Slashdot Mirror
Born with Couch Potato Genes?
An anonymous reader writes "Science Daily is reporting on an experiment that suggests that an individual's activity level shows a genetic basis. From the article: 'Research conducted by scientists at the Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health & Science University reveals that a person's level of activity is likely an intrinsic property of that individual. [...] Overall, these findings suggest that it is likely to take a significant conscious effort to change one's level of physical activity and override one's intrinsic inclination to be active or inactive. To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think,'"
How soon before we can blame everything we do on genetics?
Source: Oregon Health & Science University
Born A Couch Potato? Each Persons' Activity Level Appears Intrinsic, Possibly Tied To Genetics
Research conducted by scientists at the Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health & Science University reveals that a person's level of activity is likely an intrinsic property of that individual. This means personal decisions to become more active for the purpose of losing weight may take more of a conscious effort than traditionally thought for certain people. The research is being presented during the Society for Neuroscience meeting in Washington, D.C., Nov. 12-16. It is one of the largest and most respected meetings of neuroscientists in the world.
"Previous research has revealed that increased physical activity can decrease the risk of obesity, coronary heart disease, respiratory disease, metabolic diseases like diabetes, anxiety, depression, breast cancer and colon cancer," said Elinor Sullivan, an OHSU graduate student conducting research at the Oregon National Primate Research Center. "Based on the wealth of benefits provided by regular exercise, doctors have often recommended that patients increase their level of physical activity. However, currently the factors that regulate an individual's average daily activity level, and the brain systems involved in regulating activity are not well understood. It is likely that these factors affect how easy it is for individuals to substantially increase activity through voluntarily exercise, and whether some people can more easily increase their activity than others."
To better understand the factors that can impact activity levels, the ONPRC scientists studied 17 female rhesus macaque monkeys housed in single cages compared to 12 female monkeys group housed in large pens (12 ft x 12 ft x 14 ft). The monkeys housed in large pens had more opportunities to forage for food and move around, as well as more chances to interact socially. To accurately measure activity levels, both groups of monkeys wore activity monitors attached to loose-fitting collars.
Data from the monitors in both groups of monkeys revealed that within each group there was great variability in animals' activity levels. The most active animals showed an eight-fold greater activity level than the most sedentary monkeys. However, surprisingly, individual animals' activity levels did not correspond to the size of their living area. In fact, some monkeys living in single cages demonstrated higher activity levels than monkeys living in larger housing areas.
The monkeys in the single cages were further studied for a six-month period and they showed consistent levels of activity through out this time. Sedentary monkeys remained sedentary, and active animals remained active.
A follow-up study was performed with an additional 10 monkeys, which were housed in single cages and then moved to larger group housing. Again, a high degree of individual variability was found in activity level. However, activity level did not significantly change when monkeys were moved between types of housing. Sedentary monkeys remained sedentary even when they had a great deal of space to move around in and companions to interact with, while active monkeys remained active even when they were housed in a smaller space with limited interaction with other monkeys.
"Overall, these findings suggest that it is likely to take a significant conscious effort to change one's level of physical activity and override one's intrinsic inclination to be active or inactive. To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think," said Judy Cameron, Ph.D., senior scientist in the divisions of Reproductive Sciences and Neuroscience at the OHSU Oregon National Primate Research Center. "Our current findings build further on work we did last year showing that activity is more predictive of long-term changes in body weight than even diet. Wit
To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think,'"
Insensitive clods! It's already hard enough to reach for the remote control!
Oh, great. Things like these always give people a scapegoat; "I'm not lazy, it's my genes." I'm not saying that it not true, but people like "solid" excuses to be even more lazy.
The article summary looks wrong. I don't see anything in TFA itself which indicates that laziness is a result of some genetic factor. All they say is that it's intrinsic to the individual - being a rhesus monkey in this case - that a given individual displays similar activity levels in both a stimulating and a non-stimulating environment.
"...if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think"
No, I've always thought it would be too hard. Why do you think I'm still a couch potato?
How much harder than impossible can you get? :(
Research like this often does more harm than good, in my opinion. Not only does it give people an excuse for their situation, it knocks off part of the drive they might have had to go ahead and change things. Though we admittedly do share many characteristics with the animals studied here, we also have the ability to override many of those with conscious decisionmaking.
Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
Then again, I see nothing in the article that suggests such behavior/attitudes isn't learned from parents at an early age.
They need to do a lot more study, involving actual humans, twins separated early, adopted children, blah blah blah.
Nothing to see here, move along. (Never thought I'd actually say that on here, but this article is wildly speculative, with little evidence put forth for a true genetic basis. It fully warrants such a comment.)
...because the last thing people in this society need are more excuses. Sure this may lead to some treatments... but it will feed into the culture of victimisation. "Well I'd like to get in shape, but some of us don't have it as lucky as you do... we are cursed with lazy genes." Really it may be true, but I think we'd be better not knowing. I think the same thing goes for a biological of sexuality. Because when some government starts doing some "cleansing" we'll wish we didn't know. I think we need a *real* debate about science and ethics; one that isn't treated like a political football.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
it is my parents' fault that I'm such a lazy bum. Now I can fwd this link to them.
