Started By
Message

re: NYT: American Adults Just Keep Getting Fatter

Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:14 am to
Posted by GetCocky11
Calgary, AB
Member since Oct 2012
53509 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:14 am to
quote:

BRIllini07


Do you disagree with the overall point though that this country is extremely unhealthy?

Whatever your methodology used, the same general result will be achieved in this study.
Posted by TH03
Mogadishu
Member since Dec 2008
172004 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:15 am to
If I’m eating a frick ton of calories in one meal, it’s going to be good, not shitty fast food. I couldn’t tell you the last time I had fast food much less McDonald’s.
This post was edited on 7/24/18 at 10:16 am
Posted by Mingo Was His NameO
Brooklyn
Member since Mar 2016
37536 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:18 am to
quote:

All you people who talk condescendingly about fatties and sugar addicts, and brag about your keto diets and workouts.... you're all a bunch of douchebags.

I hope the extra 3-5 years you gain in old age by denying yourself the enjoyment of something as basic as food is all you hope it will be.

I'll take a McGriddle, ma'am.


I had Mexican food last night and chips and salsa. But I also went to the gym before and didn't suck 4 mountain dews down with it. This isn't that complicated.
Posted by TejasHorn
High Plains Driftin'
Member since Mar 2007
11817 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:19 am to
quote:

I'll add the obligatory caveat using BMI to define obesity and overweight is a little off, especially on males.


I've always been suspicious of BMI. For someone who's 6'1, the chart indicates a healthy range between 140 and 185 lbs.

Does anyone think a 6'1, 140 lb adult is "healthy?"


Having said all that, walk around a mall in Houston and it seems like most people are obese. The Texas dept. of health is expecting a diabetes "time bomb" to go off within the next 10 years.
Posted by Mingo Was His NameO
Brooklyn
Member since Mar 2016
37536 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:21 am to
quote:

I've always been suspicious of BMI. For someone who's 6'1, the chart indicates a healthy range between 140 and 185 lbs.


That's not far off. People are just so fat that now just a little fat is viewed as normal and the correct weight is viewed as too thin
Posted by Displaced
Member since Dec 2011
33054 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:21 am to
quote:

I had Mexican food last night and chips and salsa. But I also went to the gym before and didn't suck 4 mountain dews down with it. This isn't that complicated.


Agreed, but you can't out exercise a bad diet.
Posted by QJenk
Atl, Ga
Member since Jan 2013
17816 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:22 am to
Imo, the issue of obesity is not that people dont know how to eat healthy. The main issue is people who eat extremely unhealthy all the time, yet don't seem to care at all.

I think there are 3 different type of eaters in the world.

1. Healthy eaters. (These are your nutrition/fit freaks. They count calories, study labels, meal prep, etc. They dont know the last time they've had A slice of pizza or cheeseburger.)
2. Moderate ( People who know how to eat healthy and normally will. But they also eat things that may not be the best at times. Won't lose alot of weight. But as long as you follow some sort of moderate workout plan, you won't really gain any either)
3. Unhealthy pigs (these are the folks whose idea of a salad is getting extra lettuce and tomatoes on their big mac. They will literally go to a fast good restaraunt 5 times out the week. Maybe more. And will still find time to snack on chips or ice cream throughout the day. These are the real obese people. They are the problem.)
Posted by StringedInstruments
Member since Oct 2013
21074 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:25 am to
quote:

If I’m eating a frick ton of calories in one meal,


A McGriddle is only 500 calories. A sedentary person can eat one everyday and not be fat.
Posted by StringedInstruments
Member since Oct 2013
21074 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:28 am to
quote:

That's not far off. People are just so fat that now just a little fat is viewed as normal and the correct weight is viewed as too thin


Yep. Even health professionals seem to have a clouded view on weight and health.

I’m 5’7 168 pounds. I very obviously need to lose about 25 pounds, but every year my health screening comes back with a gold star rating, which means I’m in the upper tier of health.

Whenever I mention losing weight, I get comments from people about how I’d be too thin.

People need to learn that unless you’re a woman with sizable breasts, nothing should jiggle on your body.
This post was edited on 7/24/18 at 10:28 am
Posted by cgrand
HAMMOND
Member since Oct 2009
50838 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:30 am to
quote:

I'll add the obligatory caveat using BMI to define obesity and overweight is a little off, especially on males

this is bullshite semantics serving only to quantify (or not) what the rest of us can see, every single day. this country is FAT and getting FATTER

disgustingly obese is becoming commonplace, where it was previously an anomaly.
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
78010 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:36 am to
quote:

I'll add the obligatory caveat using BMI to define obesity and overweight is a little off, especially on males. The data to set those standards was derived in 1800's France prior to weight rooms being a thing.
The number of people consistently going to the gym to weightlift is not sufficiently large enough to account for the increase in statistics.

That excuse needs to die.

Fatties are getting fatter.
Posted by BRIllini07
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2015
3211 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:46 am to
quote:

Do you disagree with the overall point though that this country is extremely unhealthy? Whatever your methodology used, the same general result will be achieved in this study.


I do not disagree with the overall point of this study. I believe that people are increasingly unhealthy. I agree whatever method used is likely to reach the same conclusions.

