Unfounded Obesity Panic Is Hurting Us

[Parrot]

I have never read , been to, talk about , looked at, anything involving PETA.

Peta is the most vocal, but they do have a number of associated groups that also spread their lies. Perhaps you've been listening to one of them? Perhaps the so-called "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine"?

Ok, keep feeding and drinking it. I wont.

That is, of course, your choice. However, I still advance that your choice bears absolutely no scientific merit whatsoever.

Name me another animal that drinks milk after being weaned. Why is that? If it so good.......

That is a very interesting question. If I may, I would like to present you with a few of my own:

Name me another animal that has opposable thumbs.

Name me another animal that walks upright.

Name me another animal that has developed a language and writing.

Name me another animal that practices religion and philosophy.

Name me another animal practices complex trade and commerce.

Name me another animal that has invented complex tools, such as the computer you are using right now.

It seems to me that there are a lot of things humans do that are unique to our species. If you make the case that drinking milk after being weaned is wrong because no other animal does it, do we then have to go through the entire list?

Forgive me, but I'm not ready to stop talking, philosophizing, and standing upright. (You may cut off my opposable thumbs if you like though)

And I am afraid that the FDA is not in this country.

I do realize that - however we both know that Canada loves to follow suit on issues like this. I believe that Canada adopted the same policy soon after. At the moment the name of the Canadian equivalent to the FDA escapes me though.

Taken out of context and you would get that impression. However , it was not said that way.

Please forgive me for misunderstanding what you said. I did not mean to twist your words out of context.

In the discussion of diets and low carb, those three fruits should be avoided. They are wonderful to eat and I quite like them, and do eat plenty of that stuff, once my optimum weight and fitness are achieved. If the goal is weight loss, than that is not bad advice. Not great to go without them, but the idea is short term.

Okay, I think I see what you're saying now. I would like to re-emphasize on this subject, though, that short term weight loss is not an appropriate goal. You can cut carbs, and there's some dispute as to how well that works in the first place. But for dieters it's almost certain that they will gain the weight back, and probably pack on a few more pounds as well. No diet is actually effective long term.

Losing weight and then gaining it back is actually more destructive to your health than maintaining your pre-diet weight would have been. From the research I've been doing, I'm getting the impression that the diet industry may share a large part of the blame for the health problems that overweight and obese people tend to have. And I think they may actually be in large part responsible for the rise in people's average weight as well.

[geoffrey]

Cutting calories only works until the stress goes up. When the human body is stressed, it eats, a natural self-defense reaction.

It's all about lifestyle change. When I'm stressed, I go hammer out intervals or hills on my bike and the stress is gone... others go drink a beer or eat a big of chips (both of which used to be my methods of stress relief).

People need to get in the mindset that health doesn't wait for tomorrow, otherwise they put it off forever. I hear lots of people, "oh, I wish I could run a 5k" or "I'd like to go for an hour walk after dinner"... people need to take these small goals and GOOOO!!! Baby steps, but if people acted on their activity desires, then they'd be alot healthier.

I'm sure everyone wants to be healthier, I don't know anyone that purposely tries to become out of shape and have high blood pressure.

[leonardcohen]

It seems that everyone is fatter these days. Look at old pics of your parents, in group settings when they were much younger, and , at least from my experience, you will see fit appearing people, and hardly any chunkies.

Part of that has to do with the depression and the habits that followed in good times. (Dont waste) The consumerism was not what it is now either.

But there are studies and I am an advocate as well , that the rise in childhood obesity is due to the approval of High Fructose Corn Syrup made available around the late 70's . The change in children can be traced to this approval. The products that use are....pop.cereal.breads,cookies, condiments. In most forms used it is far sweeter than sugar, and was a good substitute due to the sugar embargoes.

This is bad stuff. If you can avoid it, do so. (of course my beloved Coke....well I have to have one every now and then)

Check the packaging on anything you buy. You will be very surprised.

Having said that, let me say that my observation is that people in general seem to be a bit 'chunkier' than previously, with Americans leading the pack by some distance. Even in 'poor countries' an increase in weight, and overweight is observed.

Leading the pack? Canada is right behind, and negligible difference.

My guess is that in the end, trans fatty acids will be found to play a part in this phenomenon as well.

Parrot makes some good points.

Fats arent the problem as I see it. Our parents and Gparents used to eat and cook using quite a high amount of fat. Pure lard was always used in baking, frying etc.

The sugars on the other hand were not available to our parents as much.

After all the Atkins Diet does work!!

Fats clog arteries . So really we cannot "see" this in our population.

Sugars, if unburned are stored as fat, and if one does not ingest enough fuel to run a body, the body will go into survival mode and "store" any incoming fuel (read sweet) as fat.

