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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 at 07:12:05, The Voice of Reason
wrote: Actually even being mildly fat impairs physical movement. Sorry, but that turns out not to be the case; I am an ice dancer and although I both need and want to lose weight, I am not allowing the fact that I carry excess body fat to prevent me from dancing. Both the lack of fitness combined with excess weight conspire to mean that the obese person has a lack of mobility. The worst part is that it's self-inflicted and so easily curable. Er, again, that turns out not to be the case. I read somewhere that a group of very seriously overweight people were, under medical supervision, put on a carefully calorie-controlled diet, with ample nutrients and enough calories to maintain a normal body-weight, but lose excess fat - and their bodies reacted just as though they were being starved, with all the symptoms of gross malnutrition. So it is not necessarily easily curable. Who said anything about unhealthy levels? You'll find that the most attractive levels of body fat are the healthiest. Again, that is not always the case. Women tended to be about 10-20 lbs heavier 50 years ago, yet if you look at some of the "bathing beauties" of the era, they are still beautiful. Plus there was no thought, then, of their being unhealthy. And, unless you consider being out of fashion harmful, it's not really an health risk. Fashions don't last thousands of years. Being fat will never be in fashion. Have you ever studied history of art, or, indeed, any social history? Had you done so, you would not have made such a statement. Also there are real health risks to being fat. Unless you live in a place hit with famines there is no purpose to obesity. I think you will find that there is a difference between being "fat" - i.e. maybe 10-20 lbs over what is now considered an ideal weight - and being "obese", when you may have anything up to 100 lbs to lose. If you exercise regularly, it will also not reduce your ability to move, run and hunt. If you exercise sufficiencly you will not be fat unless you deliberately over-eat, end of story. Again, not true. In this day and age it is all too easy accidentally to take in more calories than you need - there are so many "hidden" calories in ready-prepared food. Maybe all the fat acceptors should go and live in third world countries then, it's the only place fat people are going to be thought of as sexually desirable. Actually, it is less uncommon than you think, even in the so-called developed world. I have trimmed the excess cross-posts from this posting. -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:56:37 +0200, "Lictor"
wrote: "spahks" wrote in message ... Obesity is a self induced condition. Your corollary would be accurate only if someone suffered a broken leg because they repeatedly hit their own femur with a sledge hammer. Unless you have bone cancer (which is probably your own fault, you exposed yourself to too many pollutants or something), legs don't break on their own. You probably took some risks you should not have (skiing, running, not paying attention to what you were doing, climbing down your stairs, crossing the street...) or you did not eat enough calcium or didn't practice musculation in your teenage years to strenghten your bones. If you go deep enough, you're eventually responsible for almost everything. It is logical and productive behaviour to go about the normal business of life. Folks have to move around to get to work, take care of their families, maintain their properties, engage in social discourse, and exercise. On the other hand, eating more than the body will burn is almost always an illogical, non life affirming action. And it is a choice. Mind you, I'm personally not condemning the individual right to make the choice to continue to overeat, though I think it's a sad one. As long as overweight and obese folks are willing to accept the health and $$ consequences of their choices and not engage in political or social control measures in an attempt to place blame/costs elsewhere or demand acceptance as a "protected" class -- it's none of my business. Unfortunately, there are organizations that want to do just that. As a side note, to the extent that injuries result from known high risk activities such as bungee jumping or skydiving for example, participants generally and rightfully bear the burden of their responsibility (financially) for those activities, as most insurance will not cover treatment. Not sure about the skiing. People don't just "Get Obese". They make themselves so. So, you think people who made themselves obese when they were two years old are responsible for their condition? Good point. However, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, one must and will assume current and ongoing responsibility for the problem. Attempts to assign blame after the fact are rather useless and frequently counterproductive. You think that people who have a deficient thyroid are responsible for their own thyroid? What about the responsability of the school cafetarias which feed junk food to the kids? It's probably the kids responsability, they should seek a job and cook their own food... A school lunch is only one meal a day. Furthermore, even if the foods aren't ideal, they are usually portion controlled. More importantly, what are the kids doing, learning, and eating at home? Many people do not make themselves obese alone, they do so with the help of the government and their doctor. Government and doctors don't shovel food into a person's mouth, people do. The best way to become a super-obese is through yo-yo dieting after all. Many people started their way towards obesity by merely being healthy overweights and starting a diet. Which is all the more reason to adopt a lifetime eating and exercise plan, instead of yo-yo dieting. For example, weight training is an excellent way to build and maintain lean muscle mass. What about improper city planning that leaves plenty of areas with *only* junk food available? Where are these areas where one has _absolutely_ no access to lean meats and produce by walking, driving, or catching a bus to a proper market? Or what about the FDA that has let every traditionnal food be replaced with a look-alike junk version of it? Don't eat it. What about "official" dietitians that have been clueless for ages and have broadcast, with government approval, recipes to *become* obese masquerading them as "healthy" eating? Certainly, having access to accurate nutritional information is helpful, especially with all the food choices available today. However, people have known for eons that eating more than is burned by the body will cause weight gain. No one ever needed government or nutritionists to point out this simple fact. There is a reality : obesity on such a scale just didn't exist a mere century ago. Or even twenty years ago. So, something must have happened. Lack of exercise due to increased modernization, more variety of and access to convenience foods, unfortunate cultural shift away from value systems that emphasize the value of personal responsibility and hard work. (remainder snipped) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:56:37 +0200, "Lictor"