I disagree with using BMI as an indicator of health, for the following reasons.

(1) Since the line between the overweight/normal categories is not representative of 20th or 21st century life, the medical profession ignores that category completely - and really only starts doing stuff at the "obese" mark. This really does obscure health risks of someone who has the low muscle mass at the clinical level.

(2) These same categories are used over and over again in research with the same cutoffs, which I believe dilutes some results pretty heavily. Health risks of visibly obese people are masked by people in the 30-31 BMI range who (while probably overweight), are not harboring an excessive amount of visceral fat which is a closer indicator of all cause-mortality.

(3) There is also some research showing cardio fitness to be a better predictor of health than weight. However, due to the "ease" of the BMI chart in clinical purposes - the only aspects of cardio health that are tested are BP and pulse (skewed by whatever stress is caused by being in a doctors office). If we're all paying out the yang for health insurance, why wouldn't something like a VO2 max test be part of our routine checkup?

All this just helps fatty justify being fatty. They can say "My friend was 190 lbs and died of a heart attack, I'm just going to keep eating"

I think the correct thing to do would be take the data from all-cause mortality now, and do several things.

(1) Reverse engineer the cutoffs on the BMI chart from morality data to a level that is consistent with step-changes or inflections in all cause mortality rate. This may just be shifting the line 1-2 more of the right (6'0" becomes obese at 240lbs instead of 220, and overweight at anything over 200lbs instead of 184).

(2) At a minimum, add waist circumference to the standard battery of measurements you get at the doctors office.

(3) Ideally, add a live cardio health check to the battery of tests on a routine check up. The 190lb guy who died of a heart attack can likely be identified if walking at a 4.0 on a treadmill gets them to 85% max heart rate - regardless of weight.



This post was edited on 7/24/18 at 10:47 am
Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
106060 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:50 am to
I'm 5-10, 190. I do work out and have quite a bit of muscle mass, but I could stand to lose about 10 lbs. Put me in a random lineup of adult male from my area, and it would be a safe bet I'd be the slimmest one by far. At a reunion of some guys I played ball with, two of us out of about 30 had kept in some semblance of shape. Two.
Posted by TH03
Mogadishu
Member since Dec 2008
172004 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:54 am to
quote:

A McGriddle is only 500 calories


Hash brown is 150 more.

Small OJ or soda is another 150.

So 800 calories for breakfast. That’s absurd for the amount of food you get.
Posted by Old Money
LSU
Member since Sep 2012
41977 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:57 am to
quote:

All you people who talk condescendingly about fatties and sugar addicts, and brag about your keto diets and workouts.... you're all a bunch of douchebags.

I hope the extra 3-5 years you gain in old age by denying yourself the enjoyment of something as basic as food is all you hope it will be.

I'll take a McGriddle, ma'am.



The reason you are fat is because you are lazy.
Posted by Hammertime
Will trade dowsing rod for titties
Member since Jan 2012
43031 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 10:59 am to
Maybe fat shaming should become a cool thing to do
Posted by StringedInstruments
Member since Oct 2013
21074 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 11:00 am to
quote:

So 800 calories for breakfast. That’s absurd for the amount of food you get.


You added those other items not the person who mentioned McGriddles.

And 800 calories still isn’t a huge meal IMO. Granted I’m a long distance runner and eat nearly 3000 calories a day, but a average sedentary male should eat around 2000 calories a day. 800 calorie breakfast still leaves 1200 calories for the rest of the day.

Point is, single food choices aren’t the enemy. The persistent eating of high calorie foods all day long is the problem.
Posted by Mingo Was His NameO
Brooklyn
Member since Mar 2016
37536 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 11:02 am to
quote:

And 800 calories still isn’t a huge meal IMO. Granted I’m a long distance runner and eat nearly 3000 calories a day, but a average sedentary male should eat around 2000 calories a day. 800 calorie breakfast still leaves 1200 calories for the rest of the day


Then they get 1400 calories worth of cains for lunch so they're already at 2200 before the inevitable snack and then shitty dinner.
Posted by BRIllini07
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2015
3211 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 11:02 am to
quote:

I'm 5-10, 190. I do work out and have quite a bit of muscle mass, but I could stand to lose about 10 lbs. Put me in a random lineup of adult male from my area, and it would be a safe bet I'd be the slimmest one by far. At a reunion of some guys I played ball with, two of us out of about 30 had kept in some semblance of shape. Two.


You'd have to lose 23 lbs to not be overweight, and 40lbs to be in the middle of the normal range.
Posted by Old Money
LSU
Member since Sep 2012
41977 posts
Posted on 7/24/18 at 11:03 am to
quote:

You added those other items not the person who mentioned McGriddles.

And 800 calories still isn’t a huge meal IMO. Granted I’m a long distance runner and eat nearly 3000 calories a day, but a average sedentary male should eat around 2000 calories a day. 800 calorie breakfast still leaves 1200 calories for the rest of the day.

Point is, single food choices aren’t the enemy. The persistent eating of high calorie foods all day long is the problem.


800 cal breakfast is a lot of calories dude. That's about what I eat and I'm currently bulking.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram