Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Fat kids should be removed from home; Fat parents not allowed children

page: 10
6
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   


Never had to worry about your weight huh? Actually metabolism is converting food to energy.

Metabolism, involves far more than your simple explanation. Metabolism: Converting food into energy NOT how many calories you burn en.wikipedia.org...


Stated simply, metabolism is the process by which your body converts food into energy. During this complex biochemical process, calories — from carbohydrates, fats and proteins — are combined with oxygen to release the energy your body needs to function.


If you have read my previous posts in this thread I said I used to be overweight. That definition of metabolism is absolutely right. It converts calories into energy which fuel your body and what happens? The calories burn up. Calories are what fuels your body. And your metabolism dictates how many are burned. Thanks for posting that to verify what I have been saying in my posts on this topic.




So, I have a question for you then skinny person who knows all about low calorie intake and exercising and how that is all that is required to be skinny.


Don't know everything. Never said I did. Its just a fact that eating less calories then your body needs will result in weightloss. That can not be disputed at all.



So, really if we go by your "calorie intake versus exercise", I should have been a really really skinny 14 year old after a year of running 3-5 miles every day. I should have a least lost a jean size or two don't ya think?


I never mentioned exercise. I just mentioned fewer calories. With exercise you can lose more and get this raise your metabolism at the same time. Running 5 miles a day is good but it still comes down to diet. I am just using this as an example but eating four oreo cookies would nearly wipe out any gain by those 5 miles believe it or not. Plus you said you ate healthy but that doesn't tell me how many calories you ate in a day. So I honestly can't give you an answer




Body shape, genetics, and metabolism, along with a body that likes to store fat in all the "right" places.

Get over yourselves naturally skinny people. You have no idea.

So, until you really understand being overweight, stop pretending like you do. Sorry for my intense irritation at people over
this situation. I have spent my life fighting my weight and listening to skinny people try and tell me why I am overweight, while they stuff Cheetos in their mouths and I munch on a carrot.

Many times, their are circumstances, that skinny people just have no understanding of, for whatever reasons they choose. Just like my sister, who never exercises, who eats whatever she wants, when she wants, still likes to harass me about my weight as she eats on that bowl of ice cream she so loves and I sit and watch.


I am sorry that you are struggling with your weight I never tried to make light of it. I had the same problem but I refused to give up. Have you seen a doctor about your slow metabolism. If you have then he would give you your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) more accurately then an online calculator and you will lose weight. There are alot of sites on the net that you can keep a diary of what you eat everyday. You'd be surprised what you eat if you didn't check it. Also eating to few calories will force your body into shutdown and will store the fat and eat your muscle instead.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by reeko124]




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 


Have you tried researching iodine?



Obesity is becoming one of our society’s greatest health care crises, with growing numbers becoming overweight, and of those, more not being able to shed the pounds. But is it a unique problem to find yourself unable to lose the weight even when you do all the right things? And what are the “right things?” Is the deck stacked against you? Perhaps it is, and there is strong evidence that iodine deficiency could be part of it.

In obesity symptoms of slow metabolism are a frequent complaint, usually as a complaint of difficulty losing weight – even with exercise and a reduced calorie diet.

How does iodine work in the body?

Iodine functions in the body as a metabolic thermostat in several ways. The best known is as a raw element needed in the manufacturing of the thyroid hormone T4. T4 is then converted in the tissues to T3, and T2. These hormones are subsequently used at the cellular level to activate metabolism. However, stress activated hormones like cortisol, and adrenalin can divert the conversion of these hormones into inactive forms that do not activate metabolism. It is now being theorized that iodine may also play an important role in preventing or possibly reversing this problem. It is also evident that iodine itself has important metabolic functions at the cell wall possibly assisting in the transport of thyroid hormones through the cell membrane and perhaps even utilization of thyroid hormone inside the cell. Iodine supplementation also reduces the acidity of the urine, further suggesting that iodine plays an even more extensive roll in regulating ORP, (Oxidation Reduction Potential) a measure of free radical/antioxidant management, and energy production efficiency.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


I applaud this post: well written and intelligent. If only it were contagious...