wrote: "spahks" wrote in message ... Obesity is a self induced condition. Your corollary would be accurate only if someone suffered a broken leg because they repeatedly hit their own femur with a sledge hammer. Unless you have bone cancer (which is probably your own fault, you exposed yourself to too many pollutants or something), legs don't break on their own. You probably took some risks you should not have (skiing, running, not paying attention to what you were doing, climbing down your stairs, crossing the street...) or you did not eat enough calcium or didn't practice musculation in your teenage years to strenghten your bones. If you go deep enough, you're eventually responsible for almost everything. It is logical and productive behaviour to go about the normal business of life. Folks have to move around to get to work, take care of their families, maintain their properties, engage in social discourse, and exercise. On the other hand, eating more than the body will burn is almost always an illogical, non life affirming action. And it is a choice. Mind you, I'm personally not condemning the individual right to make the choice to continue to overeat, though I think it's a sad one. As long as overweight and obese folks are willing to accept the health and $$ consequences of their choices and not engage in political or social control measures in an attempt to place blame/costs elsewhere or demand acceptance as a "protected" class -- it's none of my business. Unfortunately, there are organizations that want to do just that. As a side note, to the extent that injuries result from known high risk activities such as bungee jumping or skydiving for example, participants generally and rightfully bear the burden of their responsibility (financially) for those activities, as most insurance will not cover treatment. Not sure about the skiing. People don't just "Get Obese". They make themselves so. So, you think people who made themselves obese when they were two years old are responsible for their condition? Good point. However, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, one must and will assume current and ongoing responsibility for the problem. Attempts to assign blame after the fact are rather useless and frequently counterproductive. You think that people who have a deficient thyroid are responsible for their own thyroid? What about the responsability of the school cafetarias which feed junk food to the kids? It's probably the kids responsability, they should seek a job and cook their own food... A school lunch is only one meal a day. Furthermore, even if the foods aren't ideal, they are usually portion controlled. More importantly, what are the kids doing, learning, and eating at home? Many people do not make themselves obese alone, they do so with the help of the government and their doctor. Government and doctors don't shovel food into a person's mouth, people do. The best way to become a super-obese is through yo-yo dieting after all. Many people started their way towards obesity by merely being healthy overweights and starting a diet. Which is all the more reason to adopt a lifetime eating and exercise plan, instead of yo-yo dieting. For example, weight training is an excellent way to build and maintain lean muscle mass. What about improper city planning that leaves plenty of areas with *only* junk food available? Where are these areas where one has _absolutely_ no access to lean meats and produce by walking, driving, or catching a bus to a proper market? Or what about the FDA that has let every traditionnal food be replaced with a look-alike junk version of it? Don't eat it. What about "official" dietitians that have been clueless for ages and have broadcast, with government approval, recipes to *become* obese masquerading them as "healthy" eating? Certainly, having access to accurate nutritional information is helpful, especially with all the food choices available today. However, people have known for eons that eating more than is burned by the body will cause weight gain. No one ever needed government or nutritionists to point out this simple fact. There is a reality : obesity on such a scale just didn't exist a mere century ago. Or even twenty years ago. So, something must have happened. Lack of exercise due to increased modernization, more variety of and access to convenience foods, unfortunate cultural shift away from value systems that emphasize the value of personal responsibility and hard work. (remainder snipped) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:56:37 +0200, "Lictor"
wrote: "spahks" wrote in message ... Obesity is a self induced condition. Your corollary would be accurate only if someone suffered a broken leg because they repeatedly hit their own femur with a sledge hammer. Unless you have bone cancer (which is probably your own fault, you exposed yourself to too many pollutants or something), legs don't break on their own. You probably took some risks you should not have (skiing, running, not paying attention to what you were doing, climbing down your stairs, crossing the street...) or you did not eat enough calcium or didn't practice musculation in your teenage years to strenghten your bones. If you go deep enough, you're eventually responsible for almost everything. It is logical and productive behaviour to go about the normal business of life. Folks have to move around to get to work, take care of their families, maintain their properties, engage in social discourse, and exercise. On the other hand, eating more than the body will burn is almost always an illogical, non life affirming action. And it is a choice. Mind you, I'm personally not condemning the individual right to make the choice to continue to overeat, though I think it's a sad one. As long as overweight and obese folks are willing to accept the health and $$ consequences of their choices and not engage in political or social control measures in an attempt to place blame/costs elsewhere or demand acceptance as a "protected" class -- it's none of my business. Unfortunately, there are organizations that want to do just that. As a side note, to the extent that injuries result from known high risk activities such as bungee jumping or skydiving for example, participants generally and rightfully bear the burden of their responsibility (financially) for those activities, as most insurance will not cover treatment. Not sure about the skiing. People don't just "Get Obese". They make themselves so. So, you think people who made themselves obese when they were two years old are responsible for their condition? Good point. However, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, one must and will assume current and ongoing responsibility for the problem. Attempts to assign blame after the fact are rather useless and frequently counterproductive. You think that people who have a deficient thyroid are responsible for their own thyroid? What about the responsability of the school cafetarias which feed junk food to the kids? It's probably the kids responsability, they should seek a job and cook their own food... A school lunch is only one meal a day. Furthermore, even if the foods aren't ideal, they are usually portion controlled. More importantly, what are the kids doing, learning, and eating at home? Many people do not make themselves obese alone, they do so with the help of the government and their doctor. Government and doctors don't shovel food into a person's mouth, people do. The best way to become a super-obese is through yo-yo dieting after all. Many people started their way towards obesity by merely being healthy overweights and starting a diet. Which is all the more reason to adopt a lifetime eating and exercise plan, instead of yo-yo dieting. For example, weight training is an excellent way to build and maintain lean muscle mass. What about improper city planning that leaves plenty of areas with *only* junk food available? Where are these areas where one has _absolutely_ no access to lean meats and produce by walking, driving, or catching a bus to a proper market? Or what about the FDA that has let every traditionnal food be replaced with a look-alike junk version of it? Don't eat it. What about "official" dietitians that have been clueless for ages and have broadcast, with government approval, recipes to *become* obese masquerading them as "healthy" eating? Certainly, having access to accurate nutritional information is helpful, especially with all the food choices available today. However, people have known for eons that eating more than is burned by the body will cause weight gain. No one ever needed government or nutritionists to point out this simple fact. There is a reality : obesity on such a scale just didn't exist a mere century ago. Or even twenty years ago. So, something must have happened. Lack of exercise due to increased modernization, more variety of and access to convenience foods, unfortunate cultural shift away from value systems that emphasize the value of personal responsibility and hard work. (remainder snipped) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
"Concordia" wrote in message
... On the other hand, eating more than the body will burn is almost always an illogical, non life affirming action. The problem is that most obese have no way of knowing how much their body will burn. The mecanism that regulates that in normal people is just broken, for psychological or physical reasons, in obese people. As a normal person, you have don't even have to think about losing weight, maintaining a proper weight is a natural function of your body. Just like inflating and deflating your lungs is something you perform automatically without paying attention. For various reasons, obese don't have this nice option. It's not like there is any positive action on your part to remain slim. And it is a choice. Mind you, I'm personally not condemning the individual right to make the choice to continue to overeat, though I think it's a sad one. You don't get the point. A huge majority of obese people would rather be slim. Except they can't. I mean, ask most obese people. Over the course of their life, most have lost more weight than your total weight. It's not a matter of willpower. Most obese can beat you on that. Just try to stop eating and see how long you last and how you feel - well, most obese people are able to function with that level of hunger for months at a time. Actually, you do have an advantage. If you stop eating, hunger will disappear as you start to starve. If you diet, it won't. As a side note, to the extent that injuries result from known high risk activities such as bungee jumping or skydiving for example, participants generally and rightfully bear the burden of their responsibility (financially) for those activities, as most insurance will not cover treatment. Not sure about the skiing. That's not the case here. You do get an insurance with some sport licenses, but healthcare will cover it anyway. But we do have "socialized" health care. Good point. However, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, one must and will assume current and ongoing responsibility for the problem. Attempts to assign blame after the fact are rather useless and frequently counterproductive. Usually, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, one just fails and gains even more weight as a bonus. That's the statistical truth. 85% of the diets fail within 5 years. Not because 85% of the dieters lack willpower, but because diets don't work as a long term cure for obesity. Do you blame people with cancer for their cure not working? I mean, they had their one chance at a cure, and now, they managed to get cancer *again*, and they want yet *another* cure! A school lunch is only one meal a day. Furthermore, even if the foods aren't ideal, they are usually portion controlled. More importantly, what are the kids doing, learning, and eating at home? The role of the school is to educate the children. Despite the poor education their parents are giving them if it needs to. Obviously, schools are failing to educate the youth of your nation properly about their eating habits. You might think it's not your problem, but how long do you think the system can work this way? Do you think society will hold together with 50% of obese? 80%? 99%? 99% of super-obese? When things take epidemic proportions, it becomes the responsability of the nation to deal with them... Many people do not make themselves obese alone, they do so with the help of the government and their doctor. Government and doctors don't shovel food into a person's mouth, people do. No, they told them "here is a cure for you", and people believed them. But the cure happened to be worse than the disease. When this happens with a drug, it's customary for people to try to sue the hell out of the manufacturer. The best way to become a super-obese is through yo-yo dieting after all. Many people started their way towards obesity by merely being healthy overweights and starting a diet. Which is all the more reason to adopt a lifetime eating and exercise plan, instead of yo-yo dieting. For example, weight training is an excellent way to build and maintain lean muscle mass. That's the "lifetime" eating plan that is causing the yo-yo dieting. You were thinking I was talking about fad diets? There is no difference between fad diets and the so-called balanced diet. Both work rather well at making people lose weight. Both have a high failure rate at the 5 years mark. And both trigger a rebound that can result in a net weight gain. People do not chose to yo-yo diet. They just chose to diet. They pick a diet that seems to work for people, that has good advertising (if something is a fraud, shouldn't it get banned from the medias?), that is FDA approved or that their doctor told them to follow. And then, like most diets, that diet eventually fails, and they gain some more weight. Then, one of the few options not to yoyo would be to discontinue any diet and live happily at their current weight. But then, you would call them lazy people who should pay for their self inflicted condition... So, many obese people go through yet another diet, that will also fail, and will push them to even higher extreme. And so on... Or what about the FDA that has let every traditionnal food be replaced with a look-alike junk version of it? Don't eat it. Even when everyone, including your doctor and the government, tells you to, because it's healthier for you? Certainly, having access to accurate nutritional information is helpful, especially with all the food choices available today. However, people have known for eons that eating more than is burned by the body will cause weight gain. No one ever needed government or nutritionists to point out this simple fact. People have known for eons that being happy is better than being sad, but this doesn't prevent depressions from happening. Do you suggest depressive people should just be happier and stop depending on expensive drugs? People have known for eons that stress is bad for their health, yet they keep going to work daily. People have known for eons that air pollution is becoming our #1 health risk, yet most still drive their car. The human being is not a machine. Knowing something and rationnally reacting to it is not something we do easily. Besides, it might have helped if nutritionists and governemnt had *said* that simple fact. But they didn't. They blamed obesity on pretty much everything, except excess calories. It's because of the fats, or the carbs, or the water, or the salt... Because blaming it on the calories alone would mean blaming it on consumption. At the root of our economic systems is the idea that consumming more is better. If all the obese and overweight in the world stopped consumming so much and just ate what they need (instead of tons of light food), the food processing industry would just collapse. Lack of exercise due to increased modernization, more variety of and access to convenience foods, unfortunate cultural shift away from value systems that emphasize the value of personal responsibility and hard work. Lack of exercise doesn't make people obese. As you pointed out, it's eating too much that does. I don't see what hard work and personal responsability has to do with the deal. Unless you have spent any significant amount of time fasting in your life, you have no idea what dieting really means - and it means hard work. Besides, the USA is still the country in the world where "personal responsability and hard work" is at its highest. Yet, it's also the country in the world with the highest ratio of obese. On the other hand, highly socialized country, where we are not supposed to value these as much, still have a much lower obesity ratio. That seems counter-intuitive. Sure, we have access to more variety in food. But there again, facts do not fit. The average American eats a very poorly diversified diet, with an average of 5 different products a week. France reaches 15+ different products a week. Yet, obesity in France is a new and limited epidemia while it's explosive in the USA. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Concordia" wrote in message
... On the other hand, eating more than the body will burn is almost always an illogical, non life affirming action. The problem is that most obese have no way of knowing how much their body will burn. The mecanism that regulates that in normal people is just broken, for psychological or physical reasons, in obese people. As a normal person, you have don't even have to think about losing weight, maintaining a proper weight is a natural function of your body. Just like inflating and deflating your lungs is something you perform automatically without paying attention. For various reasons, obese don't have this nice option. It's not like there is any positive action on your part to remain slim. And it is a choice. Mind you, I'm personally not condemning the individual right to make the choice to continue to overeat, though I think it's a sad one. You don't get the point. A huge majority of obese people would rather be slim. Except they can't. I mean, ask most obese people. Over the course of their life, most have lost more weight than your total weight. It's not a matter of willpower. Most obese can beat you on that. Just try to stop eating and see how long you last and how you feel - well, most obese people are able to function with that level of hunger for months at a time. Actually, you do have an advantage. If you stop eating, hunger will disappear as you start to starve. If you diet, it won't. As a side note, to the extent that injuries result from known high risk activities such as bungee jumping or skydiving for example, participants generally and rightfully bear the burden of their responsibility (financially) for those activities, as most insurance will not cover treatment. Not sure about the skiing. That's not the case here. You do get an insurance with some sport licenses, but healthcare will cover it anyway. But we do have "socialized" health care. Good point. However, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, one must and will assume current and ongoing responsibility for the problem. Attempts to assign blame after the fact are rather useless and frequently counterproductive. Usually, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, one just fails and gains even more weight as a bonus. That's the statistical truth. 85% of the diets fail within 5 years. Not because 85% of the dieters lack willpower, but because diets don't work as a long term cure for obesity. Do you blame people with cancer for their cure not working? I mean, they had their one chance at a cure, and now, they managed to get cancer *again*, and they want yet *another* cure! A school lunch is only one meal a day. Furthermore, even if the foods aren't ideal, they are usually portion controlled. More importantly, what are the kids doing, learning, and eating at home? The role of the school is to educate the children. Despite the poor education their parents are giving them if it needs to. Obviously, schools are failing to educate the youth of your nation properly about their eating habits. You might think it's not your problem, but how long do you think the system can work this way? Do you think society will hold together with 50% of obese? 80%? 99%? 99% of super-obese? When things take epidemic proportions, it becomes the responsability of the nation to deal with them... Many people do not make themselves obese alone, they do so with the help of the government and their doctor. Government and doctors don't shovel food into a person's mouth, people do. No, they told them "here is a cure for you", and people believed them. But the cure happened to be worse than the disease. When this happens with a drug, it's customary for people to try to sue the hell out of the manufacturer. The best way to become a super-obese is through yo-yo dieting after all. Many people started their way towards obesity by merely being healthy overweights and starting a diet. Which is all the more reason to adopt a lifetime eating and exercise plan, instead of yo-yo dieting. For example, weight training is an excellent way to build and maintain lean muscle mass. That's the "lifetime" eating plan that is causing the yo-yo dieting. You were thinking I was talking about fad diets? There is no difference between fad diets and the so-called balanced diet. Both work rather well at making people lose weight. Both have a high failure rate at the 5 years mark. And both trigger a rebound that can result in a net weight gain. People do not chose to yo-yo diet. They just chose to diet. They pick a diet that seems to work for people, that has good advertising (if something is a fraud, shouldn't it get banned from the medias?), that is FDA approved or that their doctor told them to follow. And then, like most diets, that diet eventually fails, and they gain some more weight. Then, one of the few options not to yoyo would be to discontinue any diet and live happily at their current weight. But then, you would call them lazy people who should pay for their self inflicted condition... So, many obese people go through yet another diet, that will also fail, and will push them to even higher extreme. And so on... Or what about the FDA that has let every traditionnal food be replaced with a look-alike junk version of it? Don't eat it. Even when everyone, including your doctor and the government, tells you to, because it's healthier for you? Certainly, having access to accurate nutritional information is helpful, especially with all the food choices available today. However, people have known for eons that eating more than is burned by the body will cause