If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"bencon" wrote in message
om... I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy. Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately, it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity... That's where fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal. Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:33:37 +0200, "Lictor" wrote: "bencon" wrote in message . com... I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy. Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately, it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity... That's where fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal. Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity... I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that promotes obesity of any kind. If you think different you should provide an example. LV Lady Veteran - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- For every person with a spark of genius, there are a hundred more with ignition trouble. - -Unknown - ------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQRt/oMjazA1WMM1JEQKFqgCeOcfS9kzwLYL2ZSwat9dOemgEezgAn1 iE W/5MnwmZJumTnOv5iJ9Y/j6Y =a4xb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:33:37 +0200, "Lictor" wrote: "bencon" wrote in message . com... I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy. Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately, it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity... That's where fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal. Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity... I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that promotes obesity of any kind. If you think different you should provide an example. LV Lady Veteran - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- For every person with a spark of genius, there are a hundred more with ignition trouble. - -Unknown - ------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQRt/oMjazA1WMM1JEQKFqgCeOcfS9kzwLYL2ZSwat9dOemgEezgAn1 iE W/5MnwmZJumTnOv5iJ9Y/j6Y =a4xb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:33:37 +0200, "Lictor" wrote: "bencon" wrote in message . com... I think the key is to eat what your body wants, but just don't overload on it. Too much of anything is unhealthy. Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately, it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity... That's where fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal. Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity... I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that promotes obesity of any kind. If you think different you should provide an example. LV Lady Veteran - ----------------------------------- "I rode a tank and held a general's rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..." - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil - ------------------------------------------------ People who hide behind anonymous remailers and ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no motive but malice. - --------------------------------------------- For every person with a spark of genius, there are a hundred more with ignition trouble. - -Unknown - ------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com iQA/AwUBQRt/oMjazA1WMM1JEQKFqgCeOcfS9kzwLYL2ZSwat9dOemgEezgAn1 iE W/5MnwmZJumTnOv5iJ9Y/j6Y =a4xb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
"Lady Veteran" wrote in message
... I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that promotes obesity of any kind. If you think different you should provide an example. I was not specifically talking about this newsgroup. It has, after all, a very limited impact on public opinion. But if you look at the whole fat-acceptance movement, put it through the media and look at the end result, what appears is what I described. The problem is that that end result is what shapes the opinion. This is quite unlike most of the fat-acceptance movement in France, which focusses most of its energy on medium obesity and overweight women and on investing the fat body with an healthy and sexy image. This seems to survive through the media a little better (though it does get distorted). But we have also gone slightly less far in the anorexic look, many actresses still have a little something left on their bones. Maybe it's just cultural. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Lady Veteran" wrote in message
... I suggest you do some research. There is no one in this group that promotes obesity of any kind. If you think different you should provide an example. I was not specifically talking about this newsgroup. It has, after all, a very limited impact on public opinion. But if you look at the whole fat-acceptance movement, put it through the media and look at the end result, what appears is what I described. The problem is that that end result is what shapes the opinion. This is quite unlike most of the fat-acceptance movement in France, which focusses most of its energy on medium obesity and overweight women and on investing the fat body with an healthy and sexy image. This seems to survive through the media a little better (though it does get distorted). But we have also gone slightly less far in the anorexic look, many actresses still have a little something left on their bones. Maybe it's just cultural. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
"Lictor" wrote in message ...
"Concordia" wrote in message ... Really? Ever heard of a basal metabolism test? In any case, someone not knowing their precise current metabolism does not prevent them from eating less and losing weight. Isn't renting a man sized calorimeter for a day a bit expensive? Besides, it will only give you a value for that day, that's pretty useless. You don't need one. Select a number of calories to eat per day. Your bodyweight in pounds * 12 is a good start. Then eat that many calories a day. If you lose weight at aroudn 1-2 pounds a week then you know it's the right number. If you don't lose weight then decrease the number by 500. If you're losing weight too fast then increase the number until you're losing it at a sensible rate. It's not rocket science. When you try a new diet, and it doesn't work, you have two options. The first is to alter it and experiment until it does work. The second is to give up. Most fat people chose the second option. That is the option for failure. Once a fat person has chosen that option, he can remain fat and claim that he tried to lose weight but failed, so he must be genetically destined to be fat, it's not his fault, dieting doesn't work etc. Sustained weight loss involves hard work and adjustments when necessary, not giving up when things go slightly wrong. Imagine if everyone had the same attitude as fat people do with dieting: Computer programmers saying 'programming doesn't work' if a program doesn't compile because of a typo, chefs saying 'cooking doesn't work' because they messed up a single recipe because they slightly over-cooked it, car drivers saying 'driving doesn't work' because they once stalled the engine... However thankfully they don't think like that. When something goes wrong they work out what went wrong and go about fixing it, they don't just give up. And that would be a pretty useless value anyway, it's not like you would have any reliable data to use to match your food with it, calorie tables are all but reliable... What...you're saying all the nutritional information on food packaging is made up? That all these scientists across the world are involved in a giant conspiracy to make you fat? Trying to match a complex biological process with elementary school mathematics is not going to bring you anywhere. It's like a T1 diabetic trying to mimick a pancreas with his insulin shoots, it's close to impossible to get a perfect match. Yet they manage to get by somehow... Maybe it's because they just get on with it rather than whining about how difficult everything is. So, how did you lose your weight? I can't speak for him but I for one have lost a not-insignificant amount of weight. Was it easy or effortless? No, it was hard and disciplined. I watched nearly everything I ate and forced myself into the gym twice a week, not to mention a not-insignificant amount of cardio outside of the gym. No-one said it was supposed to be easy. I think that is the real issue for fat people saying that dieting is impossible. It's not impossible, it's just harder than they want it to be. And for how long have you maintained? Are you positive you will be able to maintain for life? Once I lose enough fat I don't plan to maintain, I plan to then start to put on muscle mass. Looking after your body is a life-time commitment, not something you do once then give up. Did you ever suffer from eating disorders or were you just the average over-eater? I got fat from eating everything I could lay my eyes on, and through doing absolutely no exercise. I lost the weight from doing the opposite. The fact that to you losing weight was effortless doesn't mean it is the case for everyone. He hasn't even replied saying whether it was effortless or not and you're already replying as if he'd replied that it was. For most obeses, it isn't. On the other hand, maintening a constant weight *is* effortless for well regulated slim people. Well, if it's easy for them, and not for you, that's just tough ****. Not everything is equal and fair. snip excuse making Sure they can; no one said it was easy. It's matter of choosing to eat less than the body burns and stick with it. There are no shortcuts. Again, are you familliar with binge eating? Do you know how it feels to wake up in the morning only to discover you have raided the fridge while you were "sleeping"? Do you know how it feels to black out and return to reason with 9000 calories worth of food in your belly? Ah ok, obese people are obese because they sleepwalk and eat 9000 calories worth of food in the night... I won't ask why 9000 calories of prepared food was so readibly available though, or why you didn't think to put a lock on the fridge door or something... Fat people aren't fat through sleep-eating, it's through over-eating at every meal and through under-exercising. Dieting is not a simple process. It's not like when you quit smoking and you just have to stop smoking cigarettes just because you don't want to smoke anymore. You can't stop eating altogether. Who said anything about stopping eating altogether? You don't stop eating, you start eating a sensible diet. That's not the hardest thing in the world, it just takes discipline. You have to deal with large psychological issues too, and peer presure sometimes (some people often do not want you to lose weight). Of course, surely that's even more inspiration to do it? You are being repetitive here; I've already spoken to this point more than once. See below where I've mentioned the importance of a proper eating plan. But you still miss my point. It's your proper eating plan that *has* that 85% failure rate! When followed it has a 0% failure rate. If people are lazy, ill-disciplined, gluttonous etc and give up, that's not the diet's fault, that's the fault of the people following it (or not following it!). If you know of any "plan" with a higher success rate, by all mean, publish it and get rich! So in other words you want a magic bullet that will make you start taking responsibility for your own life. No, they told them "here is a cure for you", and people believed them. Please be more specific. What