below average. A mate wanted to drop weight and as hes my height and close to my frame, he reckoned he would eat what I eat. So I showed him my diet. He lasted under a week and felt faint and dizzy and sick after three days. I could go two or three days without eating and feel fine and wouldnt be that hungry until day three. Could you? So while there are general guidelines, for me to posit what works for me as something that would work for another, even though you would lose weight would not be for everyone. Like I say people differ. 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.
0 -
-
Partially. I know a woman who is overweight. Now she used to eat a lot years back(and readily admits same) and gained the weight accordingly. Now she eats normally and healthily(I holidayed with her once) and some weight has dropped off, but nowhere near to her old size. There was a horizon programme about this about two years ago and researchers found that if you put on a large amount of weight, even if you cut way below the normal intake of calories the fat was very hard to shift. You had to eat quite a normal amount to maintain the weight gain. As if the body had a memory of the previous size and got stuck there and wanted to go back, contrary to the notion that the body always wants to be healthy. Going up was easy, going down was much harder, certainly by diet alone. Exercise was a major help, but depending on the size reached in the first place mobility was a factor. In one experiment an obese man didnt eat at all for just over a year. Just liquids and supplementation. So was just living off his fat reserves and yes he lost a lot of weight but even after that time hadnt gone back to normal.
The thing is I thought this thread was more about a healthy weight, not neccesarily an aesthetically pleasing weight. Whilst yes I'd imagine getting older one will find it difficult to get back to their prime time weight I don't believe its difficult for the vast majority of people to get to a weight which puts them outside the diebetes/heart disease high risk zone.Healthy eating and exercise that includes the family type advice yes, putting pressure and possibly triggering a lifetime of extra emotional pressure or worse an eating disorder, no Thrice no.
I know what you're saying, that's why I asked what age she was. I'm doing a nutrition degree at the moment and when we were learning about adolecent nutrition the lecturer advised you never give them a weight loss diet because it could lead to an eating disorder. I'm not sure I fully agree. If someones getting overweight for whatever reason I'd fear they might start on fad diets (which I believe are the main cause of anorexia nervosa/bulimia nervosa)they read about in girls magazines/the internet so I'm not sure its the right advice.
Also I asked was she shorter because shes eating the same as the rest. I'm a good example here - when I lived with my family we all ate the same meals but I'm 6 inches shorter than my two brothers. Obviously being significantly taller they will burn more calories by just being alive(more muscle tissue needs more energy to run, bigger bone mass needs more calories to maintain/repair etc) and calories I don't use up go into fat storage. Could be the case in this girl, maybe its genetics etc, but eitherway if she doesn't eat less or excersise more she will gain more weight than her siblings.One can disagree all one wants but research is showing that there are a helluva lot of complex variables at work. While eat less move more is the general gist, those values and results vary quite markedly between people and depend on how heavy a person gets in the first place. Dropping two stone? Pretty easy. Dropping ten? Exponentially more difficult, not five times.
I don't disagree but as you said 2 stone is pretty easy to lose. If most people classed as overweight/obese lost 2 stone the vast vast majority of them would be in a healthy weight range.People differ too much. EG I'm pretty skinny. A smidgin over 10 stones at 5'11. Feel better maybe half a stone under that and I dont look particularly scrawny even in the nip :eek:. I eat very little. way below average. A mate wanted to drop weight and as hes my height and close to my frame, he reckoned he would eat what I eat. So I showed him my diet. He lasted under a week and felt faint and dizzy and sick after three days. I could go two or three days without eating and feel fine and wouldnt be that hungry until day three. Could you? So while there are general guidelines, for me to posit what works for me as something that would work for another, even though you would lose weight would not be for everyone. Like I say people differ.
Well I think you're probably an extremely rare case. I'm not suggesting what works for me I'm suggesting what works for the vast majority of people. For the vast majority of people a low GI diet + a few hours of excersise a week will help them shed the pounds quickly. Now I'm not pretending everyone will get the same results, everyone will get some results, in most cases good enough results to maintain a healthy bodyweight. As this isn't difficult I can't see how staying overweight can be classed as anything other than lazyness/a lack of dicipline.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
People differ too much. EG I'm pretty skinny. A smidgin over 10 stones at 5'11. Feel better maybe half a stone under that and I dont look particularly scrawny even in the nip :eek:. I eat very little. way below average.
If you're a smoker, its possible that you're one of the few people in whom the metabolic effects of smoking are vastly more pronounced.
It only happens a few people, although most seem to believe that smoking keeps your weight down, its not the case except for a very few.
If thats the case, and you quit smoking, your appetite and metabolism would adjust accordingly.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement