Slashdot Mirror
Obesity Is Three Times As Deadly For Men Than Women, Says Study (telegraph.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Telegraph: Researchers at Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard universities found in the biggest ever study into weight and death that obesity is three times more deadly for men than women, and that being slightly overweight raises the risk of dying early. Telegraph reports: "Obese people can expect to lose three years of life while the average overweight person will die 12 months sooner than they would have if they were a healthy size. Usually fewer than one in five men will die before the age of 70, but that jumps to nearly one in three for the moderately obese, and eight in 10 for the morbidly obese. In contrast around one in 10 women can expect to die early, with obesity raising the risk to one in seven. While obesity raises the risk of early death by just three per cent for women, it is 10 per cent for men, more than three times as much. Around 61 per cent of adults are currently overweight or obese and the average weight of Britons has been steadily increasingly since the 1970s. In 1975 the average Briton had a BMI of 23, which is considered a healthy weight. But today that has risen to 27, with the average person now overweight. It means that since the 1970s, every person in Briton has roughly gained more than three pounds (1.5kg) per decade. Ten types of cancer are linked to excess weight which can also lead to Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease and a range of other health problems. Researchers compiled data from 10.6 million people who took part in 239 studies between 1970 and 2015, in 32 different countries. The study found an increased risk of premature death for people who were underweight, as well as for people classed as overweight." According to a study published in the Lancet in April, obese people now outnumber the underweight population for perhaps the first time in history.
there are more fat women than fat men.
Yes, mentioning that your woman is too obese is certainly more hazardous for men.
I think you meant #MaleLivesFatter
We expect people to work ridiculously long hours at increasingly sedentary jobs and we wonder why people become more overweight. It's incredibly unhealthy for so many reasons. Poor people or those who were once poor are more prone to obesity because the fear of going hungry causes them to overeat when food is available. We have more than enough wealth to ensure that nobody goes hungry, but some people are too greedy to agree to part with any of their money for such purposes. And then we have fucked up people who think it's okay to shame people and mock them for being fat. It's awful to do that to any person, but it's also counterproductive and leads to self esteem issues that can lead to becoming even more obese. Yet there are plenty of people who are twisted enough to think this is okay.
I speak from experience that these are real issues. Having to spend more time sedentary has increased my weight. But I work on short contracts of a few months while I try to find a better job, and I'm always concerned about being out of work and what might happen. I can appreciate how this leads to overeating. Despite the portrayal of overweight people as lazy, I walk several miles a day to get exercise and am making the weight come off. However, I've had a ridiculous amount of people drive past while I'm out walking to get exercise and yell insults at me for my weight. Ironically, they're insulting me for being overweight while I'm actively working to lose weight. WTF?
Obesity is an awful epdemic. We have the ability to reverse the problem, but we can't bring ourselves to do so. WTF?
People are overweight because they consume more calories than they burn. It is that simple. Almost no amount of exercise will change that. Your body will burn more calories doing nothing all day than you running a mile. Exercise will improve your health but it's affect on your weight are minimal.
But there aren't many old, fat guys.
Epidemiological studies show that populations with low meat consumption have lower life expectancy.
They lose the will to live when they can't get a decent steak.
I call bullshit on this. You can't get fat eating meat (alone), you get fat by eating the pasta, potatoes, corn, bread, and rice that come with it. Eat good meat and eggs, and be lean and mean.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
where is "Briton"?
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Obesity Is Three Times As Deadly For Men Than Women, Says Study
This must be that "Male Privilege" I keep hearing about.
When humans stop eating meat and switch to whole-food plant based diets, the rates of all leading causes of death (obesity, cancer, heart disease, and pretty diseases of inflammation) drop. To anyone with a scientific mind, modern nutritional-science's data should pretty much indict animal based foods as the direct cause of obesity,
Before I reply further, I should note that I am NOT a major carnivore. I enjoy a good steak (sometimes a large one), but I actually only eat meat in maybe a couple meals each week. I've frequently gone several weeks without eating meat -- I just prefer to eat quality meat once in a while, rather than eating some industrial junk from a "tube" of hamburger every day.