That is why you will see a friend who claims they are on a diet getting fatter. They are not ingesting enough calories to fuel the body, thus the body will convert glycogin stores in muscle into starches (sugar) to fuel the body. They become "thinner" only because their muscles are being weakened, thus smaller.

Think about you or a friend who has gone on a regime of fitness abd diet.. If they eat right, and they exercise right, they will gain weight (fat loss + muscle gain) but look thinner.

Very good points here.

I can personally vouch for The Atkins Diet. It Works.

I have personally lost 30 lbs and counting on this low carb

and high protein diet .

Sugar is the killer,that, and the empty calories of refined grains

in cereals and breads, that is what the body converts directly

into gylcogen, if your body doesn't need it for fuel

it goes directly into fat stores.

[betsy]

From the research I've been doing, I'm getting the impression that the diet industry may share a large part of the blame for the health problems that overweight and obese people tend to have. And I think they may actually be in large part responsible for the rise in people's average weight as well.

Diet is one of the biggest money-makers in town. And it doesn't help either to have high-profile celebrities preaching. How many fads of diets (meaning, books sales) did Oprah promote so far?

She goes up and down faster than any yo-yos I know...and I wouldn't be surprised if she ended up with liposuction after all!

But I wouldn't point the finger of blame on diets. The finger should be pointed where it ought to.

The blame lies squarely on people, who had lost control of their eating habits. In the end, it all boils down to self-discipline!

Second, commercials and ads and promos provide the temptation, and makes it harder to resist.

Third, it's the way we live! People are so busy that cooking becomes a big deal. So we find an abundance of these quick-fix meals that are loaded with things that are bad for you.....because they use these things to make it taste better! Whatever happened to simple cooking from basically scratch? We have no more time for those! And furthermore, parking all day infront of the tv and on the computer makes matters worst!

Using the car to drive three blocks to get movies, instead of walking.....

Admit it. It's the current lifestyle that plays a big role why society is literally changing shape!

Diets and fads had simply found a treasure trove of a niche and is just taking advantage of the damage that's already there.

[Live From China]

Well, this topic is of great interest to me, especially now that I have had a chance to work in the People's Republic and therefore have had a chance to observe the affect of diet in two cultures. My observations are anecdotal, so bear with me.

In China, people tend to be thin. The diet still mainly consists of rice, vegetables, meat (in small amounts), chicken and fish. The protein content varies from region to region. This type of diet seems to be accepted internationally as being healthy. Now, there is also a quickly growing middle class in China and along with that the money to "experience" Western food. McDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut, etc. are everywhere in the larger centres. There is also a concern in China that middle-class people are getting fatter as a result. This is also influenced by fact that exercise is for kids or students. When you leave school you get married, have a family and work long hours. Of course, this also influences weight gain.

I got a real "eye opener" from one of my students. He was getting excited at the prospect of going to Canada for university and was perusing a picture book on Vancouver. He pulled me aside and showed me a picture of the Seawall in Stanley Park on a beautiful day. His question? Not, "Where is this?" or anything like that. He pointed to the people in the picture (of which there were many) and asked, "Are all people in Canada this fat?"

[ScottSA]

I'm fat

You're bald too.

I used the zone diet for about a year...originally developed for diabetics, but modified for the general populace, and I have never felt better. It derives carbs from vegetables, so there are huge amounts of veges, protein mainly from chicken, and fat from nuts and olive oil. Not bad tasting recipes, and I never could eat a full meal...they are huge. My biggest problem was not getting enough protein from it.

[Parrot]

But I wouldn't point the finger of blame on diets. The finger should be pointed where it ought to.

The blame lies squarely on people, who had lost control of their eating habits. In the end, it all boils down to self-discipline!

Betsy, I strongly disagree with you on this. Pointing blame in this manner seems to me to be very excessive and condescending to these people who are doing their best to fit in with the way society wants them to look.

One thing's for sure, it's definitely not a matter of self-discipline. 95-98% of people who lose weight on diets gain it all back plus a little extra. The fact is that every single one of these diets was intended for weight loss, not life-long nutrition.

If your body is not getting the proper nutrition, it's going to fight your efforts to deny it. In the end, you're fighting a losing battle.

If what you're saying to me is that self discipline is to blame - aren't you pretty much just labeling overweight people as lazy gluttons? Perhaps that's not what you meant to convey, but that's the message that's being put out there.

The majority of overweight people have worked hard to try to lose weight and fit in with the rest of society. To blame them for a lack of self-discipline is ridiculous. They've gone above and beyond the efforts that we should expect of them. Who wants to live on such a poor diet that you're constantly being gnawed at by hunger? Nobody! But these people do, and often for quite a long time.

Self-discipline? Overweight people have it in scores!