weight gain. No one ever needed government or nutritionists to point out this simple fact. People have known for eons that being happy is better than being sad, but this doesn't prevent depressions from happening. Do you suggest depressive people should just be happier and stop depending on expensive drugs? People have known for eons that stress is bad for their health, yet they keep going to work daily. People have known for eons that air pollution is becoming our #1 health risk, yet most still drive their car. The human being is not a machine. Knowing something and rationnally reacting to it is not something we do easily. Besides, it might have helped if nutritionists and governemnt had *said* that simple fact. But they didn't. They blamed obesity on pretty much everything, except excess calories. It's because of the fats, or the carbs, or the water, or the salt... Because blaming it on the calories alone would mean blaming it on consumption. At the root of our economic systems is the idea that consumming more is better. If all the obese and overweight in the world stopped consumming so much and just ate what they need (instead of tons of light food), the food processing industry would just collapse. Lack of exercise due to increased modernization, more variety of and access to convenience foods, unfortunate cultural shift away from value systems that emphasize the value of personal responsibility and hard work. Lack of exercise doesn't make people obese. As you pointed out, it's eating too much that does. I don't see what hard work and personal responsability has to do with the deal. Unless you have spent any significant amount of time fasting in your life, you have no idea what dieting really means - and it means hard work. Besides, the USA is still the country in the world where "personal responsability and hard work" is at its highest. Yet, it's also the country in the world with the highest ratio of obese. On the other hand, highly socialized country, where we are not supposed to value these as much, still have a much lower obesity ratio. That seems counter-intuitive. Sure, we have access to more variety in food. But there again, facts do not fit. The average American eats a very poorly diversified diet, with an average of 5 different products a week. France reaches 15+ different products a week. Yet, obesity in France is a new and limited epidemia while it's explosive in the USA. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:58:05 +0200, "Lictor"
wrote: "Concordia" wrote in message .. . On the other hand, eating more than the body will burn is almost always an illogical, non life affirming action. The problem is that most obese have no way of knowing how much their body will burn. 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. The mecanism that regulates that in normal people is just broken, for psychological or physical reasons, in obese people. Before we go any further in this discussion, define these mechanisms. As a normal person, you have don't even have to think about losing weight, You're making an assumption here that I've never been overweight. This is not the case. maintaining a proper weight is a natural function of your body. Just like inflating and deflating your lungs is something you perform automatically without paying attention. For various reasons, obese don't have this nice option. It's not like there is any positive action on your part to remain slim. For the most part, it is a myth that thin people in general do not watch what they eat. Metabolism varies, but not to the significant extent that some people would have you believe. This has been proven time and time again in peer reviewed studies. And it is a choice. Mind you, I'm personally not condemning the individual right to make the choice to continue to overeat, though I think it's a sad one. You don't get the point. A huge majority of obese people would rather be slim. Except they can't. 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. (snip) As a side note, to the extent that injuries result from known high risk activities such as bungee jumping or skydiving for example, participants generally and rightfully bear the burden of their responsibility (financially) for those activities, as most insurance will not cover treatment. Not sure about the skiing. That's not the case here. You do get an insurance with some sport licenses, but healthcare will cover it anyway. But we do have "socialized" health care. Okay, our system in the states is somewhat different. I see you are in France. My point was that these people engaging in the high risk activities are rightfully bearing the burden of their choice of activities. Remember, one of your initial premises was that everything is a risk to some extent, and you attempted to equate the responsibility of injury from required and productive daily activities such as walking, crossing the street, etc., to the risks associated with overeating. Good point. However, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, one must and will assume current and ongoing responsibility for the problem. Attempts to assign blame after the fact are rather useless and frequently counterproductive. Usually, if one wants to lose and keep off excess weight, one just fails and gains even more weight as a bonus. That's the statistical truth. 85% of the diets fail within 5 years. Not because 85% of the dieters lack willpower, but because diets don't work as a long term cure for obesity. Do you blame people with cancer for their cure not working? I mean, they had their one chance at a cure, and now, they managed to get cancer *again*, and they want yet *another* cure! 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. A school lunch is only one meal a day. Furthermore, even if the foods aren't ideal, they are usually portion controlled. More importantly, what are the kids doing, learning, and eating at home? The role of the school is to educate the children. Despite the poor education their parents are giving them if it needs to. Obviously, schools are failing to educate the youth of your nation properly about their eating habits. I wouldn't disagree that schools could certainly do a better job. However, I think it's rather foolish to hold the schools solely responsible for the welfare and education of children. (snip) Many people do not make themselves obese alone, they do so with the help of the government and their doctor. Government and doctors don't shovel food into a person's mouth, people do. No, they told them "here is a cure for you", and people believed them. Please be more specific. What cures are you referring to? But the cure happened to be worse than the disease. When this happens with a drug, it's customary for people to try to sue the hell out of the manufacturer. The best way to become a super-obese is through yo-yo dieting after all. Many people started their way towards obesity by merely being healthy overweights and starting a diet. Which is all the more reason to adopt a lifetime eating and exercise plan, instead of yo-yo dieting. For example, weight training is an excellent way to build and maintain lean muscle mass. That's the "lifetime" eating plan that is causing the yo-yo dieting. 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. You were thinking I was talking about fad diets? There is no difference between fad diets and the so-called balanced diet. Both work rather well at making people lose weight. Both have a high failure rate at the 5 years mark. And both trigger a rebound that can result in a net weight gain. See above. People do not chose to yo-yo diet. They just chose to diet. They pick a diet that seems to work for people, that has good advertising (if something is a fraud, shouldn't it get banned from the medias?), that is FDA approved or that their doctor told them to follow. And then, like most diets, that diet eventually fails, and they gain some more weight. You're being repetitive again. Asked and addressed. Then, one of the few options not to yoyo would be to discontinue any diet and live happily at their current weight. But then, you would call them lazy people who should pay for their self inflicted condition... So, many obese people go through yet another diet, that will also fail, and will push them to even higher extreme. And so on... Or what about the FDA that has let every traditionnal food be replaced with a look-alike junk version of it? Don't eat it. Even when everyone, including your doctor and the government, tells you to, because it's healthier for you? Please list some of the specific foods you are talking about. Certainly, having access to accurate nutritional information is helpful, especially with all the food choices available today. However, people have known for eons that eating more than is burned by the body will cause weight gain. No one ever needed government or nutritionists to point out this simple fact. People have known for eons that being happy is better than being sad, but this doesn't prevent depressions from happening. Do you suggest depressive people should just be happier and stop depending on expensive drugs? People have known for eons that stress is bad for their health, yet they keep going to work daily. People have known for eons that air pollution is becoming our #1 health risk, yet most still drive their car. Again, your red herrings won't fly. You've tried it with the broken bones, the cancer, etc. Either address the points or get off the pot. The human being is not a machine. Knowing something and rationnally reacting to it is not something we do easily. Well, duh. That in no way negates taking responsibility for our own wellbeing, instead of trying to place blame elsewhere. Besides, it might have helped if nutritionists and governemnt had *said* that simple fact. But they didn't. They blamed obesity on pretty much everything, except excess calories. Nonsense. The majority of mainstream nutritionists have always taken a position that calories matter. So has the government (here). (snip) Lack of exercise due to increased modernization, more variety of and access to convenience foods, unfortunate cultural shift away from value systems that emphasize the value of personal responsibility and hard work. Lack of exercise doesn't make people obese. 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. Do you understand the role of lean muscle mass in metabolism, or do I need to spell it out for you? As you pointed out, it's eating too much that does. I don't see what hard work and personal responsability has to do with the deal. 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. Unless you have spent any significant amount of time fasting in your life, Actually, I fast two days a month. I have never done it for an extended period of time, though. you have no idea what dieting really means 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. - and it means hard work. Lol, didn't I just mention hard work above? Besides, the USA is still the country in the world where "personal responsability and hard work" is at its highest. It's not nearly as high as it once was, though. That was my point "unfortunate cultural shift away from..." (snip) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
"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. 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... 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. The mecanism that regulates that in normal people is just broken, for psychological or physical reasons, in obese people. Before we go any further in this discussion, define these mechanisms. As a regulated person, if you eat as much as you feel like, your weight remains stable. If for some reason you eat too much and gain weight, you will feel less hungry and get satiated sooner, until you snap back to your set weight. All this without feeling any hunger, since hunger *is* the regulation system. So, a normal well regulated person does not have to work at keeping a constant weight. Actually, moving away from it is an enormous amount of work for some of them (just check how much work some actors have had to gain and lose weight beyond their normal stable weight). On the other hand, many obeses, for one reason or another, are unable to do that. As a normal person, you have don't even have to think about losing weight, You're making an assumption here that I've never been overweight. This is not the case. So, how did you lose your weight? Was it easy or effortless? And for how long have you maintained? Are you positive you will be able to maintain for life? Did you ever suffer from eating disorders or were you just the average over-eater? This can make a world of difference... Also, are you aware of how normal regulated people eat? The fact that to you losing weight was effortless doesn't mean it is the case for everyone. For most obeses, it isn't. On the other hand, maintening a constant weight *is* effortless for well regulated slim people. maintaining a proper weight is a natural function of your body. Just like inflating and deflating your lungs is something you perform automatically without paying attention. For various reasons, obese don't have this nice option. It's not like there is any positive action on your part to remain slim. For the most part, it is a myth that thin people in general do not watch what they eat. Metabolism varies, but not to the significant extent that some people would have you believe. This has been proven time and time again in peer reviewed studies. Who talked about metabolism? The regulation happens reguardless of metabolism changes, fortunately, otherwise everyone would be obese (or too thin). And it's not a myth that thin people have to watch what they eat. If they are properly regulated (here, I'm excluding people who stay slim because they are on a permanent diet), they don't have to watch what they eat, since they stop being interrested in food once they have eaten enough. If you try to make these people gain weight, it becomes increasingly harder since lack of interrest turns into dislike and nausea. If you stop force-feeding them, they will slowly return to their normal weight, through lack of interrest in eating much. Nowhere in the process does it involve watching what they it, or for that matter, doing anything conscious. Nor does it involve anything about their metabolism. Nor do they eat special food to do that, like everyone else, they are able to lose weight on anything, including potato chips. Just like most infants who are breastfed are able to manage their inputs themselves to stick to the proper growth curve; they're certainly not counting calories. You don't get the point. A huge majority of obese people would rather be slim. Except they can't. 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? 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. You have to deal with large psychological issues too, and peer presure sometimes (some people often do not want you to lose weight). 