People see these statistics and get irrationally mad at fat people. I am just grateful to be fit. Being large and sedentary is a half-life. So many of life's greatest pleasures require a body in motion. Even eating and vegetating on the couch are significantly more enjoyable if you've exercised beforehand.
-
90
-
The Original P.i.m.p. Baller wrote:
People see these statistics and get irrationally mad at fat people. I am just grateful to be fit. Being large and sedentary is a half-life. So many of life's greatest pleasures require a body in motion. Even eating and vegetating on the couch are significantly more enjoyable if you've exercised beforehand.
It really depends on your ratio of dopamine and serotonin receptors and what drives those receptors. Based on stimuli, your dopamine receptors will increase to depend more and more on that particular stimulus.
Some people's dopamine receptors are driven by food addiction, some by fitness addiction or sense of athletic achievement.
11 -
People smoke a lot less tobacco in the US now than they did in 1960. Doesn't explain the whole 30lb difference, but it explains at least some of it.
31 -
Jawan T wrote:
bah. wrote:
UPFs (with preservatives and emulsifiers and what not) are the new boogeyman. I’ve never seen compelling evidence of UPFs causing harm when the diet overall is 1) in caloric balance; and 2) micro-nutritionally adequate. Food additives are not toxic and FWIW, FDA approved.
So much naivete in your post. Just because something isn't toxic doesn't mean it's not harmful to your health. It means it just kills you over a longer period of time than something that we'd label a toxin...
Little knowledge can cause perception of naïveté. Learn to read what’s written.
01 -
bah. wrote:
Jawan T wrote:
So much naivete in your post. Just because something isn't toxic doesn't mean it's not harmful to your health. It means it just kills you over a longer period of time than something that we'd label a toxin...
Little knowledge can cause perception of naïveté. Learn to read what’s written.
I has a Weschler tested IQ of 145. I'm not an idiot.
07 -
Republican Agenda wrote:
It would be interesting to look T the trend of presidents’ weights. Thinking Trump was the fattest yet…?
Wiliam "Bathtub" Taft weighed 350lbs and was 5'11". He was by far the fattest US president. He enjoyed eating steaks for breakfast, but who does not?
50 -
seattle prattle wrote:
...it's only a matter of time until they have pharmaceutical ways of losing weight. I think there's some now but they are very very expensive, though I could be wrong. But the writing's on the wall - only a matter of time.Yikes, I would not go down that route. I saw a meme today that was like, "Those who push the poison also sell the cure." Obesity's a big money maker!11 -
LetsRunSpecial wrote:
bah. wrote:
Why was a post linking to to red states being more obese removed by mods?
Fat belly is obvious trending during Trump rallies.
This article has some photo proof.
Ignore the tally because they always inflate the attendance number by ten folds. The average weight of speaker and audience is probably 220 pounds.
11 -
Many low-income and rural areas have higher obesity because they are in “food deserts”, i.e. no access to a real grocery store. So, they feed their families from the dollar tree and fast food restaurants. Pretty tough.
41 -
Middle-Ager wrote:
And here's the weird thing: My dad wasn't fat by any means & I remember he would go for a short walk, weather permitting, every evening after dinner.that's actually really good to regulate blood sugar - maybe your dad had it all figured out in the 60s. He was ahead of his time.
20 -
The Original P.i.m.p. Baller wrote:
People see these statistics and get irrationally mad at fat people. I am just grateful to be fit. Being large and sedentary is a half-life. So many of life's greatest pleasures require a body in motion. Even eating and vegetating on the couch are significantly more enjoyable if you've exercised beforehand.
Don't get mad at fat people, they have to carry that 20-100 extra pounds around 24/7, that has to be very difficult and never fun.
00 -
arunnerinwa wrote:
The real question is why people eat more now than they did in 1961. I think convenience and cost is a big part of it. Food is much more affordable than it used to be, so people can afford to eat a lot more soda and potato chips. Today, you buy 12-packs of soda, instead of 6-packs. Potato chips and every kind of junk food comes in bigger packages, tastes delicious, and is cheaper. More people own two cars, making it easier to shop by car as often as desired rather than by bus or less frequently. For example, my grandparents had one car, so when my Mom was growing up in the 60s, she said her grandma would take the car once every TWO WEEKS to shop on the weekend. Today, my husband and I shop a few times a week and it's super easy and convenient.
It's not portion size. Everyone knows perfectly well that they aren't supposed to eat the entire cake or the whole tray of brownies or the entire half gallon of ice cream. It's a mental disorder. Of course everybody here has likely sat down and decided the triple cheeseburger with bacon and extra large fries would hit the spot on a particular day but the difference is you all did not do that for every day that followed. No rational person would hit 200 at 5'9 or 170 at 5'3 and think they look fine and are destined to live a long and healthy life. What makes this worse is when the fat parents raise their kids into this lifestyle. It doesn't matter if it's heroin, smoking, or food.
The fact that this mental disorder is far more prevalent in the US than anywhere in the world should point us in the direction to find out what its roots are. I would lean towards capitalism and where it's headed. The next few decades are going to get mighty bumpy.
00 -
fitz wrote:
Who doesn't love the average American woman. 5'3.5", 170lbs. What's not to love???
or to be more precise, there's a whole LOT to love
30 -
fitz wrote:
Who doesn't love the average American woman. 5'3.5", 170lbs. What's not to love???
Black and some Spanish guys love that though. That is their body type.
41 -
Insightful debate
00 -
They gave mice a non-processed diet and they ate till satiety no matter how much food was around. Then they gave them a processed diet and the mice gained weight. When given the non-processed diet, these mice refused to eat whole foods. Just turned away from it even with no other options.
So it's not kids' faults they won't even eat the apples and pears in their school lunch if they're already well familiar with nuggets and pizza and fries. Plus these foods are engineered to make you crave more. Someone posted that in the '60s they were going through a bag of Lay's potato chips every 3 days and never got fat. I would consider that moderation. I bet it was not nearly as big as a family-size bag now and fried somehow differently with preservatives added. I can eat a bag of Lay's in one sitting on the couch. The only reason I'm not fat is metabolism and/or going running. I'm also aware enough that I'll replace a meal rather than add on chips. That's right, I'm eating chips for dinner. For fun. And I would rather have that than a real meal sometimes.50 -
broken arrow wrote:
The Original P.i.m.p. Baller wrote:
People see these statistics and get irrationally mad at fat people. I am just grateful to be fit. Being large and sedentary is a half-life. So many of life's greatest pleasures require a body in motion. Even eating and vegetating on the couch are significantly more enjoyable if you've exercised beforehand.
Don't get mad at fat people, they have to carry that 20-100 extra pounds around 24/7, that has to be very difficult and never fun.
Among all the bad that extra weight does, one positive effect is the reduced risk of low bone density because they are weight training all the time carrying their body weight if they move at all.
20 -
No Smoking wrote:
People smoke a lot less tobacco in the US now than they did in 1960. Doesn't explain the whole 30lb difference, but it explains at least some of it.
Doesn't explain why so many kids are obese today but it was rare in the 1960s. It is clearly lifestyle and diet.
20 -
seattle prattle wrote:
Wall eeeeeeeeee wrote:
I love the movie Wall E for a lot of reasons. One is they perfectly predicted the future fatness of the human race. One day everyone will just go around on little platforms that carry them everywhere. Where I live, every kid has an e bike. Nobody has a regular bike. It’s already beginning. I love it.
Could be, but there seems to be tremendous strides being made in weight loss drugs. Not my area of expertise, but let's be real - it's only a matter of time until they have pharmaceutical ways of losing weight. I think there's some now but they are very very expensive, though I could be wrong. But the writing's on the wall - only a matter of time.
That wouldn’t be a good business model. A profitable pharmaceutical would provide an endless revenue stream not a cure. If you’re referring to the GLP-1 meds for weight loss, they require you to be on them for life or else the weight comes back on. Corporations make decisions based on shareholders interests.
00 -
real_kellen_olmstead_two wrote:
Those contrasts are STARK to say the least...
Breakdown here:By Region:
In 2012, BMC Public Health reported the following average weights by region. The averages were calculated using data from 2005, and relied on combined statistics for men and women:
North America: 177.9 pounds
Oceania, including Australia: 163.4 pounds
Europe: 156.1 pounds
Latin America/Caribbean: 149.7 pounds
Africa: 133.8 pounds
Asia: 127.2 poundsI'm 5'8 and weigh 140 (obviously I run and do other gym work). But I'm always shocked at how much overweight most people are when I travel. I was at the Shamrock Marathon this year and even the runners were overweight.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.