Diets don't work. They cause weight gain and poor health. Those are the facts. Considering that, isn't it scary that 90% of school girls have tried dieting? And they're starting younger and younger all the time. This means that millions of girls who are perfectly healthy and of normal weight are playing havoc with their bodies.

So no, I don't think blaming the diet industry is very far-fetched at all.

Second, commercials and ads and promos provide the temptation, and makes it harder to resist.

This kind of viewpoint seems very strange to me. If I see an ad for McDonalds, my mouth may perhaps water a little. But then the next commercial comes on or the show comes back and I forget about it. I don't feel the urge to go out right then and there and pick up some fast food. I only eat out about once or twice a month.

What statements like this seem to be assuming is that we're all mindless zombies who are being victimized by television and can't resist the wicked temptation of the things we're shown.

Forgive me if that's a little bit 'reductio ad absurdum', but it doesn't seem to me to be off by much.

There's an interesting thing about marketing and commercials. For the most part, they don't convince people to buy stuff that they weren't going to buy anyway. Car commercials, for example, don't convince people who weren't interested in buying cars to become interested. Rather it's all about convincing people who were going to buy a car anyway to choose a certain brand.

It's the same with most other products, including food. McDonald's commercials are not about convincing you to eat there if you weren't going to eat fast food in the first place. They're about saying 'If you're going to have some fast food, you should come here!'

And according to market research, that's typically the way that they work. McDonald's commercials don't increase the number of people looking to eat fast food, they only help increase McDonald's percentage of that pie.

So people eating at McDonald's haven't been tempted to eat fast food by the commercials. They were already going to eat fast food no matter what. McDonald's has only convinced them to choose their restaurants.

Third, it's the way we live! People are so busy that cooking becomes a big deal. So we find an abundance of these quick-fix meals that are loaded with things that are bad for you.....because they use these things to make it taste better! Whatever happened to simple cooking from basically scratch? We have no more time for those!

I don't believe that homemade meals are any more nutritious in general than quick-fix meals. In fact, I know for a fact that if you look at the available frozen meals you will find many of them that have a good amount of healthy stuff like veggies and rice as well as having fairly low sodium and calories.

Quick fix meals are made from most of the same ingredients you would use to make food from scratch. Meals aren't necessarily more healthy simply because they're homemade.

And furthermore, parking all day infront of the tv and on the computer makes matters worst!

Using the car to drive three blocks to get movies, instead of walking.....

Admit it. It's the current lifestyle that plays a big role why society is literally changing shape!

I'll give you that people could be exercising more. But again here I don't blame computers and television so much. One thing I blame is schools for heaping our kids with an unnecessary amount of homework. That's only increased by leaps and bounds in recent years, by the time they're done who can blame them for being mentally exhausted and just wanting to veg?

And it's the same in the work world. We're able to do more in less time than ever before these days, and yet we still feel the urge to push ourselves even beyond that limit.

And, of course, there's the whole attitude that people have towards exercise. Somehow we feel that we must get our exercise in the stale, boring surroundings of a gym, and on a bunch of torture machines no less. The whole attitude can be summed up by the saying, started I believe in the 80's: "No Pain, No Gain!"

Screw that! Who wants to put themselves through pain on a regular basis? Exercise doesn't have to be about pain. Exercise SHOULDN'T be about pain! A nice hike through the forest is a wonderful way to get exercise. Or a bike ride around the city exploring places you've never been. Spending time at the local swimming pool is a divine way to get your exercise during the summer. There are tons of ways to exercise pain-free!

As a society we've made being "healthy" all about starving yourself and physical pain. And then we wonder why more people don't follow through with it. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

[betsy]

Betsy, I strongly disagree with you on this. Pointing blame in this manner seems to me to be very excessive and condescending to these people who are doing their best to fit in with the way society wants them to look.

One thing's for sure, it's definitely not a matter of self-discipline. 95-98% of people who lose weight on diets gain it all back plus a little extra. The fact is that every single one of these diets was intended for weight loss, not life-long nutrition.

Why did they gain it all back? Plus some more?

Because they went back to the old habit.

Dieting is intended for weight loss….and a change in eating habits and lifestyle is necessary to keep the weight off. Unless something is biologically or psychologically wrong with the person.

So of course, in the end it all boils down to self-discipline.

If what you're saying to me is that self discipline is to blame - aren't you pretty much just labeling overweight people as lazy gluttons? Perhaps that's not what you meant to convey, but that's the message that's being put out there.

SELF-DISCIPLINE.

I would rather be straightforward rather than lull them into deflecting and blurring the issue. For some, the issue is a matter of life and death.

Your comment however suggests all fat people are overly sensitive and fragile…unable to face reality….that they are all in denial?

You've got to face reality in order to succeed. You've got to know and understand your weaknesses in order to win.

The majority of overweight people have worked hard to try to lose weight and fit in with the rest of society. To blame them for a lack of self-discipline is ridiculous. . They've gone above and beyond the efforts that we should expect of them. Who wants to live on such a poor diet that you're constantly being gnawed at by hunger? Nobody! But these people do, and often for quite a long time.

What is ridiculous is blaming the diets! You, yourself had said “diets are for losing weight..” Well, if they’d lost weight…obviously the diet delivered what it ought to.

What diet had promised that you will lose weight…and never gain again, even if you go back to the old ways? Can you name one?

Who made the choice to get into those diets anyway?

Considering that, isn't it scary that 90% of school girls have tried dieting? And they're starting younger and younger all the time. This means that millions of girls who are perfectly healthy and of normal weight are playing havoc with their bodies.

Depends what you mean here. If they got normal weight….then why did they go into diets? Do you think it’s just for the sake of going on a diet (which I doubt it, cos like you said, who would want to starve themselves)….or because they’re trying to emulate anorexic celebrities? The latter one is most likely. Therefore in this scenario, you can’t really blame the “diet”.

If the girl is obese…why shouldn’t a parent put her on a diet? The doctor can offer some healthy suggestions. The older she gets, the harder it is to lose weight…not to mention what it can do to her health and self-esteem!

As for the influence of commercials….what do you think these celebrities are doing? They’re not promoting food….but a certain look or image!

Why do you think McDonalds or Tim Horton have promo tie-ups with Disney?

Why would these companies waste billions in advertising…if they wouldn’t be able to get more people in?

It makes it harder for a lot of people to keep their weight off (after going through excruciating diets)….since a lot of these people had most probably been going to fast foods in the past.

I don't believe that homemade meals are any more nutritious in general than quick-fix meals. In fact, I know for a fact that if you look at the available frozen meals you will find many of them that have a good amount of healthy stuff like veggies and rice as well as having fairly low sodium and calories.

Quick fix meals are made from most of the same ingredients you would use to make food from scratch. Meals aren't necessarily more healthy simply because they're homemade.

But you can make home-made meals healthy…because you’ve got control over it!

That’s part of the ball game, isn’t it? TAKING CONTROL OF YOURSELF!

It’s one thing if you don’t have any problems….but if you’re trying to lose weight or maintain your weight…and if you’re highly susceptible to gaining weight…boy, oh boy!

Besides, most of those little frozen meals….have you seen how much veggies they’ve got in them? The kinds of protein? You’re lucky if they don’t use processed meat.

And most of them have trans fat!

[Parrot]

Why did they gain it all back? Plus some more?

Because they went back to the old habit.

Dieting is intended for weight loss….and a change in eating habits and lifestyle is necessary to keep the weight off.

I don't believe it works out like that Betsy, and I think if you look at it you will see that the scientific research bears me out on this one.

The reason people gained back the weight plus more is because diets are not meant as long term solutions. They are band-aid fixes. Diets do not promote nutrition, they promote weight-loss at any cost. In the world of health, diets are the anti-nutrition movement.

You talk about making changes in eating habits. I think we're on the same page there in that we should be promoting healthy and nutritious eating. But that does not involve dieting.

When you diet you're starving your body of the nutrients it needs. This is hard on your internal organs. Your body will fight you, it will do all it can to make sure that it conserves those fat stores. If you're fighting with your body and trying to force it into the way you think it should be... well, you're going to lose that fight.

And the question is, why are we advocating fighting our bodies? Proper nutrition should be about working WITH our bodies to primarily achieve good health. If we promote healthy eating practices (Nutrition, not diets!) and regular enjoyable exercise, I think it's a good bet that we can see some reduction in obesity.

But the focus should be on long term health, any changes in weight that come as a result will be gradual. The body just doesn't adjust well to sudden fluctuations, trying to force the issue only damages health.

Unless something is biologically or psychologically wrong with the person.

There doesn't need to be anything wrong with somebody in order for their body to resist their attempts to lose weight. The body does that naturally. And I think it's pretty clear that we don't completely understand all the complexities of the biological processes devoted to weight gain or weight loss. Trying to present it as a simple matter is gravely misguided.

SELF-DISCIPLINE.

I would rather be straightforward rather than lull them into deflecting and blurring the issue. For some, the issue is a matter of life and death.

Your comment however suggests all fat people are overly sensitive and fragile…unable to face reality….that they are all in denial?

You've got to face reality in order to succeed. You've got to know and understand your weaknesses in order to win.

I think you've misunderstood what I have to say if this is what you got out of it. I do not believe that overweight people are sensitive, fragile, or in denial. I'm mystified as to where you got that impression from what I had to say... however, to set the record clear, I will state emphatically here that this is not what I believe.