So I have no strong reason to defend meat consumption, but I have been confronted with the vegetarian and vegan arguments from various people over the years, and I've spent a lot of time reading about the matter. For every study you cite, I could cite another that contradicts or qualifies the findings.
The problem with "modern nutritional science" is that it's trying to break down very complex systems and isolate a single variable within a huge set of possible human situations. Thus, there are literally hundreds of possible confounding factors that make the conclusions of your studies suspect.
Just for one major issue -- people who are vegetarian or vegan (at least in countries that don't have large religious populations that adhere to these) are disproportionately likely to have better lifestyles. They tend to be wealthier people who tend to exercise more and pay attention to what they eat and make deliberate choices not only to avoid meat but to avoid junk food in general, whereas the "default" person who eats meat in most modern societies probably also eats a lot of junk too.
along with the consumption of heavily processed foods.
And here you get at just one of the many possible confounding factors. Low fiber intake has also shown to be correlated with higher obesity, and that tends to be correlated with meat consumption. What if we did a study of people in the same socioeconomic status who shopped at similar supermarkets (often the pricier nicer ones with better quality stuff for the vegans) and controlled for the level of "processed food" (which itself isn't really the problem as much as additives like excess added sugar), level of fiber consumption, etc., etc.
If you actually compared "apples to apples" in terms of people and diets, just isolating meat consumption, would you see such an effect on obesity? I don't know, but I'd bet LOTS of money that if there is an effect, it's a LOT smaller than most of these studies claim. Maybe meat consumption is itself a contributing factor to obesity problems, but it's far from the only one... and I'm not convinced yet from studies that it's even a major one.
I know this is true because my wife told me she'll kill me if I get fat.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Good meat is whatever meat is good enough for you. I like my bacon, too, but obviously there is a lot of good things to be said about grass-fed, and antibiotics-free meat. Depending on where you live, this kind of meat might qualify as 'organic', or 'bio', but I don't care about labels.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
Usually fewer than one in five men will die before the age of 70, but that jumps to nearly one in three for the moderately obese, and eight in 10 for the morbidly obese.
I'm 47-YO, 5'-11" and 350 pounds (see pic link below). According to BMI and the experts on Slashdot, I'm morbidly obese and should have dropped dead three years ago.
http://www.cdreimer.com/images/cdreimer_350.jpg
Except for one small problem: I don't believe that bullshit.
Why? Because I take care of myself. I eat a 150g carbs/1,500-calorie diet, I walk 20 minutes daily and work out at the gym on weekends. I also maintain a positive attitude and don't allow fat shamers to bully me. I'll probably live longer than my hard-drinking, chain-smoking relatives who are dropping like flies these days. Although I haven't been to a doctor in 15 years, I'm in better health today than I ever was before.
Being fat is a choice. Own it AND pay for it, I say.
Not always. A sixth-grade principal tried to fat shame my parents by calling them into a conference to explain why I was the proverbial fat kid at school. He was shocked to find out that my parents were skinnier than he was. It became a big mystery on how two skinny people can have a fat kid. For three years I was subjected to a dozen blood tests to determine why I was fat. No medical explanation was ever found. After my mother passed away from breast cancer a few years ago, I came across some black-and-white photos of her side of the family. The guys at the turn of the century were bigger than me and probably lumberjacks back then. Maybe genetics skipped a few generations throughout the Depression and World War II.
In unrelated news, men are 3 times less likely than women to care about their weight.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Answer
Because they want to.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Epidemiological studies show that populations with low meat consumption have lower life expectancy.
Cite a non-industry sponsored clinical study showing this in a peer reviewed journal. And find one that's adjusted for income. I'll save you time--you won't.
So I have no strong reason to defend meat consumption, but I have been confronted with the vegetarian and vegan arguments from various people over the years, and I've spent a lot of time reading about the matter. For every study you cite, I could cite another that contradicts or qualifies the findings.
So do it. Cite non-industry funded research in peer reviewed journals to contradict me. Why just say you can?