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! If you know of any "plan" with a higher success rate, by all mean, publish it and get rich! I wouldn't disagree that schools could certainly do a better job. However, I think it's rather foolish to hold the schools solely responsible for the welfare and education of children. I don't hold them solely responsible. Noone is solely responsible, the whole issue is too complex for that. It's a problem of shared responsabilities between the schools, the doctors, the government, the famillies, the individuals... 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). 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. Weight loss is roughly the same on most kind of restrictive diet. And long term success rate is around the same too. There are small variations from one diet to another, but it's not really significant. If you look at long term successes, you have people on your kind of diet *and* people on quickie VLC crash diets. The fact that you say that a diet should last for life doesn't make it work any better. If people stop following it because of some inner flaw, they just stop following it. Nowadays, every single diet claim it should be followed for life, from balanced diets to Atkins to Dunkan to the Pineapple diet or whatever. 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. Even when everyone, including your doctor and the government, tells you to, because it's healthier for you? Please list some of the specific foods you are talking about. 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... The human being is not a machine. Knowing something and rationnally reacting to it is not something we do easily. Well, duh. That in no way negates taking responsibility for our own wellbeing, instead of trying to place blame elsewhere. We're talking about an epidemia here, how you or I handle our particular problem is actually pretty irrelevant. When dealing with an epidemia, you do *have* to take into account psychological issue if they play any significant role in the statistics. In that case, they play an enormous role. Besides, it might have helped if nutritionists and governemnt had *said* that simple fact. But they didn't. They blamed obesity on pretty much everything, except excess calories. 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? Lack of exercise doesn't make people obese. 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. 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? Naturally slim people are able to maintain weight on a low metabolism. 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). 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. Conditionning is especially bad, since you're usually not even aware of it. 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. And I believe that diets are flawed, because of the very way they are built and their ignorance of basic psychological issues. Sometimes, people do happen to lose weight and maintain long term, but I tend to think they did *despite* their diet. So, I'm trying something else. Seems to work so far, and at least it doesn't make my life miserable. - 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... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:24:38 +0200, "Lictor"
wrote: "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? One can go and get a test done. A university affiliated hospital would be a good place to start. Your premise was that it is rather hard to know what the metabolism is. I provided an example of how one could find out. Besides, it will only give you a value for that day, that's pretty useless. And that would be a pretty useless value anyway, Not really. A test would aid in ruling out hypothyroidism (not common) 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. 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. There are the occasional exceptions, but not enough to be significant in accounting for overweight in general. 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. There would be a somewhat of a distribution of results assuming one stayed at a similar weight and activity level. Do you dispute this? it's not like you would have any reliable data to use to match your food with it, calorie tables are all but reliable... Sure, I don't doubt that calorie tables may be inaccurate to some nth degree of precision. But that certainly does not rule out _any_ value they may have in providing a basis about what and how much to eat. Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage has more calories than a pound of salmon. 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. A perfect match is not necessary short-term. It is a long-term attempt at a match or deficit that matters. You obviously understand this concept, and have alluded to it below when suggesting "regulated" people self-correct overeating by subsequently eating less to make up for it (which I somewhat disagree with). The mecanism that regulates that in normal people is just broken, for psychological or physical reasons, in obese people. Before we go any further in this discussion, define these mechanisms. As a regulated person, if you eat as much as you feel like, your weight remains stable. If for some reason you eat too much and gain weight, you will feel less hungry and get satiated sooner, until you snap back to your set weight. All this without feeling any hunger, since hunger *is* the regulation system. So, a normal well regulated person does not have to work at keeping a constant weight. On the other hand, many obeses, for one reason or another, are unable to do that. There seem to be very few of these naturally thin "regulated" people floating around in the states. I've heard that this may differ a bit in France (does it really?). If so, what do you attribute the difference to? Almost without exception, even the thin folks here have to watch what they eat. As a normal person, you have don't even have to think about losing weight, You're making an assumption here that I've never been overweight. This is not the case. So, how did you lose your weight? I initially eliminated a significant amount of carbs by following Atkins induction, then gradually reintroduced complex carbs in the form of vegetables and the occasional fruits as I went along. I also began lifting weights regularly and swimming laps -- and find these to be rewarding and enjoyable activities. Today, I do not follow Atkins, but still generally watch starches and processed foods in general. The primary basis of my diet is lots of fresh vegetables and meats (fowl, seafood, red meat), with some fruits and nuts as snacks. I occasionally have a glass of red wine or a martini with or after dinner. I also cook a lot and also grow some of my own vegetables and herbs. Was it easy or effortless? It was initially extremely difficult, but gradually became much easier over time. And for how long have you maintained? A few years now. Are you positive you will be able to maintain for life? Sure, it is up to me. Last year, I hurt an ankle and was still able to keep from gaining weight. Did you ever suffer from eating disorders or were you just the average over-eater? I used to binge eat at least a couple of times a week and could wolf down an entire large pizza (and much more) in one sitting easily. I also overate in general on a fairly consistent basis. At the time, I rationalized it somewhat and wasn't completely honest with myself about what I was doing or the calories consumed. This can make a world of difference... Also, are you aware of how normal regulated people eat? 