I'm much more funny, interesting and insightful than the moderators think
I'm giving up on free will.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think
Tell me something I don't know. Anyone who has gone through an overweight period can tell you this.
....but the fact that we are here is directly related to the fact that our foreforefathers had to run away from scary predators; like tigers and dinosaurs and macrosoft. If they weren't athletic they'd be dead - and therefore we would not be here. SO if its couch-potato in our genes then technically our ancestors would have been bloody lazy. And dino food. Survival of the fittest anyone?
/. would have had ancestors who woulda been too friggin lazy to uh... procreate anyway.
Besides, if it's in the genes then
I love humanity, it is people I hate
i think i have couch lay-in-bed-all-day-in-front-of-the-computer genes
Yep, that's my excuse. :)
Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
Plus, it appears the experiment itself was pretty meaningless, and the conclusions therefrom unsupported. Basically, they observed that some monkeys were active and others weren't, and that the level of activity didn't depend on the amount of space a particular monkey had to be active in. Wow.
The only attempt to change an independent variable appears to be as follows:From this, the scientist concludes:I don't think so. How do we know any particular monkey made an "conscious effort," much less a "significant conscious effort," to change its level of physical activity? Perhaps more fundamentally, there is not evidence the scientists even provided any incentive for the monkeys to do so. Simply putting a monkey in a bigger cage may not have given it any incentive or reason to be more active.
There seems to be an assumption that because they gave a sedentary monkey more space, it should have wanted to be more active, and because it wasn't, in fact, more active, this must be because its inactivity was "an intrinsic property of that individual." The scientist's argument assumes his conclusion. What if the money+ simply did not want to, and indeed had no reason to, move?
Put a banana at the other end of cage, and watch Mr. Sedentary Monkey take off like a rocket.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
From:
"Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."
The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations."
I'd rather trust the Iraqi minister of propaganda than the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Overall, these findings suggest that it is likely to take a significant conscious effort to change one's level of physical activity and override one's intrinsic inclination to be active or inactive.
New!
Pr-escr|ptioN gene therapy delvred r|ght t o y0u r door. 3nl4rg you_R worK ethic by four-00 percnt!
i hope they didn't have a percentage of the test group who were hopeless stoners and skewed the results....too much wee d can turn a normal person into a very lazy person (not always, but mnore often than not). i should hope any future studies had drug tests with the promise of confidentiality if at all possible.
I wonder how ancient people who have those genes behaved during stone age.
Your username says it all....
I for one welcome our.. ahh sod it..
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil... ..and their long lost brother "can't be bothered to do any evil"
Thanks for that. I'd read it, but I can't really be bothered.
The parent poster, little-known Slashdot user UnxMully, tried to beguile unsuspecting readers into believe that the experiment originated at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, both by posting a quote about the OISM and ignoring the fact that TFA not only clearly states that the experiment is being conducted at the Oregon Health & Science University, specifically at the Oregon National Primate Research Center, but was even *originally published on the OHSU website*.
The parent post is a clear example of failing to RTFA or even its headline on Slashdot. The post was not based on a review of the article, nor was its poster expert in the various institutions with the words "Oregon" and "Science" in their names. In fact, the only criterion for creating the parent post was the ability to type. The post should not resurface in a renewed attempt to undermine reading comprehension.
I'd rather trust the Iraqi minister of propaganda than the Slashdot user UnxMully.
Activity is overrated. One thing done well is better than 100 things done wrong. And please don't denigrate potatoes. Anyway good timing with this thread (Introverts Have More Brain Activity?).
Million Dollar Screenshot
Such research definitely does more harm than good. That's a good reason not to do such research; in fact, it's a good reason to not do much of anything. As good a reason as any; now, hand me that remote, will you, science-boy?
This article discourages those who want to stop being lazy ~ !
Why does yahoo do this
We have to believe in free will. We've got no choice!
Forget peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and thesis/dissertation defenses. Any scientist who wants to prove the worth of his research and conclusions should pass the "Slashdot Review".
;-)
I'm serious. Just post your paper here before showing it to your peers and if there's even the slightest problem it will be ripped to shreds in no time. Your ego might be shot but your reworked paper will be much stronger...
Don't forget to thank the Slashdot Collective in the final draft for their "constructive critisism"
That was 2 years ago. Over a year and a half, I lost 140 lbs and am a much more active person.
It wasn't easy, but it's definately do-able. Besides, as the saying goes, "If it's easy, it isn't worth doing."
I knew I wasn't a lazy fatass! I am the product of millions of years of precise evolution. Really, I am the apex of man, highly evolved to conserve stores of fat energy. Those atheletes will die out with the next ice age. Dinosaurs!
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Problem with the article: Other nations are not so obese. People in the U.S. are much more obese than the citizens of any other nation, with the exception of a few islands where people eat a lot of coconut.
