Americans are fat.

Della said:
Yes, and if you eat fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight -- and then you'll need fewer calories because you'll be smaller, and later you'll need even fewer calories because your metabolism will have slowed down to help you live through the perceived famine. After a year or so you won't be able to eat more than about 600-800 hundred calories a day without gaining. Meanwhile your leptin levels will have doubled (leptin being the hunger producing hormone) so you'll be ravenously hungry all the time even though your body is starting to gain back weight on about 600 calories a day.:eek:
Click to expand...
This is so true and probably one of the most frustrating things for those truly trying to lose weight via old school methods. Quite often these types end up losing weight initially but in the long run gaining more weight. Itā€™s even sadder that many weight loss professionals, using digital online programs, still use this old school method.
 

Alligatorob said:
@chic and @PeppermintPatty you have raised a very interesting question, to me anyway. It would never have occurred to me that being obese is as bad or worse for your health than smoking. However I did do a bit of follow up Google research and it does appear to be very much true.

Which does make me think about how we treat the two problems. Lots of restrictions, taxes, and social pressures on smokers. Obesity is recognized as a problem, but there are many fewer government controls and taxes than on smoking. Should french fries cost $7 a pack?

I am a supporter of most anti-smoking campaigns, but not judgmental of those who still smoke. I know its a very easy habit to get into and a very hard one to end. Its a personal choice. The one thing I don't like is the extremely high tax on cigarettes. In the US more poor people smoke than rich, the cigarette tax is a tax on the poor. And I suspect doesn't stop much smoking.

Even though I have too much experience with obesity I am less certain as to what to do about it. It's probably a more complex problem than smoking.

However I believe there should be some recognition of the equality of the problems. For example I am not sure it makes sense for smokers to pay higher health insurance premiums, unless we do the same for obese people...

Here is one of the articles I read:

Obesity in adulthood and its consequences for life expectancy
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12513041/

Results: Large decreases in life expectancy were associated with overweight and obesity. Forty-year-old female nonsmokers lost 3.3 years and 40-year-old male nonsmokers lost 3.1 years of life expectancy because of overweight. Forty-year-old female nonsmokers lost 7.1 years and 40-year-old male nonsmokers lost 5.8 years because of obesity. Obese female smokers lost 7.2 years and obese male smokers lost 6.7 years of life expectancy compared with normal-weight smokers. Obese female smokers lost 13.3 years and obese male smokers lost 13.7 years compared with normal-weight nonsmokers. Body mass index at ages 30 to 49 years predicted mortality after ages 50 to 69 years, even after adjustment for body mass index at age 50 to 69 years.

Conclusions: Obesity and overweight in adulthood are associated with large decreases in life expectancy and increases in early mortality. These decreases are similar to those seen with smoking. Obesity in adulthood is a powerful predictor of death at older ages. Because of the increasing prevalence of obesity, more efficient prevention and treatment should become high priorities in public health.
Click to expand...
Yes! The prepackaged food industry has much more of an impact of humanity than the tobacco industry. Do you think our food industry really wants us knowing the truth?
 
PeppermintPatty said:
Yes! The prepackaged food industry has much more of an impact of humanity than the tobacco industry. Do you think our food industry really wants us knowing the truth?
Click to expand...
So true, @PeppermintPatty ... when I went grocery shopping yesterday, I picked up what was marketed as a healthy family meal because of lots of veggies in it... checked the nutrition panel and it had low carbs to be sure but it was 1150mg of sodium per *serving!* Needless to say it stayed in the deli case, but not everyone reads labels!
 

CallMeKate said:
So true, @PeppermintPatty ... when I went grocery shopping yesterday, I picked up what was marketed as a healthy family meal because of lots of veggies in it... checked the nutrition panel and it had low carbs to be sure but it was 1150mg of sodium per *serving!* Needless to say it stayed in the deli case, but not everyone reads labels!
Click to expand...
Reading labels is crucial to eating well. One canā€™t just focus on ā€˜low fat,ā€™ ā€˜low carb,ā€™ ā€˜low calorie,ā€™ foods. The food industry follow food fads and start creating foods with the above in mind. Most of them are never healthy.
1150 mg of sodium is crazy high!