cures are you referring to? The low fat diet. The FDA pyramid. The balanced diet. The low carb diet (which will probably become official sooner or later). How many fat people have stuck to a sensible, balanced diet of the correct portions with regular exercise and not lost weight? Stop blaming other people for your failures and start taking responsiblity. Huh? I am clearly advocating a sensible eating plan that can be followed for life (and finetuned as necessary), not a quickie weight loss method. This was stated before, read further down in the post where I had mentioned just that. Yes, like many doctors and the government has done before you. Except it doesn't work much better than most fad diets. Yes, it does, you just don't want to believe it does, because if you know it does, then you know that it's your own fault that you're fat, which means you can't carry on blaming other people for your own failings. You're being repetitive again. Asked and addressed. Not really. I still don't know what you diet is. And I still don't see why this miracle diet is supposed to work any better than all the existing diets. A 'miracle' diet is 10-12*(body weight in pounds) in calories a day, with 0.8g of protein per pound of body weight, adjusted when necessary. This also involves weight-lifting, working out the whole body 1-2* a week, and regular cardio. This works as it allows you to lose fat and maintain muscle at a steady rate and also doesn't place heavy restrictions on what you can eat. However it has its downsides: it involves planning, discipline and hard work, those horrible old-fashioned things. Margarine, which was advertised as healthy food. Low fat (whatever), which a lot of doctors tell you is better than regular options. Protein powders that a lot of of dietitians will actually tell you to use... What's wrong with protein powder? Nonsense. The majority of mainstream nutritionists have always taken a position that calories matter. So has the government (here). When did the FDA create their pyramid then? Why the campain about cutting fats? Why do most diabete or likewise official documents recommend cutting fats? If calories are all that matter, why don't they just write it down? The US government doesn't equal the whole world of nutritionists. The world doesn't end at America's borders. In and of itself, it does not. But it certainly helps in weight loss and maintenance. As I mentioned before, weight training is particularly beneficial in building and maintaining muscle mass. I know. It does help you after you lost weight. But it didn't make you gain weight in the first place. There are plenty of slim people with barely enough muscles to move from the couch to the bed. So? They're not you. Stop blaming your problems on other people. Do you understand the role of lean muscle mass in metabolism, or do I need to spell it out for you? I do understand it, except I don't see the point. As long as your metabolism is within the norm (that is, you burn more than 1200 calories a day), who cares how high or low it is? Wow, you really are clueless, no wonder you have such trouble losing weight. A higher metabolism means you burn more calories so you lose fat more easily. A lower metabolism means you lose weight much more difficultly. Naturally slim people are able to maintain weight on a low metabolism. If you're not naturally slim then what applies to them is irrelevent to you. Stop trying to deflect criticisms onto other people. Also you'll find that 'naturally slim' people either have naturally higher metabolisms or eat less food than normal. Either way it probably doesn't apply to you. No study has shown obese to have any specific kind of metabolism. Some obeses are much lower than the average (mostly those who have dieted a lot), but others are much higher than the norm (mostly those who never dieted). You've completely missed the point. If you've really got your head stuck in the sand that far, and can't see how people have free will and ultimately make their own choices about how they treat their bodies, there's not much point of explaining it to you yet again. No , I don't believe people have free will when they have to go through a bunch of misinformation and conditionning. There's information all over the place, it's up to you to work out which is good information and which is bad. Nothing comes on a silver plate. This is another example of you not taking responsiblity for your own actions but instead blaming other people. Sure I do. I've lost weight and kept it off. I've also had the unfortunate experience of failing at diets. But do go on. No thank you. I don't believe in beating the same old path that has failed time and time again. If something fails repetitively, it's probably that that something is flawed. Or perhaps you haven't adjusted it to make it work, or perhaps you just can't follow it properly. And I believe that diets are flawed, because of the very way they are built and their ignorance of basic psychological issues. No, people are flawed because they don't follow the diets. The diets themselves are fine, they work. If you chose to follow it badly it's not the diet's fault. Stop blaming your obesity on other people, it's not their fault for not making a magic bullet to stop you stuffing yourself with food. - and it means hard work. Lol, didn't I just mention hard work above? So, obeses should work a lot harder than normal people, just to achieve equality with them at something normal people do not even have to think about... Isn't that what social security is supposed to be all about? You know, the whole "we will give you equal chances so you can compete" and all... Er, sorry to disappoint you, but people aren't created equal. If you have a tendency to put on more weight than other people, then you're going to have to work harder to get rid of it. If you don't like it's tough ****, no-one ever said life was fair. You seem to be surprised by the requirement of hard work in losing weight. Somehow this doesn't surprise me. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
"Lictor" wrote in message ...
Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately, it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity... You could do that, or you could follow a diet that leads to low body-fat whilst maintaining muscle, which wouldn't lead to obesity but an even better body. W That's where fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal. I would agree, IF fat acceptance meant accepting slightly over-weight bodies of people in the process of weight loss. However fat acceptance in its current form seems to be promoting obesity and attacking any thought of weight-loss. Just look how the poster 'Lady Veteran' responds to diet tips posted in soc.support.fat-acceptance, you'd think that gas-chamber building tips had been posted to a Jewish newsgroup! In theory fat acceptance would be a good thing, promoting positive body image to help in the process of healthy weight loss, however it has ended up as something very sinister. Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity... Or trolls like me who promote muscular bodies with low body-fat!!! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Lictor" wrote in message ...
Yes, but if you follow your body, you will *not* be magazine slim. You will just be how a normal healthy human body is designed to be. Unfortunately, it's neither very fat nor very slim, it's just in-between. And then, you would have some of the trolls here stigmatizing you for being lazy and overweight. Until you finally stop listening to the truth from your body and start a diet and yo-yo your way back to obesity... You could do that, or you could follow a diet that leads to low body-fat whilst maintaining muscle, which wouldn't lead to obesity but an even better body. W That's where fat-acceptance *has* a role to play. To get society to accept the whole range of body shape instead of focussing on the lower limit of normal. I would agree, IF fat acceptance meant accepting slightly over-weight bodies of people in the process of weight loss. However fat acceptance in its current form seems to be promoting obesity and attacking any thought of weight-loss. Just look how the poster 'Lady Veteran' responds to diet tips posted in soc.support.fat-acceptance, you'd think that gas-chamber building tips had been posted to a Jewish newsgroup! In theory fat acceptance would be a good thing, promoting positive body image to help in the process of healthy weight loss, however it has ended up as something very sinister. Unfortunately, we have ended up into a completely binary situation and we are locked between trolls who promote dieting your body to anorexic proportions and people who seem to promote extreme obesity... Or trolls like me who promote muscular bodies with low body-fat!!! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:36:48 +0200, "Lictor"
wrote: "Concordia" wrote in message .. . (snip) I wasn't aware you could get free testing this way. I didn't say it was free. (snip) and also put to rest any concerns that the metabolism is generally low. A complaint by many obese is that metabolism is sluggish and that is why they cannot lose weight. That's because of the general misunderstanding people have on this issue. And this includes doctors. Metabolism doesn't matter than much, as long as you match your inputs to it. It's only problematic if it's so low you have to eat only minimum amounts of food. That's when it's time to exercise some. I disagree. It _does_ matter to the extent that chances of being able to match inputs to a higher metabolism are greater. What are people more prone to do, eat more or less? Wouldn't it be beneficial to have a higher metabolism, or for that matter increase activity and muscle mass to aid in that? (Okay, I see you mention exercise too). Who wouldn't want a higher metabolism? These are rhetorical questions. This has been proven time and time again not to be the case, both through metabolic tests and also by controlled conditions where the patient is hospitalized and put on a medically supervised diet. What has been proven is that there is no link between metabolic rate and obesity. That is precisely my point. But *some* obese do have very low metabolism, lower than normal, either because of crash diets (loss of lean mass) or because of hormnal problems (thyroid mainly). And some are actually higher than normal. Guessing from what I have to eat to maintain, I'm rather into the second category. Which is not a surprise, I have always been muscular, obese or not. Isn't this a different way of stating a similar position? Let's not get too bogged down in semantics Also, if one were to have a basal metabolism test performed bi-weekly or monthly over a statistically significant period of time, and graph the results, metabolism would not generally be all over the place. If you keep a constant weight and keep the exact same level of exercise. And if you're not a woman, periods