In Brazil, a large percentage of the population has the same genetic background as people in the U.S., because they are immigrants from the same countries. But people in Brazil are not nearly as grotesquely obese.
I'd say the obesity is caused by depression, and the depression is caused by the strong support for violence in the U.S. culture. The U.S. government has killed perhaps 4 million people since the end of the 2nd world war. In the U.S., killing other people is increasingly seen as a way to solve social problems or problems with political disagreement. Killing other people also makes money for families and friends with investments in the weapons and oil business, such as president George W. Bush and vice-president Cheney.
Caffeine!
Inactivity and fatness are different phenomenons (but clearly related).
Americans are disgustingly obese (as a group). This isn't true of all the others who live in rich modern societies. E.g. Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria. I don't think Americans are the fattest: rich Africans and Arabs tend to be terribly fat.
Some suspect America has more "fat genes" because the people who left for the New World starved through more famines than the more prosperous folks who stayed in the Old World.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
A real couch potato doesn't waste time "thinking" about "suddenly becoming active."
"Honey, after you finish typing my Slashdot comment, will you get me a beer?"
Tell me something , these Genes you speak of , do they come with an elasticised waist
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
This crap has come up before. I'm thinking of The Bell Curve, by Herrnstein and Murray. They claimed then that a whole raft of things were inherited which have since been debunked. These things included intelligence, financial ability, criminal inclination and etcetera...
Unless they have the evidence, I shall reserve my judgement. This isn't news, just a guess. No matter how educated, this is not news, just a glorified blog report. Flame me if you want, this is a serious criticism.
I don't know about this, I used to be very active up until my early 20's and since then I have been very lazy although occasionaly I can become very active again for short periods if necessary I prefer being lazy.
I know lots of Fat people... how can I not? I am an American. I am surrounded by fat people all the time. Hell, I used to BE a fat person, but after losing 70 lbs and becoming the poster-boy for weight loss, I've discovered that it all comes down to one thing:
If you consume fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight. PERIOD. Of course, there are many ways to go about doing this, and the only sustainable way is to exercise to maintain muscle mass.
The whole idea behind long-term weight loss is to increase your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) by increasing your muscle mass, while at the same time decreasing your caloric intake to below your BMR. That's all it takes. The rate at which you lose weight will be proportional to the delta between your Daily Caloric Intake and your BMR - on average.
One pound of fat contains approximately 3600 calories. So, for example, you consume 200 fewer calories per day than you expend on average, you'll lose one pound of fat every 18 days. Of course, fat is not the only thing you can lose, so weight loss will vary somewhat.
Also, exercise adds to your daily caloric expenditure, which can accelerate weight loss significantly. One might expend 1800 calories by riding a bike 50 miles at a high rate of speed, or expend 800 calories by running 6 miles, or expend 400 calories shoveling snow for an hour.
In any case, what it all boils down to is being aware of the simple fact that you have to get your energy from somewhere, and if you do not get enough energy from the food you eat, your body will turn to its fat stores. It doesn't matter what excuse a fat person uses, whether that be, "It's my glands," or "It's my genes," or whatever. Thermodynamics is LAW, and excuses cannot break it.
The genetic basis for lying around and shoveling potato chips in your mouth all day has been know for some time. It's mainly due to overproduction of fritoceptors which heighten sensitivity to snaxamine-2.
Stating it equally plainly, "if you're an active person, then becoming a couch potato might be harder than you think." Now, why didn't that sound right?
Anyway, are we going to slowly figure out that everything has a genetic basis one thing at a time? Next story - liking broccoli has genetic basis, being a Slashdot reader has genetic basis, scoffing at the whole thing has a genetic basis etc etc
I cannot see how environmental or social factors are removed.
The way to establish a genetic impact on behaviour is to study identical twins who have been socialised seperately and in different environments. Identical twins have identical genes. Behaviour is not hereditary it is learned. In most cases identical twins brought up in similar environments have different behaviours. Most siblings behave in radically different ways to each other. How can it be genetic.
When I saw the title, I expected a study involving hundreds of separately adopted twins. 29 female monkeys in cages is a methodological joke. No conclusions can be made about genetics from this study, and the conclusions made should not necessarily be generalized to humans.
The best summary I ever heard of the whole, "Genetics make me fat," argument, is this one:
We have the same genes, by and large, that we had 50 years ago.
This rapid rise in obesity is very, very recent. Yes, change can be difficult, but its not that difficult - this coming from someone who lost 80lbs and went from a couch potato to a long distance runner the "easy" way, by eating less and doing more. No pills/shakes/meetings, just good ol' fashioned exercise. Heck, I don't even eat terribly healthily - just less than I did before. Try it, it works.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
There are McDonald's in Brazil, but people are happy, and not fat, and not depressed.
"... much of American violence is contained within inner cities and is perpetuated by criminals on each other."
Much of American violence is killing Iraqi civilians. If you are a citizen of the U.S., you pay for this, and, if you don't protest, share in it.
From now on, tell me I am couch potato again and I will sue you for racism...