The problem with "modern nutritional science" is that it's trying to break down very complex systems and isolate a single variable within a huge set of possible human situations. Thus, there are literally hundreds of possible confounding factors that make the conclusions of your studies suspect.
If you actually compared "apples to apples" in terms of people and diets, just isolating meat consumption, would you see such an effect on obesity? I don't know, but I'd bet LOTS of money that if there is an effect, it's a LOT smaller than most of these studies claim. Maybe meat consumption is itself a contributing factor to obesity problems, but it's far from the only one... and I'm not convinced yet from studies that it's even a major one.
This is the power of modern nutrition studies that are based on large populations, across long time spans. They are income adjusted, lifestyle adjusted, and fine tuned to the point that you can compare apples to apples. The Adventist Study is a prime example of this, since you have a relatively cohesive group with similar lifestyles, but with varying degrees of meat consumption from lacto/ovo/fish vegetarians all the way to pure vegans. They have actually quantified the risk factor of adding every individual "meat" product to a diet, and vegans come in with the lowest heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.
Below are a handful more studies with lifestyle and income adjustments that all suggest that meat/dairy is the primary cause of the major diseases we are discussing. Even when you adjust to include "junk-food vegans", you see that they come out ahead. It's not just processed foods that are to blame, although an increased consumption of processed foods is linked to elevated heart disease in all populations.
M L McCullough. Diet patterns and mortality: common threads and consistent results. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):795-6.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24717365
M A Martinez-Gonzalez, A Sanchez-Tainta, D Corella, J Salas-Salvado, E Ros, F Aros, E Gomez-Gracia, M Fiol, R M Lamuela-Raventos, H Schroder, J Lapetra, L Serra-Majem, X Pinto, V Ruiz-Gutierrez, Ramon Estruch for the PREDIMED Group. A provegetarian food pattern and reduction in total mortality in the Prevención con Dieta Mediterránea (PREDIMED) study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 May 28;100(Supplement 1):320S-328S.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871477
J Reedy, S M Krebs-Smith, P E Miller, A D Liese, L L Kahle, Y Park, A F Subar. Higher diet quality is associated with decreased risk of all-cause, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality among older adults. J Nutr. 2014 Jun;144(6):881-9.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572039
G E Fraser, D J Shavlik. Ten years of life: Is it a matter of choice? Arch Intern Med. 2001 Jul 9;161(13):1645-52.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11434797
Thousands of peer-reviewed papers based on the large-scale studies below support the treating of lifestyle diseases by reducing or eliminating animal product consumption, paired with an increased consumption of whole plant-based foods. These are clinically valid paths to eliminating the diseases, which are most often more effective than prescription drugs, which are geared toward relieving symptoms (e.g. statins) but not the underlying causes of disease.
Large scale, long-term studies:
PREDIMED Studies: http://www.predimed.es/publica...
"Meat intake may be related to weight gain because of its high energy and fat content."
from
Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study.
Vergnaud AC1, Norat T, Romaguera D, Mouw T, May AM, Travier N, Luan J, Wareham N, Slimani N, Rinaldi S, Couto E, Clavel-Chapelon F, Boutron-Ruault MC, Cottet V, Palli D, Agnoli C, Panico S, Tumino R, Vineis P, Agudo A, Rodriguez L, Sanchez MJ, Amiano P, Barricarte A, Huerta JM, Key TJ, Spencer EA, Bueno-de-Mesquita B, Büchner FL, Orfanos P, Naska A, Trichopoulou A, Rohrmann S, Hermann S, Boeing H, Buijsse B, Johansson I, Hellstrom V, Manjer J, Wirfält E, Jakobsen MU, Overvad K, Tjonneland A, Halkjaer J, Lund E, Braaten T, Engeset D, Odysseos A, Riboli E, Peeters PH.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Aug;92(2):398-407. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28713. Epub 2010 Jun 30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592131?dopt=Abstract
>On the other have to add physical exercise to your already loaded work / family routine, in addition to having to deprive yourself of delicious food
Ack! Noo! you said the D word! Glad to see you stepped back from that abyss. When I was a child, My family were proto-foodies before it was even a thing. Fresh food direct from the farm when at all possible, Lettuce from the garden so fresh and tasty, you could enjoy it with only a bit of vinegar, a dash of oil and some satl and fresh ground pepper. Sometimes with fiddlehead ferns on top. Charcuterie made with real meats - nothing like a smoked sausage made from prime pork butt and not floor sweepings. Venison bologna that could turn Bambi into a cannibal. Fresh veggies canned or frozen at their peak. My better half just made Black Raspberry jam from berries I picked on Tuesday. We ate some today on fresh baked Sourdough bread. Whoa! Next week I'll be starting a double batch of homemade smoked bacon, half my regular dry rubbed brown sugar cure, and the other with Chipotle peppers added to the dry rub. Cut thick and fried, and you have heaven on a plate.
Oops - sorry - I just figured out I'm doing food pr0n here.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If you don't believe in science, then perhaps the evidence isn't very strong. For everyone else, start your investigation here:
Diet Patterns and Mortality: Common Threads and Consistent Results
Marjorie L. McCullough
Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA
J. Nutr. June 1, 2014. vol. 144 no. 6 795-796
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/144/6/795.long
All of my handful of references above are peer-reviewed and constitute the state of the art of nutritional science.
Nature isn't "mainstream" enough? Getting an article published in Nature is considered to be one of the highlights of a scientists career.
BJM (British Medical Journal) is the premier nutritional science peer-reviewed journal in Europe.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition focuses on major unbiased clinical studies, and is also peer reviewed.
The American Diabetes Assocation should be taken very seriously, since they actually receive funding from big-ag itself. Going so far as to attack meat is attacking the very hand that feeds them. That's how seriously they take it.
The International Journal of Obesity is peer-reviewed, and seems to be a good source considering we are discussing obesity.
The American Journal of Epidemiology is peer reviewed and has an impact factor of 12 out of 172. That's pretty freaking good if you're a publishing scientist, but it is very hard to get a paper accepted since it is nearly the top of the field.
I mean, seriously -- we're saying a guy can be moderately overweight and only lose an average of 12 months off his lifespan? How many hours of a person's life are robbed from trying to do workouts they don't even enjoy doing, or turning down the foods they really want to eat and enjoy, all in an attempt to maintain a weight that's lower than their body's natural "set point" wants it to be if they do nothing special to change it?
IMO, the *real* questions are about QUALITY of life vs. how many months we can extend one. If you're in a situation where some weight loss prevents you from becoming a diabetic, for example? Now we're talking about a really valid reason to make life/diet changes that you may not necessarily care for or enjoy.
so i should stop trying to save for retirement or buy a house of any of that and just live like there's no tomorrow because there really isn't, i'm probably going to die before i ever get a chance to retire.
and ironically a large reason why i'm fat is because i sit at a desk all day trying to make the money to actually live my life someday when i'm old, and then stress eat when work makes me hate my life because it's about the only enjoyable thing i can really afford.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
For that matter, the OP contradicts earlier studies that showed overweight (but not obese) people live longer than normal weight. This matches with the obesity paradox, where obese people are more likely to have problems, but when they do, they are more likely to survive than a normal weight person with the same problem.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Low fiber intake has also shown to be correlated with higher obesity, and that tends to be correlated with meat consumption. What if we did a study of people in the same socioeconomic status who shopped at similar supermarkets (often the pricier nicer ones with better quality stuff for the vegans) and controlled for the level of "processed food" (which itself isn't really the problem as much as additives like excess added sugar), level of fiber consumption, etc., etc.
Given that meat has zero fiber, this 'correlation' is simply the outcome of the scenario. I just can't picture someone who eats a high amount of meat AND high amount of fiber - this type of diet is unheard of. It's like saying fitness is correlated with physical activity...err, yeah. There aren't many (any?) people who are morbidly obese and exceptional endurance athletes (although a better analogy is inactive person who's an exceptional endurance athlete). The two don't mix. The studies are pretty consistent: as animal protein consumption decreases, so do rates of degenerative diseases. I'm not gonna say 'you have to eat zero meat to be healthy', if someone ate as a whole-food vegan all year and had one egg, it's not going to have a negative impact on their health...but scale it up to a daily basis, where it substitutes more nutritious foods with fiber, and pretty consistently health issues begin to creep in.
You should really have attended these sex education classes ; there is actually a difference.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
For that matter, the OP contradicts earlier studies that showed overweight (but not obese) people live longer than normal weight. This matches with the obesity paradox, where obese people are more likely to have problems, but when they do, they are more likely to survive than a normal weight person with the same problem.
For that matter, the OP contradicts earlier studies that showed overweight (but not obese) people live longer than normal weight. This matches with the obesity paradox, where obese people are more likely to have problems, but when they do, they are more likely to survive than a normal weight person with the same problem.
It's hard to respond directly to this claim, since you only cite heresay and not any sort of clinical studies with equally adjusted population controls. However, we are discussing obesity and not simply being "overweight". If you are simply stating that a slightly above normal BMI doesn't equate to higher overall mortality, then you are relatively correct since this class would fall below class 1 and higher obesity. The majority of studies however find a positive correlation between any increases in BMI (above the mean), and overall mortality.
Association of All-Cause Mortality With Overweight and Obesity Using Standard Body Mass Index Categories: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Katherine M. Flegal, PhD; Brian K. Kit, MD; Heather Orpana, PhD; Barry I. Graubard, PhD
JAMA. 2013;309(1):71-82. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.113905.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1555137+
Overweight, Obesity, and Mortality from Cancer in a Prospectively Studied Cohort of U.S. Adults
Eugenia E. Calle, Ph.D., Carmen Rodriguez, M.D., M.P.H., Kimberly Walker-Thurmond, B.A., and Michael J. Thun, M.D.
N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1625-1638April 24, 2003DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa021423
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021423
Overweight, Obesity, and Mortality in a Large Prospective Cohort of Persons 50 to 71 Years Old
Kenneth F. Adams, Ph.D., Arthur Schatzkin, M.D., Tamara B. Harris, M.D., Victor Kipnis, Ph.D., Traci Mouw, M.P.H., Rachel Ballard-Barbash, M.D., Albert Hollenbeck, Ph.D., and Michael F. Leitzmann, M.D.
N Engl J Med 2006; 355:763-778August 24, 2006DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa055643
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa055643#t=article
The last 20 years.
BMI is antiquated as a measure of health because it completely ignores body composition.
Despite this being pointed out hundreds upon hundreds of times we see more studies like this that say that men who are more than certain height to weight ratio (IE what BMI is.. it is a quotient of weight to height.) Are more likely to die.. they don't say from what though.. layers of obfuscation.
So they are telling me that someone who is 6 ft 2 and 230 pounds at 5% body fat is unhealthy ? I don't think they can draw parallels between that guy and say a 200 pound 5 ft 5 guy with 40% body fat.. They are ignoring nuance upon nuance.
I'm sure they're perfectly aware of the limitations of BMI. It's an imperfect measure but really cheap and easy to measure. Sure it misrepresents the guy who is "6 ft 2 and 230 pounds at 5% body fat", but those people are extremely rare and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis or simply ignored without invalidating the broader conclusions.
This is not a major mystery though we don't have it all figured out for everyone in every shape and condition with every disease and genetic combination possible , but we know the general rules of the game and you cannot articulate it with just a BMI or weight number, the answer has more to it than that..
Well these researchers cleared up part of the mystery, obesity is an extra risk factor if you're male.
I suspect this has to do with the fact that males tend to disproportionately accumulate abdominal fat.
Watch though.. 20 years from now this idiot researchers will be talking about how everyone who is over 200 pounds is likely to die of heart disease, while most of society will have gotten in shape by then.. their captive audience would be people who still listen to their pseudoscience diet industry crap. ("Oh try homeopathy and acupuncture..it will increase your orgone energy field.. the weight will just melt off! trust me!) It is easy to fool desperate people who have problems that make weeding out bullshit a low priority.
And now the weird part of the comment where you seem to have conflated scientists and homoeopaths...