People who are overweight know that they are overweight. For some reason, a lot of people seem to get the impression that they are somehow ignorant of this fact. They aren't. And they want to improve their health and have more energy. They're trying every single fad diet under the sun hoping for lasting results. But those results just aren't forthcoming, and the constant yo-yo dieting is damaging their health.

I'm not talking about deflecting or blurring the issue here. I'm talking about focusing on their health and trying to achieve some clear and lasting results.

What is ridiculous is blaming the diets! You, yourself had said “diets are for losing weight..” Well, if they’d lost weight…obviously the diet delivered what it ought to.

What diet had promised that you will lose weight…and never gain again, even if you go back to the old ways? Can you name one?

Betty, I find it useless to argue that people should have stuck to any diet. None of those diets provide good nutrition, people went back to their old ways because they were suffering under them. Their bodies rebelled. When that happens you just can't fight it for long. It wears you down, gradually weakening your resolve.

Why should we blame the dieters for not being able to stick to a faulty diet?

Depends what you means here. If they got normal weight….then why did they go into diets? Do you think it’s just for the sake of going on a diet (which I doubt it, cos like you said, who would want to starve themselves)….or because they’re trying to emulate anorexic celebrities? The latter one is most likely. Therefore in this scenario, you can’t really blame the “diet”.

The anorexic celebrities are just one symptom of our society's obsession with thinness. This obsession perhaps didn't originate with the diet industry, but they've certainly done their best to fan the flames. They've distorted the facts and lobbied for changes that not only have warped the way we see weight, but also the way in which we handle overweight people.

So I think I can blame the diet industry, and I blame it for quite a lot.

If the girl is obese…why shouldn’t a parent put her on a diet? The doctor can offer some healthy suggestions. The older she gets, the harder it is to lose weight…not to mention what it can do to her health and self-esteem!

Like I said, I'm all for advocating proper nutrition and exercise. But not diet. If parents puts their children on a diet, they're doing that child more harm than they would have if they'd left the issue alone.

I'm not advocating that they leave the issue alone, though. It's up to the parents to sit down with their children and explore all the issues they may have with food and form a plan to help the child be healthy and active. It's a complicated issue, and it won't be solved with band-aid solutions like diets.

Why do you think McDonalds or Tim Horton have promo tie-ups with Disney?

Why would these companies waste billions in advertising…if they wouldn’t be able to get more people in?

I'm not sure if you understood what I wrote on this subject. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough - I apologize if I misrepresented my case.

What I'm trying to say is that advertising fast food is not about getting people to eat fast food if they weren't going to in the first place. McDonald's and Tim Horton's advertise and run promotions in order to get more people to come in, but they only convince people who were going to have fast food anyway. If it weren't for whatever promotion McDonald's is running, many of the consumers may have chosen Pizza Pizza instead.

It's not about fighting to bring in more customers that didn't already exist, it's about bringing those customers to YOU instead of your competitors.

Do you see what I'm trying to say here?

But you can make home-made meals healthy…because you’ve got control over it!

That’s part of the ball game, isn’t it? TAKING CONTROL OF YOURSELF!

Is that not why we have food labels? So that we can take control and choose the best option? You have a choice over which frozen dinner you buy.

Besides, most of those little frozen meals….have you seen how much veggies they’ve got in them? The kinds of protein? You’re lucky if they don’t use processed meat.

And most of them have trans fat!

Perhaps my grocery store carries different brands than yours. I eat frozen meals all the time, I can tell you for a fact that there are many, many healthy options.

[betsy]

Diet takes many forms.

It may be Vegetarian or Low-Fat or Cabbage-Soup or 11-Nuts or hamburgers only diet.

It can also be pizza, fries, burgers, shakes, tim hortons, spaghetti all in a day.

Diet is what we eat.

True that there are diet fads that could be harmful and innefective in the long run.....but I'm sure, there are also some diets that need not be innefective or harmful to ourselves. It is a matter of knowing what you think will work best for you....keeping in mind, that to keep the weight off, it will mean eating like this forever. Some diets make it impossible to live on it forever.

I've "tweaked" my own diet. It started as Atkins (I did the induction)....but it does not religiously follow Atkins.

Mind you, I'm only doing "maintenance." I start to panic when I go up 5 lbs (that's when I go right back as close to Atkins as I can...and a couple of days doing it works for me).

I know that at my age, it will be easy to balloon if I don't keep a lid on it.

Some of the changes I've made to my lifestyle is making sure Friday is seafood-day (no red meat), and Saturday is my "cleansing" day meaning I only drink no-added sugar cranberry juice and water (to rinse out the kidneys), for the whole morning (eating only when I do really start feeling hungry), eating loads of cabbage once a week (to clean out the liver).