There you are, staring at me again.
RTFCTCTWA - Read the 'Friendly' Comment that Contains the Whole Article
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Americans are disgustingly obese (as a group). This isn't true of all the others who live in rich modern societies. E.g. Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Austria. I don't think Americans are the fattest: rich Africans and Arabs tend to be terribly fat.
Some suspect America has more "fat genes" because the people who left for the New World starved through more famines than the more prosperous folks who stayed in the Old World.
We weren't fat in the '50s. Not like we are today. Have we all experienced some massive genetic mutation in the last 50 years? Or could it be a lifestyle change instead? Hmm?
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Sounds like kind of a baited, made-by-TV reaction you had, but...
About 18 months ago she decided she was going to take responsibility for her own weight.
The Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) M.O. of bowing to "a higher power" has always seemed suspicious to me because of the basic premise you're talking about here. AA as an institution has a strong religious side that would cloud any attempt to take responsibility for oneself. You're supposed to give up a big measure of your self-control to God, basically.
I pick my son up from viola lessons sometimes at the church around the corner, and they hold AA meetings there. The two most apparent traits of those meetings are a) the fact that they're dating grounds on a par with college social events; and b) the strong religious overtones.
If the "spiritual" side becomes nothing more than an outside force to which you're ceding control, it's never been clear to me how that'd be any different than shrugging and saying it was in your genes. If anything they encourage you to admit to yourself that you can't change anything without outside help. Then I suppose God is on your side in your attempt to quit -- though the theology of that doesn't make any more sense than saying your genes have changed their minds and want you to be thin and active now...
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I'd rather be active than inactive but there is such a thing as hyperactivity. The article seems to indicate that slowing down for the hyper among us might be as difficult as gearing up is for others.
But when Star Wars or LOTR comes out, these slugs suddenly have the stamina to stand for 18 hours in the rain and snow. It's all about motivation.
Jabba perfected the art of the couch potato, now it must be asked how he is able to convince so many rogues and scoundrels to obey his commands from such a slovenly perch?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Reasons why one could distungish you as being a couch potato, OLD LIST -
# weakened or atrophied muscles
# weakened or atrophied heart muscle
# decreased metabolic enzymes in the muscles
# diminished lung capacity
# the wrong metabolic fuels
# watching television in your underwear and often drinking beer
# Playing fantasy football
NEW LIST
# Genes, you are doomed to be a lazy couch potato and there is nothing you can do about it
http://www.jengajam.com/r/fat-woman-in-couch
01/20/09
Studies like these are used to do nothing more than to justify laziness. There's no gene for it. I was lazy for years! Now I'm not. It's all habit.
My parents owe me some big apologies.
So, you killed someone in cold blood, and your parents were murderers too - sorry, bud, you're still going to jail. No amount of genetic "blame" will ever allow us to trust you or your choices.
Steven Pinker did a thorough exploration of this in "The Blank Slate".
Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.
Or cocaine... Does wonders for people trying to do a 60 hour marathon of EQ.
And you'll loose weight at the same time, although... You might end looking like your 50 when you are 22 and all your teeth will rot out and ramble incoherently about the shawdows trying to eat you, but you weren't going to leave the house anyways.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
But I can't be arsed.
Task Mangler
Sorry if my comments have offended anyone in the past. It was genetic.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Couch potatoes YOU!
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
They showed him doing some exercise, then pausing to ask his wife to bring him a cherry soda. I thought "perhaps WATER would be a better choice there". Later he was shown eating a bucket of KFC. Hey buddy, try eating some VEGETABLES once in a while. The whole time, he was complaining that his weight was a "genetic problem".
Well if his genetics or at least social disposition lead him to believe that he wanted a cherry soda and a bucket of KFC he had no choice in the matter. Well... He sort of did, but the neurons in his brain automatically fired off saying he needed or at least desired the cherry soda. His mind was simply unable to comprehend the desire for water so it did not happen.
Now saying people have no free will make many people angry and start talking about personal responsibility and he mearly had to choose the water.
Well... If you study Buddhism you will discover there is free will but it doesn't work like that.
Where as the normal free will person will say "I shouldn't drink the cherry soda because it is making me fat." and he will more likley fail to do so because he will come up with a counter reason like "Maybe just this one time" or "I'll drink one now but tommorrow I won't..."
That doesn't solve the problem. Chances are he'll just keep drinking the soda.
The more self-aware Buddhist person will go "I am aware for my desire for cherry soda. This maybe because of my genetics and I know it tastes better than water." and then goes on to meditate or at least rational and seperate themselves from that desire... (And maybe speculates on what makes a cherry soda and water taste the way it does and why he desires one over the other) not the obtainment of cherry soda itself.
It sounds hokey but it works. Or at least better than sheer willpower... But you have to learn a bit more about Buddhist meditation to really understand.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
This just in: Some people are lazy!!
Seriously, this study doesn't prove a genetic link or anything else; all it does is show that some monkeys are lazier than others (or conversely, that some monkeys are hyperactive).
We all know someone who's a bundle of energy, can't sit still, etc. And we probably know at least one person who's consistently lazy, as well. All this study proves is that the same thing exists in rhesus monkeys.
In other words: Move along, nothing to see here...
There's refined sugars, processed foods, and enriched white flour. Sloth is a physical reaction.
It's hard to stagnante without those ingredients.
If there's any genetic tie, it's bound to coincide with ancestral heraldry from areas that are heavily reliant on grains, potatoes, or mass consumption of beer.
You are wrong ! If you treat depressed people with antidepressant, they get more obese. That rulz out your theory ....
... This is not depression ...
Obesity is something completely different. It is about human nature and stupid philosophy. It is also about complexity of our time and the very hard way to live our human lives in this strange times. Obese people are completely lost in this world and they can not find the way to stay normal humans. And then they eat and eat and eat
I have found this to be very true, and when I find myself getting lazy, I recall these words, and force myself into action.
Engadget. He has 12 satellite dishes for TV! Must be gene-related. :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I spent my time from the age of 12 to 27 playing basketball and soccer (at amateur level) for about 2 to 5 hours almost every day. Now, at 34, it seems difficult even to pick up the remote control. And I know a lot of people like me.
There are a lot of factors involved in being a couch potato: social factors like one's job, physical factors like the weather or the local town architecture, the traffic, children, less and less free time and taking in more junk food, loneliness and social alienation etc.
I think that more skinny people use linux than windows. Time after time I see fat people using windows as it offers simple and quick results, but with a long term loss. On the other hand I see skinny people using linux which requires more initial work, but with a longer term benefit thus allowing time futher down the road for time in the gym. Am I the only one who sees this?
Could it be that the active gene dominates in Linux fanatics?
Why UNIX?
I'm glad you pointed this out. I know several overweight people that get an injury and then immediately throw up their hands stating, "I can't work out now! I have a bad (back|knee|elbow|cankle)".
I've lost 30 pounds and my goal is to lose 20 more. Did I ever get a sore or injured (back|knee|elbow|cankle) while working out? Yes I did. The difference was, I continued with workouts that burnt calories without aggravating the areas that were hurt and healing. It just takes willpower; something that most overweight people are in short supply of.
Is it doesn't matter if it provides an excuse or not, it doesn't matter if it helps or not. What matters to science is if it's true or not.
I think as genetic research goes on we are likely to find out that a lot of things are heavily influenced by genetics, including some we wish weren't. However not doing the research isn't going to change anything. It's not like these things are currently not influenced by genetics and will only become so when we research it.
Now sure, maybe some people use it as an excuse but know what? People find excuses anyhow. It doesn't change the truth and doesn't mean we'll be worse off knowing it.
You are correct. A sensible estimate of the number of people who died as a result of the U.S. government action might be 11,000,000. That would include people who died because of political destabilization caused by the U.S. government. The number of people who were killed directly is somewhat close to 4,000,000. About 2,000,000 of those were killed during the Vietnam war.
The U.S. government, largely due to having departments that are allowed to break the law, such as the CIA clandestine action section, is the world's most threatening serial killer. If an oil company can get the government to provide security, the profits are higher. The real cost of gasoline in the U.S. should include most of the $400 billion the taxpayers spend for "defense".
The president and vice-president of the U.S. have family and friends with investments in oil and weapons. Is it any wonder the price of gasoline is high and we are at war?
MOD PARENT UP!!!
Quote:
"The depression is caused by millions of people working harder and harder each year, yet receiving less and less renumeration for that work. It's caused by people striving to meet their bosses' nearly insane goals, then watching as the bosses get all the bonuses and raises, while the people doing the work are told they're lucky not to get fired (that's aside from those who are fired at the end of projects). It's from people knowing their company is likely to go bankrupt and thus legally drop the pension and health benefits that the workers have been building up for decades."
Agreed. Killing other people is not the only reason for the psychological depression. An culture that is abusive enough to have a government that is so violent will be abusive in other ways, too.
It must suck having to go out in the back yard and cut down a tree, make a fire with a flint (that you dug up yourself). Then smithing your own pot to heat the water, just to bath in the morning.
Yes, and every time I wake up I want chips, but becasue I know that if I have a bag of chips in the house, no matter the size, that I'll eat the whole thing in a day I just stopped buying them. There's nothing meditative about it, it's called being realistic. If you are a massive fat ass you need to sit there and say, yes KFC would be nice, but I'm not going to eat it because that's stupid. Personal responcibility is something woefully lacking in todays society. Maybe I'm just the strong willed.
Interesting. Have you ever visited China? The mainland Chinese are so depressed they make Americans look happy-go-lucky. Mainland Chinese don't have enough money to be obese.
The link you provided is not correct. Maybe this one is? Obesity and the Rate of Time Preference: Is there a Connection?
when does it not take a conscious effort to be active? im fat cause i drink beer, eat fried foods, and watch too much tv. when im tired of being fat and happy ill pull a buddha (minus the religion) and change my glutonus ways.
im reminded of the time my brother was picking on some whale when he was in third grade. the girl, who was polishing off a 1 pound bag of m&m's, was telling my brother that it wasnt her fault that she was fat becuase it was glandular. needless to say my brother couldnt finish the argument because he was too busy laughing at the poor fat girl.
lose != loose
I think Linux CDs are a better diet than Windows CDs. Plus it's well known that windows drives contain a lot of FAT :).
Personal responsibility is something woefully lacking in todays society. Maybe I'm just the strong willed.
No, you bring up an excellent point. For months I didn't buy soda for the exact same reason. I would come home from work and have one or two or three. The best way for me to control it was to not buy it. Now I'm at the point where I can keep some soda in the cupboard and maybe drink one a week. I'm not really down with the buddhist, but would agree that there are very simple ways to boost willpower and set yourself up for success.
Find coupons in Greeley
A body in motion will stay in motion, but a body on a couch will stay on the couch ... not quite right, but close. I'll work on it while I eat these chips.
I've always done stuff like that, and I've never studied buddhism.
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
but most distros include a lot more content that the windows install cd. so you could say that linux is a steak and lobster dinner while windows is just a slice of cheese between slices of week old bread
lose != loose
Throughout my life, I have encountered two kinds of people: those who *like* to learn, and those who *refuse*. The refusers perform the absolute minimum to get by, and no more, where the learners go on above and beyond all that is expected of them. The brain, like any other organ, needs exercise to stay fit, so the refusers end up at age 50 or so unable to function in a society that has advanced without them. The learners go on well into their 80's remaining mentally sharp, free from any worries of senility or Alzheimers. I'm just citing what *I* see, and expressing it in my own layman's terms.
As for genetic weight disposition: In my case, I've always been right around 200 pounds - since age 18 to present mid-thirties! I may gain five or lose five here and there, but mainly I hover right around that area. And I've always maintained "The Mark Twain diet" - I eat what pleases me and let the food fight it out inside. Fortunately, I've always had healthy eating habits, so I guess that's it. I'm so weird, I actually *like* spinach and Brussel sprouts and broccolli, where I'm not a big fan of french fries. And I can take so many sweets and no more. Perhaps they should look into genetic traits having some effect on what *foods* you crave - that might tell a bit more.
That's similar to what I tell people who whine about not being able to quit smoking -- "If you stop buying cigarettes, you automatically quit smoking." Unfortunately, they never follow that advice.
Avoidance doesn't make a problem go away.
Sounds to me like just a technique for counter-rationalization.
"just this one time" is a common rationalization, used by alcoholics and drug addicts everywhere.
Pondering and meditiating on why one wants a cherry soda (presumably to beat down that rationalization) simply sounds like a counter-rationalization. Maybe the theory behind it, and the key, is simply learning to use the correct rationalization to trick yourself into the healthier behavior.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Yes, and every time I wake up I want chips, but becasue I know that if I have a bag of chips in the house, no matter the size, that I'll eat the whole thing in a day I just stopped buying them.
That is exactly what I do. Out of sight is always out of mind. If I don't want to do something then I avoid being in situations that is conducize to doing what I don't want to do.
Like keeping food around the house is a perfect example. First you must be aware that this is causing you do to this and then second understanding what must be done to avoid this.
Its not a lack of personal responsibility but woeful ignorace of the situation If it is a genetic disposition that makes you desire bags of chips then you must find a way to work around that. Fighting it with sheer willpower will fail and may be pointless.
Besides, if I have enough will power to take a knife and jab it through my arm and endure the pain then I can go about saying "I have more will power than most", but what does that really acheive? Not much other than a hurt arm and people giving you funny looks.
And as another poster said, many people already do this without Buddhism, but when I mean by meditation I don't really mean spending 5 minutes dwelling on the meaning of eating, but rather just being situationally aware of why you are making the choices you are rather than looking at just what choices you are making. (and no I am not really a Buddhist, I just try to take many things from them and apply to to western living)
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
To state it more plainly, if you're a couch potato, suddenly becoming active may be harder than you think
As opposed to all those couch potatoes who think becoming active is easy?
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
How soon before we can blame everything we do on genetics?
About the same time that all these genetic dispositions can be easily and quickly detected and measured in an individual... and then used to discriminate against him to bar entry into the upper echelons of education, employment, and society in general.
There may be a cultural element being expressed. When Brazilians learn that something bad is happening in the rest of the world, there is some percentage of them that claim that Brazil is just as bad. I've known French people to do that, too.
Or maybe it is just Prof Walmir Coutinho, who has a Brazilian name, who is exaggerating, for his own ego.
In any case, it is difficult to find grossly obese Brazilians, and Brazilians go out much more than people in the U.S., I think, because they are far more social.
Oh, please. Try to argue with something a little more convincing than your own personal anecdotal evidence.
In any case, it is difficult to find grossly obese Brazilians
I can find some pretty chunky ones.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Unless you are working some 14 hour a day plus weekends death job (I actually got offered one of those and said hell no) then your job really has no barrier on your fitness level. How would the weather completely prevent you from working out? If you have an enclosed living area (as in, not a cardboard box on 42nd street) then you have plenty of room to do some cardio for even 30 minutes a day.
Local town architecture? How exactly does the town layout force you to sit on the couch and watch tv all day? I'm missing something here. Traffic? BS on that one too.
There is no higher power that dictates how much free time you have, you make your own free time. Assuming you have a "normal" 9-5er, wake up an hour earlier than usual, hop on the treadmill for 30 minutes or do some pushups... get your heart going, it will actually make you feel a lot better for the entire day. Junk food, well, thats your problem... you could just not eat it. Children obviously will suck up a lot of your time, but if your child able to walk you should be outside with them once a day for some excersise, it's just important for kids as it is for adults.
There are millions of quite healthy people that aren't couch potatos and have children and have a full time job. There is no reason you can't be one of them. A friend of mine, a Junior High school teacher who works constantly gets up at 6:30 every morning and runs 3 miles before heading to work... every day.
Junk food and the TV is no excuse for being overweight or unhealthy.
The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
I call it the Homer gene. :)
kindly regards daniel
I used to weigh 245 lbs and I would blame it on genetics or on a slow metabolism or this or that when in reality it was because I spent a lot of my time in front of a computer and consumed copious amounts of sugary food/water. I now weigh 168 lbs [only 5'9''] with a sub 10% body fat; I exercise regularly, I eat lots of vegitables and I keep my caloric intake at/around 2000 calories a day.
Buddhism may be one framework to handle this from but it is really just about personal responibility. Fat people need to stop making excuses up for themeselves and society needs to stop cuddling them; if you can't control it than you're no different than an alcoholic and should get help. Otherwise, get off the fat train or take it to the last stop which is your own death.
In the end, I don't care about a persons genetic predisposition; I have a genetic predisposition towards addiction thus I'm cognizant of my choices but if I wake up five years from now and I'm addicted to smack that's my own fault. Morbid obesity is no different.
Its a competitive world.four billion years of evolution has little to no errors.Each species is combined to make one .It may look like lazyness but it is not.
No one tries harder than I do to comunicate.
It may look like I am lazy but it is a disability.
But I have other skills that are more advanced than normal people, that i would never trade to be normal.
It is a combined effort to improve and move forward .Since the future is a unknown .Going into it is a risky but unavoidable adventure.The pace that we move foward is important.
It is possible to see the near future since there are no voids and everything moves in the direction of least resistance ,all things are measurable if given enough time .Understanding time and how to use it is the key.There is no money in it.It is like fighting for equality,a full time job with no pay yet extremly filling.
That's not the Buddha you're looking for.
--- Sueños del Sur - a webcomic about four young siblings
Breakfast
Cereal + soy milk (no sugar)
Banana
Apple/pear/kiwi fruit etc etc
Lunch
Salad + beans/avocado/plain with cold pressed extra virgin olive oil
More fruit x 2
Dinner
Steamed vegetables + some type of healthy sauce (in a bowl - keeps it small)
Strict
No coffee, chocolate, sugar, pasta, rice, un-toasted bread (whole meal etc only), dairy, meat
Not so strict
Chicken, fish
Other guidelines
Exercise
Read the "Fit for Life" book
It takes years to lose it all.
TOTAL commitment!!!!
Being disrespectful is not a sensible method of debate.
São Paulo, Brazil, is one of the largest cities in the world. Estação Sé is the largest metro station in São Paulo. It is possible to see thousands of people every hour as they change trains. I've done that. There is not such a high percentage of fat people as in the United States. It is very uncommon to see someone who is grossly obese; that is common in the United States.
In general, the people in Brazil seem healthier than the people in the United States.
Just replace'factors'with 'excuses'
yeah, thats a little harsh, but anyone can find time to get out. the more you interact with people, the less time for tv, junk food, and more social interaction.
If you really want to, anf find yourself not able to overcome the intial 'push' to get going, I suggest you talk to yuor doctor, you cuold have a chemical imbalance in your brain.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
if your body process foods incorrectly, it could still convert those calories to fat, even though you need them.
So in effect yuo could be starving do death and gaining fat.
Thats why it's a problem.
This is a very are situation, and only applies to people who aren't shovelling M & Ms down there throat.
Of course, there is also a ton of emotional issues wrapped up in eating as well. Believe it or not, these issue can be very hard to get around.
I am glad you are feeling well, and seem to be healthy, but theer ar a lot of issues that effect people.
Personally, I think some issues to consider are , the easy and inexpense of improper food, the fact that in order to manitain middle class, two pwople must work, and not turning of the TV and computer from time to time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This is something I've been struggling with for a while. I don't think free will is scientific -- if we know how it works, its not free will, and if we don't know how it works, its not scince.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I think you mean "The Taco Bell Curve"
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Being healthy mean you will be more smarter.
Being in shape mean it is easier to do things.
" Running away from predators is for idiots..."
No, it's for wise people. Not seeking revenege on the predator after it has left is for idiots. Peferble killing it in it's sleep.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Also, maybe his wife should refuse to get him the cherry soda?
This person needs help, and if the people who love him don't step up to the plate, he will not loose weight.
Yeah, he needs to make the decsion, but that doesn't mean you leave him adrift, rudderless in a see of covienent, but unhealthy foods.
If you want to loose weight, and find you can't, asking your family and friends to help is a logical, and respectable, thing to do.
This man needs all sodas removed from his home. Probably should be allowed to spend any money as well, forcing himto take a packed lunch.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Being disrespectful is not a sensible method of debate.
You started out by insulting an entire country -- mine. You started the disrespect. And yes, I don't respect you, because you're not debating, you're following the same illogic found the world over. "Every anecdote that agrees with me is true, huge studies that disagree with me are false." I present hordes of evidence contradicting your claim, and you respond with absurd claims that they're biased liars. I presented photos, that other than Ronaldo et al were the first pictures of Brazilians I found on google images; you ignore them. Moreover, your original claim was about Americans versus *everyone*; apparently *everyone* in the world is lying about rising obesity to make Americans feel better or something. I quote: "Other nations are not so obese. People in the U.S. are much more obese than the citizens of any other nation, with the exception of a few islands where people eat a lot of coconut."
Apparently I should ignore every bit of evidence prsented by a variety of sources and only listen to you.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Inu Yasha: Hey Miroku.. This has been bugging me for a while...
Miroku: Yes?
Inu Yasha: Whenever it's time to look for a place to sleep, the finest house in town always seems to have evil omens lurking over it. What the hell is up with that?!
Miroku: What? You don't know already? Haven't you heard of something called a "white lie"?
No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
...can anyone suggest a solution? Will ear plugs or something of the like help me?
Actually, if the problem is eating too much KFC, not aquiring KFC is exatly the solution to the problem. You don't get fat from desiring lard, you get fat from eating it.
This is a debate about physical health, not the spiritual health that some would say cannot function without removing desire.
Even if obesity IS genetic in some people, according to the CDC (look it up) the rate of obesity is western culture has been advancing faster than the population is growing, since about 1980 or so. Given that genetic adaptations for obesity do not spontaneously occur within one 25 year period or generation, I think we can draw a safe statistical conclusion that an awful lot of people are lying about their genetic predispositions in order to effect this accelerated pacing. We will call them the "belt delta." Is this you? :)
STFU and go jog. And give up the trans fats.
I have to wonder about this research from a historical perspective. In late 19th Century America, a person getting less than about 90 minutes of strenuous activity per day was considered "sedentary." Nowadays we talk about getting at least 90 minutes of exercise per week to stay healthy. The theory that couch-potatoism is a genetic trait doesn't offer a mechanism for how it only took the couch-potato genes a few generations to become dominant in such a large, vigorous population.
On the other hand, there is one obvious non-genetic factor that could account for the increase in couch-potatohood: the innumerable processes and gadgets that now make everyday life possible with far less physical work than a century ago. Maybe typical modern Americans don't exert themselves as much as their great grandparents because they don't have to.
If the tendency not to work any harder than necessary is a genetic trait, then my bet is that it's always been there. Evidence goes all the way back to cave people, who took time out from their hunting and gathering to make up songs and draw pictures on the walls (the slackers), because they knew they had already hunted and gathered enough to eat for that week. If we do have couch-potato genes, I think we've always had them. We just didn't always have the luxury of letting them express themselves.
On a crazy side note. I've noticed that while i was exercising every day i wasn't losing fat. Then i got rid of a whole bunch of specific food desires and i lost fat. Note, my eating habits didn't really change, i ate all the time, i was just no longer concerned about when/where/what i would be eating. Not my usual comment since it's totally anecdotal without any science i can think of but it's what happened. I'm sure the crazy new agers would say it's because fat stores energy and desire is energy, but they're just a bunch of crazies. :) Repeatability not so easy as most people don't/can't/won't get rid of their desires.
I would say you can stop at whatever point gets you to where you want to be. If I want to kill my boss but I don't, I'm still deranged but I'm not in jail so although in some senses I'm still not doing too well, I'm doing just great according to where I'd like to be. People who absolutely love KFC may be unhappy that they can't eat it, but they wont be getting fat off of it. What you suggest is great for former part, dealing with not always getting what you want, but many people find that that the sense of self satisfaction they gain from being able to take control of their lives in some way and in noticing that their actions have a noticible impact is enough to replace the shallow joy of delicious chicken.
If an external stimuli dictates what you do (defensive action of avoidance in this case)then you do not have control. If people knew how to make 'real choices' (where true control lies) we wouldn't have these problems.
A bandaid solution is still better for a child that infection. Healing takes time.
And just because we don't know how it works does not mean that it's free will.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
... he can go about his business? Anyway, the Buddha that can be found in wikipedia is not the true Buddha. Or something.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.