You are right. Not everyone reads labels and the food industry knows this. Good thing you do. šŸ‘
 
Many RX meds can mess up our stomach bacteria, plus some foods are interacting also with our gut and our nutrition that supplies us with our ability to be mobile. :)

Probiotic foods contain beneficial live microbiota that may further alter one's microbiome. These include fermented foods like kefir, yogurt with live active cultures, pickled vegetables, tempeh, kombucha tea, kimchi, miso, and sauerkraut. ( Google )
 
Michael Z said:
My problem is usually keeping my weight up. And I eat a LOT, but it consists of large volumes of salad and natural grains. No soda pop and fast food and minimum processed foods. Filling, but an hour later it is as if I have not eaten a thing.
Click to expand...
Sounds like hyperthyroid (?). Have you been tested for Graves Disease?
 
the diet industry is estimated at 72 billion a year ( depending on year and what item counted in stats) ......
people more then happy to pay out for pills / shakes etc instead of really addressing what they are putting in their mouths ..... i had protein shakes for spouse when he was trying to lose weight ....
after going as low salt as possible we saw many of those shakes are choke full of sodium Dropping the sodium has helped us more then playing carb vs fat games.....
i take surveys for fun and you can earn points for gift cards ....
the survey today asked ....

#1 do you think a hot dog is a meal or just a snack
#2 do you think a slice of pizza is a meal or a snack
all i thought was of this thread and said to myself .............too many pick this is a snack category :unsure:
 
Della said:
if you eat fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight -- and then you'll need fewer calories because you'll be smaller, and later you'll need even fewer calories because your metabolism will have slowed down to help you live through the perceived famine. After a year or so you won't be able to eat more than about 600-800 hundred calories a day without gaining.
Click to expand...

When I did weight-watchers they avoided that scenario by assigning a calorie minimum limit that was above where the metabolism would slow. I remember when my weight loss got down to that limit I did still lose a little weight each week, but very slowly. The last 10 lbs that I lost took as long as the first 30+ lbs. A way of encouraging us about the tiny fractional lbs of weight loss during that stage was to think of them as pats of butter, such as 'I lost 2 pats of butter this week'.
 
Della said:
Yes, and if you eat fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight -- and then you'll need fewer calories because you'll be smaller, and later you'll need even fewer calories because your metabolism will have slowed down to help you live through the perceived famine. After a year or so you won't be able to eat more than about 600-800 hundred calories a day without gaining. Meanwhile your leptin levels will have doubled (leptin being the hunger producing hormone) so you'll be ravenously hungry all the time even though your body is starting to gain back weight on about 600 calories a day.:eek:
Click to expand...
Most weight loss places would never go that low per day it is starvation mode.
for some trainers etc i have seen interviews etc they talk of what they call calorie confusion where every few days you would eat a larger amount of calories one day low for a day or two and continue the cycle. your body does not stop burning thinking it is starving then.

people regain weight because there should be eating change not diets.... many severely underestimate their consumption. when i had spouse START to read labels he was astonished not only by what was in it but the "serving size '.
 
HoneyNut said:
When I did weight-watchers they avoided that scenario by assigning a calorie minimum limit that was above where the metabolism would slow. I remember when my weight loss got down to that limit I did still lose a little weight each week, but very slowly. The last 10 lbs that I lost took as long as the first 30+ lbs. A way of encouraging us about the tiny fractional lbs of weight loss during that stage was to think of them as pats of butter, such as 'I lost 2 pats of butter this week'.
Click to expand...
That 30 lbs loss and then a wall, usually called a plateau, has been studied, maybe since you were in Weight Watchers. It's called something like weight set point theory. It varies from one person to the next. I hit that plateau at 40 lbs of loss.

From observations, a person loses weight normally when he lowers his calorie intake starting at his weight set point, where his/her body metaphorically says, "This is my normal weight." Weight loss continues as intake is reduced until the body says, "Hey wait, this is getting serious. I'm starting to starve," and metabolism changes to slow down weight loss, and a person starts losing weight by the pats of butter count.

This is the body's new set point and loss or gain at this point is limited by changes in metabolism aimed at keeping weight at a constant. The body now says, "This is where I'm supposed to be. We can break through the new set point after 8 to 12 weeks, or so it's claimed, but it was more like a year for me as my new set point established itself.

This sounds related to the "calorie confusion" that Jeni refers to below. Before we can start again losing weight normally after the new set point is established. I've only recently heard about the Set Point theory, and it does explain what I have experienced, and apparently others as well.

Jeni said:
Most weight loss places would never go that low per day it is starvation mode.
for some trainers etc i have seen interviews etc they talk of what they call calorie confusion where every few days you would eat a larger amount of calories one day low for a day or two and continue the cycle. your body does not stop burning thinking it is starving then.

people regain weight because there should be eating change not diets.... many severely underestimate their consumption. when i had spouse START to read labels he was astonished not only by what was in it but the "serving size '.
Click to expand...
Yes, weight maintenance, does not allow for returning to old habits. it's easy to underestimate consumption. It's like alcoholics that fall off the wagon thinking just one drink on a special occasion won't hurt. It's not a perfect analogy, but maintenance requires a life change, and a sensible diet would have to replace junk treats with healthy foods, because while calories can be reduced, nutritional needs must still be met somehow.
 
I read this whole thread and this is what I got:

Stay away from fast food.
Read labels.
Eat less calories.
Make the calories you do eat come from healthy food.
Don't smoke despite it's weight loss effects.
Be active.
Teach children to go out and play but not get kidnapped.
Eat from the senior menu.

I think we should all strive to follow this going forward. What do you think?
 
Michael Z said:
I donā€™t think so. 176 pounds yesterday. 178, plus or minus 4 pounds for the last 6 or 7 years. I just have to eat a bit more at times or it does drop a few pounds. Like if I am working on a building project.

Raw vegetables donā€™t have a lot of calories, nor does oatmeal.
Click to expand...
I thought about that after. If you eat mostly plant based you are hungry more often.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
I was watching a college baseball game. on TV. Behind the batter, in the stands, there were rows of spectators-both men and women. And they were all fat, well over into the 200+ lb. range. In the first row was at least a ton of human flesh. BTW, I'm 200 lbs, so I'm no starvin' Marvin, either. Okay, so I changed the channel to the Tour De France bike race. I noticed that the spectators were all rather thin. It struck me that people could be thin, I'm so used to fat people. Most of the French were on the thin side, while in the USA, most were fat- anywhere from 50lbs. + overweight.
Americans are way too fat. WHY?
Click to expand...

I prefer to think of tem as...cuddly :giggle:
 
Meet a man yesterday. He had a really bad case of diabetes. His fingers could not be opened and he had only 1 leg left. He was only 49 years old.

Talked to someone who knew him for years. That person said the man ate junk food, too much sweets, would not diet and refused to exercise. I guess it's true, "What you eat is what you are." I just called it slow suicide. That is what a lot of fat people are doing: SLOW SUICIDE. What goes around comes around. Oh well, too many people on this planet anyway!
 
From my observation, obesity, smoking and alcohol/drug abuse all lead to a rather unpleasant last decade or two of life, if not an early grave.

The lifelong smokers I've known have developed COPD, shortness of breath, bouts with cancer, an inability to climb more than a few flights of stairs, and/or require oxygen supplementation. They may live longer than obese people, but their lot is far from pleasant.

Lifelong alcohol/drug abusers tend to develop all manner of health problems that are difficult to survive.

Severely obese friends in my age group (BMI over 40) have nearly all developed several of the following: serious knee and hip problems, mobility issues, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, red flags in their blood chemistry tests and last but not least, great social discomfort due to their size.

My point is that none of the above should be encouraged.

I'm disheartened by the normalizing of obesity that's occurred in the past decade. In a quest to not "fat shame" (and I agree we shouldn't), are we unintentionally giving tacit permission to young people to become morbidly obese, ruining their health in the process?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top