I stole this Sig
Being "nerd" has become quite boring. There is nothing left but batman movies, sex and politics. When was the last time you read some revolutionary technology (being sold, not announced the possibility of it might happen someday). Even new developments are rehashes from things people were doing, sometimes decades or even centuries earlier.
Yea I was thinking the same thing, where's the equality now?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
bullshit. if energy in energy out, you'll lose weight. DNA cannot stop physics.
The explanation is you eat trash and don't exercise. Close your mouth and do some physical activities.
Mystery solved.
How many hours of a person's life are robbed from trying to do workouts they don't even enjoy doing, or turning down the foods they really want to eat and enjoy, all in an attempt to maintain a weight that's lower than their body's natural "set point" wants it to be if they do nothing special to change it?
None?
It all depends on how you do it. If you try to go on a diet and gym spree and shed the weight you'll probably have a miserable time, lose a bit, flame out and then put it all back on.
I found myself a bit overweight a while back. The solution isn't a diet, it's small but permanent change in lifestyle. Part of it is building exercise of some sort into the daily routine, rather than gym sessions. Other parts involve portion control for example. There's no need to stuff yourself to the point of pain, for example. I have a natural and rather strong urge to do that so one aspect is to take the option off the table as it were. After a while your set point for "full" changes and now what would have been a normal fullness to me feels like I slightly overate.
I don't have to avoid foods I like. I still eat meat, and carbs and I still drink beer. I just eat a bit less of those and eat more fresh veggies than and generally avoid the highest GI carbs if possible, but not religiously. Also, I avoid buying foods I can snack on. It's not even that I hugely enjoy them anyway, but if there's a plate of biscuits in front of me, I'll just start eating them. If all your food takes even 5 minutes to prepare, it cuts down opportunistic snacking enormously.
So here's the thing,I don't miss it. I still eat the foods I like, but I don't make myself uncomfortably full, and I don't snack on crappy food that I don't even enjoy that much just because it's there. If anything I'm enjoying the food more now.
And don't aim to lose weight fast. I aimed for 1-2lbs per month which is achievable without feeling hungry all the time. If you aim much faster there's a good chance you'll feel crap and fail. The thing to remember is it's a lifestyle change not a diet. You want to reduce your total calorie intake a small amount for ever. And shedding the weight will take a long time, possibly several years.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There are limits to adaptation. See also: Auschwitz.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Bad comparison. Try: "Three times more deadly for men than for women",
Literally "Obesity is three times as deadly for men than women" lends itself to the meaning "obesity kills three times as many men as are killed by women", which may be true. Or is it the obesity in women that is killing the men when the women roll over in bed at night? Is this like Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)?.
I can see it now in the DSM-6 or 7; a new reason for the rise in the male death rate. "Sleeping Male Asphyxiating Syndrome- Help!" (SMASH).
Beautiful sunrise out here on the porch in Rhode Island. I've either have had too much or too little coffee... or maybe as much coffee than I can take.
No broscience, cite studies please.
Let's make it equally hazardous for women as it is for men. Of course, why would they start this battle?
However the DNA can make your body more or less efficient than others, that and combination of our bacteria in our system, really determines how we digest food and energy we gain from it.
Some people whose body temperature is just naturally higher than others means there is extra energy being spent to keep the body at that temperature. While people with a lower temperature will burn less.
Then there are the calories that pass thru our system. We just don't digest them. So some people will be able to digest more food, and others it just passes thru.
Calories in vs burned isn't really accurate. Sure diet and exercise helps, however some people can live like a sloth and stay skinny, while others will gain pounds in one day of eating something they shouldn't and would take weeks of exercise to burn off.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The explanation is you eat trash and don't exercise.
I ate the same thing as my skinny parents and had an active lifestyle as a kid. Being a Gen Xer, I had no choice but to run around the neighborhood.
Close your mouth and do some physical activities.
As a young adult working at an Italian restaurant job after college, I rode my bike 20 miles per day for three years. My average weight during that time was 325 pounds. After I quit that job, I didn't eat spaghetti for another seven years.