I also try to make it a point that if I'm going to eat lots of carbohydrate, I make sure that day is low-fat day. Fat and lots of carbos together (like spaghetti or rice) makes me gain weight fast.

On a regular basis, I don't shy away from red meat and fat....but I do eat tons (and I mean tons of veggies!). There is always a big container of green salad already washed and ready to eat in the fridge and I'm never without frozen vegetables (my preference being corn, peas and cut green beans)...and assorted fresh vegetables. I am also starting to make sure I eat lentils or beans once a week...of course on the day I eat these, it will also be low-fat day.

I walk or do my own dancercise regularly as my form of exercise.

What I'm trying to say is: You have to know your body....your weaknesses. It all differs from person to person.

[cybercoma]

If the ultimate goal is to lose weight, then you should eat a wide range of food so you get the benefits of all the different vitamins and nutrients out there. After that, there is nothing else that matters beside caloric intake.

Use more calories than you take in and you'll lose weight. Everyday men need approx. 2000 calories to survive and women need about 1500 and that's doing very little physical activity. Do a bit of light workout a little and you increase the need for energy and therefore calories. If you're not getting enough calories out of your food (but eating a wide enough range of things that you get all of the necessary vitamins and nutrients) you begin to burn fat.

There is nothing else to dieting. No magic program, no nothing. Eat less calories than you're going to use in a day and you'll begin losing weight, but make sure in your attempt to eat less calories you eat a variety of different foods so you get the vitamins you need.

All these diet plans are possible for this reason, they usually change the way people eat so the calories drop. No carbs, No meat, hotdog diets, zone, blah blah blah.... they all work because they change the way people eat so that they reduce their consumption of calories.

[Parrot]

Diet takes many forms.

It may be Vegetarian or Low-Fat or Cabbage-Soup or 11-Nuts or hamburgers only diet.

It can also be pizza, fries, burgers, shakes, tim hortons, spaghetti all in a day.

Diet is what we eat.

We're getting a little bit into semantics here. "Diet" can be defined in a few different ways. I think the most common ones, as outlined in the dictionary, would be:

- "A selection or a limitation on the amount a person eats for reducing weight"

and

- "The foods eaten, as by a particular person or group"

When I say that diets are bad for you, I'm talking about that first definition. I, of course, don't mean that eating food is bad for you.

All diets supported by the diet industry are deficient in nutrition. Instead of going on "diets", if you make an effort to actually make positive nutrition changes you can see remarkable, long lasting changes rather than short-term band-aid fixes.

As for the plan that you're engaging in... I'm not sure what to think of it. It sounds kind of like a hodge-podge of different diet plans and general ideas. Have you checked with a certified professional in nutrition about this? If not, you should perhaps think about doing so.

[Parrot]

If the ultimate goal is to lose weight, then you should eat a wide range of food so you get the benefits of all the different vitamins and nutrients out there. After that, there is nothing else that matters beside caloric intake.

Cybercoma, I believe you have just made 2 mutually exclusive statements. First you say that vitamins and nutrition are important. Then you say that nothing else matters but caloric intake. Which is it?

I think you're a little bit confused. Both the types of foods and avoiding over-eating matter. If you say that calories are the only thing that matter, then you're saying that if it's a choice between getting proper nutrition and lowering your calories, that you should always go for the lower calories.

The truth is that for proper health, nutrition is the absolute most important element. If you make the focus simply on losing weight as quickly as possible, you damage your body.

Use more calories than you take in and you'll lose weight. Everyday men need approx. 2000 calories to survive and women need about 1500 and that's doing very little physical activity. Do a bit of light workout a little and you increase the need for energy and therefore calories. If you're not getting enough calories out of your food (but eating a wide enough range of things that you get all of the necessary vitamins and nutrients) you begin to burn fat.

I believe the average daily requirements are thought to be around 2000 for women and 2500 for men. This is at the average level of daily activity that we all participate in.

I think science is showing us pretty clearly that losing weight is a much more complicated matter than simply calories in minus calories burned. Dieting plays havoc with your metabolism and fat to muscle ratio and all sorts of other internal processes. And limiting your calorie intake so so that you're not getting enough doesn't just burn fat. It actually depletes your internal reserves of energy much more broadly, taking away from your fat, muscles, and even internal organs.

Although I appreciate the fact that you pay lip service to balanced nutrition, I think it's a big mistake to make calories the all important factor in health. I think a focus on proper nutrition and on making an effort to lead a less sedentary lifestyle will lead to greater health and weight stabilization.

[Parrot]

Geoff is right on this. If any of you remember that show on the history channel where a couple gets to live like pioneers for a year is a testament to this. The guy works his ass off and eats food straight out of the garden/cow. The guy and woman both lost a pile of weight and got much stronger.

As a caveat, I would like to point out that people living in pioneer times were lucky to live into their 40's. Just because that lifestyle makes you strong and thin, doesn't mean that it's healthy for you.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that more exercise is a good thing. I just want to point out that we should avoid the temptation to look at pioneer times as some sort of golden age in health. The reason our life expectancy is so high these days is partly due to the fact that we don't have to work ourselves to extremes anymore just for proper nutrition.

[blueblood]

Geoff is right on this. If any of you remember that show on the history channel where a couple gets to live like pioneers for a year is a testament to this. The guy works his ass off and eats food straight out of the garden/cow. The guy and woman both lost a pile of weight and got much stronger.

As a caveat, I would like to point out that people living in pioneer times were lucky to live into their 40's. Just because that lifestyle makes you strong and thin, doesn't mean that it's healthy for you.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that more exercise is a good thing. I just want to point out that we should avoid the temptation to look at pioneer times as some sort of golden age in health. The reason our life expectancy is so high these days is partly due to the fact that we don't have to work ourselves to extremes anymore just for proper nutrition.

And dying in your 40's in good physical shape is a bad thing???

[Parrot]

And dying in your 40's in good physical shape is a bad thing???

Dying in your 40's is a bad thing no matter what shape you're in. And it goes to show you that being tough and thin does not necessarily mean that you're in good health.

[BC_chick]

There was no good scientific reason for this change, but they managed to BS their way into making it happen. Before the change 15% of Americans were considered overweight. Overnight that amount more than doubled, to 37% - without a single one of those people even gaining a pound. Not to mention all the people who suddenly found themselves upgraded to "Obese".

Actually, I think the BMI index is quite generous in its classification of overweight because it's designed for multiple body types. For my height for example, I have to be 135 pounds for the BMI index to consider me overweight, and that's just too much for my frame. I know that they are considering different body-types in there, but I'm average when it comes to muscle-mass and I'm overweight at 125. If anything, the BMI index allows me to put on another 10 pounds guilt-free.

15% of schoolgirls have tried weight loss pills. 11% have tried laxatives as a weight loss measure. 9% have tried making themselves vomit after eating. Many people have blamed girl's magazines for propagating an unrealistic body image. Perhaps there's something to that... but it's only a very passive message.

If I were to compare that to my own school-years, I'd say that's one area that HASN'T changed.

[betsy]

Diet takes many forms.

It may be Vegetarian or Low-Fat or Cabbage-Soup or 11-Nuts or hamburgers only diet.

It can also be pizza, fries, burgers, shakes, tim hortons, spaghetti all in a day.

Diet is what we eat.

We're getting a little bit into semantics here. "Diet" can be defined in a few different ways. I think the most common ones, as outlined in the dictionary, would be:

- "A selection or a limitation on the amount a person eats for reducing weight"

and

- "The foods eaten, as by a particular person or group"

When I say that diets are bad for you, I'm talking about that first definition. I, of course, don't mean that eating food is bad for you.

All diets supported by the diet industry are deficient in nutrition. Instead of going on "diets", if you make an effort to actually make positive nutrition changes you can see remarkable, long lasting changes rather than short-term band-aid fixes.

As for the plan that you're engaging in... I'm not sure what to think of it. It sounds kind of like a hodge-podge of different diet plans and general ideas. Have you checked with a certified professional in nutrition about this? If not, you should perhaps think about doing so.

I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with my diet.

All I did was map it out and plan it so I make sure I don't lose out on some important nutrients and anti-oxidants. If there is anything that I'm really eating a lot of, it's vegetables! I easily accomodate 10 servings or so in a day. Which part of it do you think is of concern?

My doctor had known that I was dieting. What he ordered me though was not to lose anymore weight. So that's what I'm doing now, maintaining my weight around the weight that he said was just fine.

Btw, are you in any way trying to lose weight or maintaining? What do you do?

[geoffrey]

Actually, I think the BMI index is quite generous in its classification of overweight because it's designed for multiple body types. For my height for example, I have to be 135 pounds for the BMI index to consider me overweight, and that's just too much for my frame. I know that they are considering different body-types in there, but I'm average when it comes to muscle-mass and I'm overweight at 125. If anything, the BMI index allows me to put on another 10 pounds guilt-free.

This is why I think that body fat % is a more accurate measure. It's even worse for me. At my height, I'd need to weigh 180 pounds to be overweight... right now I weigh 148 (a little high for race season unfortunately) and I'm by no means overly scrawny, think cyclist build. If I put on 30-35 pounds I'd be a monsterosity... I'd never have the ability to put on another 30 pounds of muscle, doesn't work with my build.

My body fat percentage measured on Friday(also a little high for race season... perhaps less MLW and more time on the bike?) is sitting between 5-7%. I know 180 pound guys my height that sit in that similar range.

We're probably comparitively healthy, though I figure my aerobic conditioning gives me an edge in the heart disease department... who knows really.

[guyser]

My body fat percentage measured on Friday(also a little high for race season... perhaps less MLW and more time on the bike?) is sitting between 5-7%. I know 180 pound guys my height that sit in that similar range.

How was the test done Geoffrey? That seems inordinately low. If it was calipers , well then that I can understand.

Just remember that bodybuilders are around 4%-6% fat.

[margrace]

Well, it's regrettably common that popular campaigns overstate the case. What is wrong, in my view, is that scientists allow to go forward statements which they know, or ought to know, are false or misleading. When asked about this they often say something about good ends justifying the lie. If they wish to do that, let them call themselves 'social philosophers' or similar.

Having said that, let me say that my observation is that people in general seem to be a bit 'chunkier' than previously, with Americans leading the pack by some distance. Even in 'poor countries' an increase in weight, and overweight is observed.

To a degree we seem to be suffering from affluence, with more food available, and people eating more.

My guess is that in the end, trans fatty acids will be found to play a part in this phenomenon as well.

Parrot makes some good points.

Ever gone and sat in a shopping mall lately, it is disgusting.

[geoffrey]

How was the test done Geoffrey? That seems inordinately low. If it was calipers , well then that I can understand.

Just remember that bodybuilders are around 4%-6% fat.

Conductivity (electro-something or other) done in a performance lab.

That's not the lowest I've had body fat during race season, I've been as low as 4%. Im as lean or leaner than any bodybuilder I've seen/known. Being a smaller guy, even compared to other cyclists, fat is a huge liability, I don't have the muscle power to push around 180 pounds up steep hills like many, so I work constantly at keeping my fat % low, every pound is vital. 4% is uncomfortable at times, even at 5.9 I'm constantly cold when not active and I sleep with 3 thick blankets even at normal room temperature.

Also, it's difficult to maintain the constant carb flow that is required, there is no stores for the body to draw from so your always hungry regardless.

Don't really recommend it if it doesn't benefit you a great deal, it's not physically harmful (unless due to an eating disorder or something) but it's not really physically beneficial to be under 13% as a guy and 16% as a woman. The body essientially requires 3% for guys and 10% for women... go below that and your in some trouble.

[RB]

I would like to add my thoughts on this "fat" issue. Well, people firstly make excuses for being fat: likely excuse, "i have the fat genes".

I would like to outright say people are simply lazy and have no self-control and discipline, that folks have common sense not to exercise, and eat their lots of junk food, and become unhealthy, and fat.

For some reason poor people are "fatter" than rich people, and it might have much to do with stresses and amounts of external control influencing their lives, perhaps they are unemployed, not much stability in their jobs etc. But, they actually gain weight, when they are in financial dire straits. The less educated are also likely to be fat and this may be because educated folks have nutritional information that promotes weight loss/gain – Oh well, the educated is also much likely to have better income - so this is just reinforcing the rich people idea.

Anyway, it’s a bit tiresome to see the many folks simply wasting their time sitting on a couch, munching on their chips and blaming the gene pool for their unhealthy ways they can control. And the lots in their family look very overweight, in fact Canadian folks are much overweight, eastern Canadians heading the pack.

I may sound selfish, and I know that overweight folks suffer from esteem issues, worth etc. but I will never date a fat man. To me it represents lack of responsibility in taking good care of their health, and well being, how can they care for me.

I mean if I take the time to exercise regularly and put in hours a day to be in good health and good shape, why can't I select and fantasize of someone who have similar desire to work hard at being fit and healthy and also show for it.

[geoffrey]

I may sound selfish, and I know that overweight folks suffer from esteem issues, worth etc. but I will never date a fat man. To me it represents lack of responsibility in taking good care of their health, and well being, how can they care for me.

My thoughts exactly, but I'd get stoned for saying I'd never date a fat girl... but I wouldn't. So bring on the stoning.

[Parrot]

Actually, I think the BMI index is quite generous in its classification of overweight because it's designed for multiple body types.

BC_chick, you are sadly misinformed. The BMI doesn't take body types into account AT ALL! In fact, as of the changes from 1998, the BMI no longer even recognizes the bodily differences between men and women.

For my height for example, I have to be 135 pounds for the BMI index to consider me overweight, and that's just too much for my frame. I know that they are considering different body-types in there, but I'm average when it comes to muscle-mass and I'm overweight at 125. If anything, the BMI index allows me to put on another 10 pounds guilt-free.

I have no way of making any statements concerning your weight or how your health would be affected if you weighed 10 pounds more. Somehow I guess you came to the conclusion that you are overweight in spite of being under the BMI threshold. I suspect that's more of a statement of your insecurities rather than actual fact.

Learning to love your body can be a challenge for fat and thin alike.