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. This is not what I am seeing in the states. What are you observing in France? How many of these folks do you see percentage wise and how do they eat? The fact that to you losing weight was effortless Not the case; see above. doesn't mean it is the case for everyone. For most obeses, it isn't. On the other hand, maintening a constant weight *is* effortless for well regulated slim people. I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Most of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a lot for lunch, etc. What's funny is now that I am thin, people occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other women. People see what they want to see. I don't doubt that there are some folks out there that absolutely never have to consciously watch what they eat. It just seems rare based on my observations and honest discussions with other people. (snip) Again, are you familliar with binge eating? See my answer above. 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? How many folks out there percentage wise do you seriously think eat while they are sleepwalking? (snip) 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. Won't work unless calories and portions are controlled. No diet will. This is common sense. If someone really thinks they can sit around and eat excessive portions of a bunch of low fat junk food, they are a victim of their own stupidity. The truth is out there and has been out there for quite some time. The FDA pyramid. The pyramid recommends way too many starches and is also an oversimplistic model -- I've always thought that. The balanced diet. The low carb diet (which will probably become official sooner or later). I actually eat a fairly low carb diet, and it seems to work fairly well. But I don't buy that low carb somehow magically permits people to consume an unlimited amount of calories. And I've had the common sense to know that since I was an adolescent and first heard of LC. What I'm seeing here in the states is that this LC "lifestyle" is going much the way of the low fat craze. There's a bunch of processed foods on the market now and people are overeating them. Folks are always looking for the quick fix, and marketers depend on it. People are duped because they play mind games with themselves and choose to believe what they want to believe. That is PRECISELY why I am advocating the crucial role of personal responsibility in all this. As I've stated before, if someone chooses to stay fat, that's fine. Just don't try and place the blame elsewhere. (snip) Please list some of the specific foods you are talking about. Margarine, which was advertised as healthy food. That is a good point about the trans fats. However, I don't think it was part of some great conspiracy or marketing ploy, but rather due to the information currently available at the time. Folks used to think the earth was flat... The labeling could still be improved in some cases when it comes to the whole hydrogenated/partially hydrogenated issue. 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... The human being is not a machine. Knowing something and rationnally reacting to it is not something we do easily. Well, duh. That in no way negates taking responsibility for our own wellbeing, instead of trying to place blame elsewhere. We're talking about an epidemia here, how you or I handle our particular problem is actually pretty irrelevant. When dealing with an epidemia, you do *have* to take into account psychological issue if they play any significant role in the statistics. In that case, they play an enormous role. I don't dispute at all that there is a psychological component. In fact, I think it is a rather significant factor in overeating. Besides, it might have helped if nutritionists and governemnt had *said* that simple fact. But they didn't. They blamed obesity on pretty much everything, except excess calories. 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? It has been written down -- time and time again. People just don't want to listen; they are looking for quick fixes. Lack of exercise doesn't make people obese. 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. 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. Adding lean muscle mass increases metabolism. (snip) No , I don't believe people have free will when they have to go through a bunch of misinformation and conditionning. Conditionning is especially bad, since you're usually not even aware of it. Learned helplessness never helped anyone improve their circumstances. (snip) So, I'm trying something else. Seems to work so far, and at least it doesn't make my life miserable. How are you eating and what are your particular circumstances? - 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... Life's tough. We all have our problems. Usually, we can only solve our own problems. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Marie Osmond on Larry King Live last night.
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 06:19:46, Concordia wrote:
Sure, I don't doubt that calorie tables may be inaccurate to some nth degree of precision. But that certainly does not rule out _any_ value they may have in providing a basis about what and how much to eat. Thanks to calorie tables, it's pretty clear that a pound of sausage has more calories than a pound of salmon. Would that not be clear without calorie tables? There seem to be very few of these naturally thin "regulated" people floating around in the states. I've heard that this may differ a bit in France (does it really?). If so, what do you attribute the difference to? Almost without exception, even the thin folks here have to watch what they eat. When I lived in France as a young adult, I lost over 20 lbs without even trying. And kept them off for years. I think it's due to the very different eating-habits over there - three meals a day, end of. No snacks. None. The concept of the "office stash" is totally unknown - you just don't eat during the day, except at a formal mealtime. The young, who do go to McDonald's, are beginning to get fat. And yes, the majority of people in France still appear to have no need to lose weight - I always feel grotesquely fat when I'm over there, whereas in the USA I feel positively slender! I don't think it is effortless for the vast majority of people. Most of the "naturally" thin people I know will tell you (if they are honest) that they will occasionally pass on dessert and second helpings, _consciously_ decide to have a light dinner if they ate a lot for lunch, etc. What's funny is now that I am thin, people occasionally comment on what and how they seem to think I can get away with eating, based on their limited observation. Especially other women. People see what they want to see. Partly conscious, partly because they are genuinely not hungry for a heavy meal in the evening if they've had a lot for lunch. Or for a pudding if they've had a large main course. That is what us fatties don't have, naturally - a natural appetite regulator. We eat because the food is there, not because we are actively hungry for it. And of course many French women *do* watch their weight, but are discreet about it - and successful! But they have as many health magazines as anywhere else, and they are as full of diet tips as any other.... -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday snaps! |
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 |