BMI is antiquated as a measure of health because it completely ignores body composition.
As a weight-lifter, I am very well aware of the limitations of the BMI since it declares everyone with a lot of muscle mass "overweight" or even "obese" even if their body-fat is in the low single digits.
But it is an excellent tool for studying populations, where the odd individual to whom it does not apply are averaged out of importance. This is what the BMI was developed for, and it is well proven in this role.
It is a useful tool for assessing the health status of most individuals also, but not everyone. Healthy weight increases with age, it is normal and healthier to carry somewhat more weight, but apparently there is no age-adjusted scale available, strangely enough. It is less accurate for very tall people (though an adjusted BMI scale is available for this). And it is useless for people will a lot of muscle mass, as I mentioned above.
It is annoying that most health advice sources ignore these caveats, or seem utterly unaware of them.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
You've been trained to make excuses....but trust me, you need to start doing something.
"Men get fatter to die earlier and escape" would be a better title.
Single men go to the gym. Married men get fat.
The evidence is clear. Sweet death is the ultimate desire for many many men, and they will do all they can to achieve this in the most enjoyable manner possible - namely overeating. They can then escape the mental torture of their relationship.
Jonah Hill?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Is there any amount of scientific evidence that could persuade you to change your opinion?
Did you know that animal agriculture is also a large contributor to the greenhouse gas problem? Not only because of the animals' direct effects, but also the tremendous amounts of food they consume, rain forests cleared to grow feed crops, etc. Additionally, it uses significant amounts of fresh water.
[...] there's lots of research showing that the regularly recommended starvation strategies actually lead to no benefit over time or even weight gain because of the body's permanent decrease in metabolic rates.
The NY Times had a great article on the study of a group from The Biggest Loser TV show, where their metabolism actually slowed down enough to require significantly less calories and they gained weight on a recommended diet for their height and age.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
I sometimes wonder if that's my current situation. When I asked for a ten-speed bicycle for my 17th birthday, my father told me it was of money as the bicycle sit in the garage. I then spent the summer riding that bike everywhere (including a 36-mile trip in one day) and losing 70 pounds. As an young adult, I rode 20 miles per day to a restaurant job for three years.
Ummmmmm, so how much did/do you weigh 7 years later? Why did you omit that relevant detail?
As a teenager, 400 pounds. As young adult riding my bicycle 20 miles per day for three years, 325 pounds. Weight training and building muscle mass, 400 pounds. I'm currently 350 pounds.
bullshit. if energy in < energy out, you'll lose weight. DNA cannot stop physics.
But biology can stop energy deficits. In fact, biology's main design feature is to ensure that energy in > energy out on average, on penalty of extinction.
However, mind can overcome biological urges, either through sheer willpower or by manipulating biology (eg some foods may be miscalculated by the body in the energy in measurement).
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
As someone who had lost 60 lbs with Diet and exercise. Let me tell you again. We have different body types. I am stronger and faster than most people my age, my vitals are stellar. I hit the Gym 5 to 6 times a week and keep active... However I am not thin built, I will not reach a healthy BMI, as I took a Body fat scale. And took out my body fat, I would still be overweight. However, I need to watch my diet extremely carefully or the weight comes back (Fast). Other people can have Pizza every day, and not exercise. They may not be as healthy as me, but they are thinner, and have that healthy BMI
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Calorie deficit trumps exercise, strictly for weight loss. (Exercise has obviously has other benefits.)
For example, your 500 calorie/day deficit results in a 3,500 calories deficit in one week to lose one pound. For a 200-lb individual, it takes about 3,500 calories to run a marathon. Want to lose ten pounds? Diet for 10 weeks, or run 10 marathons.* Your choice.
(It's not that simple, since your body doesn't just tap into fat reserves unconditionally. Your body will also adjust your metabolism based on changes to caloric intake. But at a crude level this isn't far off.)
Clearly your granddad was there and he was a total lardass.
Hate to break it to you, but he was either a guard or a collaborator.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Wow... even lending support to someone being fat-shamed will get you a troll mod. Nice, slashdot.