tend to mess things up. Besides, your intakes have to match basal metabolism + daily activities. So you would have a nice number, but not many useful things to do with it... What about those people that insist they eat less than 600 kcal/day, 1000 kcal/day, and so on, and still gain weight. Shouldn't they look into some testing? However, it seems many more people make such claims than you'd expect statistically... In those cases, it could be used to either prove or disprove such claims. The test doesn't have to yield a precise result to serve such a function. If it indicates metab. is (for example) somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500-2000 instead of 600 or 1000, that would be helpful information. It would also be helpful to know if the person was actually correct -- but rare. The more likely case is that they are not being honest with themselves. Let me remind you, my position wasn't that everyone needed to run out and get a metabolism test. You had said: "The problem is that most obese have no way of knowing how much their body will burn." And my counterpoints were (1) one _could_ get a metabolism test, and that (2) "someone not knowing their precise current metabolism does not prevent them from eating less and losing weight." Do you or do you not agree with #2? Yes or no? (calorie tables) I'm not talking nth degree. You remember that hot summer we had in Europe? Hot and warm. Well, farmers reported a 30% increase in the sugar content of fruits. Likewise, on a bad year, you will have large drops in sugar content. Same for grapes, being on the good side of the hill is a variation high enough that one side will give great wine and the other a crappy barely drinkable beverage. The same applies with a lot of other food. Animals will have varying fat contents, depending on how they were fed (industrial food, grazing...) or kept (savage, semi-freedom, battery). That's a lot of variation you won't find in your calorie table. And I doubt you would have to go to the nth degree of precision to find it. Remember that 5% extra on a 2000 calories diet will give out 36000 calories by the end of the year - that's at least 9 extra pounds... Sure, variations will cancel each others on average, but 5% is a very small margin of error... Gotcha. But it's not that important in the scheme of things when it comes to weight loss. I seriously doubt people are fat due to these factors. Sure, a table will do that. It does have an educative value. You don't need a large level of precision to sort food items like this. But you do need that level of precision to keep a stable weight over an extended period of time. It also becomes problematic when you can't control the food, like with exotic stuff, at friends or in a restaurant. How do you get the caloric load of a restaurant meal, if you don't know how it was cooked? Lack of precision in calorie tables or not knowing exact metabolism doesn't keep people from losing and maintaining weight. People have ways to measure weightloss or lack thereof, and can adjust accordingly. Besides, I could have told you that by just eat these food. The same amount of salmon will not give the same lasting satiety as the same amount of sausage... True. (snip what it's like in France, thanks for the insight) So, you started on Atkins, and eventually ended with a "balanced" diet, or something pretty close to what doctors recommend (at least what ours recommend when they don't go crazy on some hyper-proteic ****). What I am doing is balanced for me, and I have figured this out by trial and error -- but is not what would be considered a traditional balanced diet by any means. Note that I rarely eat processed carbs. This is still a diet that, in itself, has a high failure rate. It's not the diets that fail... There are probably other factors that explain your success. Like, I doubt the diet itself solved your bingeing. What did? Did your attitude towards food evolved with time or do you eat like you used to (except in quantities and kind of food of course)? I quit making excuses and started doing what I need to do. Period. (snip) Do you think you would have been successful if you had kept yourself in denial? No. Besides admitting what you were doing, did you also come to understand *why* you were doing it? Do you think that knowledge has allowed you to lose that weight? I was hypoglycemic. In my case, eating all those refined carbs were making me hungry and tired all the time; that was really a large part of it. What I'm trying to get at is that most diets only allow people to lose weight. They don't give them any tool to understand why they became fat and how to prevent that from happening again (except by sticking to the diet). Successful dieters seem to be successful because they went beyond the diet and gained understand of how they work. Their success is a consequence of their own introspection, not of the diet itself. Agreed. But I still think they have to find the tools for themselves. Now, if you scale back to the epidemic level, this means going to an all diet approach is bound to failure, because it seems only a small numbers of people are able to make that introspection on their own. Willing or able? So? If you've got a better solution, let's hear it. Again, I just don't buy your premise that there are many of these "well regulated" slim people running around that have never had to give a conscious thought to what they eat. Well, decent dietetic models are rather recent. If you go back in time, all kind of crap theories were around. Even nowadays, a lot of people do not buy into the caloric explanation! Sure they do. They just try quick fixes instead. (we've discussed this before) (snip) If you limit yourself to the rich part of the population (plenty of food, not much exercise), obesity was much lower than today. Especially massive obesity. How could these people maintain their weight? By following the dietetic advice of the time? By controlling themselves, I'd imagine. (snip, it's getting rather long) That's because noone really believes in the caloric theory. Why? Because we want to lose weight while being able to eat as much as we want? Yes, in many aspects we are a bulimic society. We always want more (cars, food, riches, entertainment, travels...) but we don't want any of it to change us or have consequences (polution, obesity, poors, evolving...). Our attitude towards food only mirror our attitude towards society in general. I agree, but so what? I mean really... it's nice to theorize and discuss the state of society and all on usenet. And this has been an interesting conversation, don't get me wrong. However, if one wants to lose weight, they do the introspection, take the steps, etc. There is no other way. But I think there's another factor. The caloric theory is amoral. It doesn't matter what you eat and how much you enjoy it, as long as you eat just what you need and with moderation, you will stay slim. There is no evil or good food. That's dietetic atheism. Somehow, the mind of people seem to revolt at that. They want some food to be evil. Even in tiny amounts. They want a price to be paid for pleasure. Again, you're singing to the choir. (snip) That is PRECISELY why I am advocating the crucial role of personal responsibility in all this. I still don't think people are responsible. They're not the direct conscious *cause* of their obesity. That's what being responsible means, being guilty of something. I don't think they are guilty of being obese. Nor are they guilty of failing when they try to solve their obesity using the consensual methods. Sure, they *can* help themselves, and the only available tool for that is introspection. Except it's incredibly difficult to access in the current hostile context. You can't blame people for not finding the gold nugget in the pile of dung to pay their healthcare with. You give people way too little credit for the ability to make their own choices, and tacit permission to be victims subject to the forces of society. That is a shame. (snip) I don't dispute at all that there is a psychological component. In fact, I think it is a rather significant factor in overeating. It's a significant factor that gets little coverage in the press or books or even in doctors' office. It also gets little research. A lot more energy is devoted in finding the *genetic* roots of over-eating. What's the likehood that genetics play a large role in the over-eating habits of the majority of the American population? I agree, for the most part. Learned helplessness never helped anyone improve their circumstances. Understanding why you are helpless is the first step on the path to finding a way around it. Lol, that is my point. (snip) How are you eating and what are your particular circumstances? Not hungry = I don't eat. Hungry = I eat. Satieted = I stop eating. Whatever I want (or crave for, or feel like eating or however you call it), whenever I want (no set number of meals, no set time, no obligation to eat at any particular meal), as long as I'm hungry. Yet you manage to lose weight without knowing your precise metabolism. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | Annabel Smyth | General Discussion | 25 | August 13th, 2004 10:24 AM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | Cheri | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | August 9th, 2004 06:50 PM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | ClabberHead 4.01 | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | August 9th, 2004 03:17 AM |
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night. | LucaBG | General Discussion | 0 | August 8th, 2004 08:16 AM |
Saturday Night Live Atkins Mention | Pook! | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | October 22nd, 2003 08:56 AM |