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 


mmariebored, thanks for the idea. I had not heard of this and will look into it.

I would gather my nutritionist should have known something about this? argh. We WILL be having a discussion.


Ok, wow, body temp, my "normal temp" according to my Dr. is 97.3. Now I am frustrated, looks like someone should have picked up on this possibility before now.

Lots of thanks to you.

Peace



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by RedCairo
 


Unfortunately, skinny people will not even read what you say with an open mind. It is just far easier for them to claim that people who are overweight, are only that way because they over eat. It is the easy out, the easy blame, it means that they do not have to ever worry that "they" will over eat and become over weight. Because "they" can control themselves. I would imagine an intense fear crawling through them, that if they open their minds to realize that just because someone is overweight, does not therefore mean that they overeat, would open the door that someday, their body might just betray them as well.

Good Post

Peace



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazed
reply to post by mmariebored
 

Now I am frustrated, looks like someone should have picked up on this possibility before now.

That is exactly what I was thinking, AFTER I realized it was in fact working for me. When I began to see and feel results, I researched it more and found shocking statements that suggested that the benefits of iodine have been purposely kept hidden from the mainstream. This is only one of the websites I've read these claims on.



Forty years ago the food industry decided to remove iodine from baked goods and replace the iodine with bromine. Iodine and bromine appear similar to the thyroid gland and bromine easily binds to the thyroid gland’s receptors for iodine. Bromine, however, is of no value to the thyroid gland unlike iodine and it inhibits the activity of iodine in the thyroid gland. Bromine also can cause impaired thinking and memory, drowsiness, dizziness and irritability. This substitution of bromine for iodine has resulted in nearly universal deficiency of iodine in the American populace. Iodine therapy helps the body eliminate fluoride, bromine, lead, cadmium, arsenic, aluminum and mercury. Could this substitution of bromine for iodine have been carried out to increase diseases and thus create more need for pharmaceutical drugs?


And I know some people will say "we can get iodine from salt", but you would need twenty tsps of salt to get the amount our body needs to aid digestion and proper energy distribution.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 


So how does one get more iodine in their diet without all of the salt?

P.S. Genuine Question, no sarcasm here.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Alora
 

You can find Iodoral in health food stores, that's what I'm currently taking. Someone linked me to a cheaper, liquid form that I'm considering buying. You can U2U me for the link, because I'm not trying to get in trouble with ATS. Just making helpful suggestions that were made to me.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 


I appreciate it, thank you.


line number 2



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I applaud everyone on here for trying to figure out how to help a slow metabolism but I don't think anyone is understanding what I said in my posts. A slow metabolism or fast metabolism is the starting point not the end point of weightloss. That is what I tried to get across but its falling on deaf ears. If my comment was insulting about how people say they have slow metabolism and that is why they can't lose weight is just an excuse well I am sorry but its true. I know people who try to gain weight and blame it on a fast metabolism but that is still an excuse. Here is why:

A person with a slow metabolism has an amount of calories they burn to survive

A person with a fast metabolism has an amount of calories they burn to survive

No matter what metabolism you have your body still has an amount of calories it needs to survive. That is why the "I have a slow metabolism" line doesn't hold any water whatsoever. To figure out that amount you need to know your Basal Metabolic rate. This is one way to find your BMR:

# If you’re female:
BMR = 655 + (4.35 x weight in pounds) + (4.7 x height in inches) - (4.7 x age in years)
# If you’re male:
BMR = 66 + (6.23 x weight in pounds) + (12.7 x height in inches) - (6.8 x age in years)


An example: Jenny is 37 5'4" 150lbs

655 + 652.5 + 300.8 - 173.9 = 1434.4

1434.4 is how many calories Jenny would need just to survive if she didn't do anything at all and just rested all day. Now you have to multiply that number by one of these:

No Exercise
1.2

Light Exercise(1 to 3 days a week)
1.375

moderate Exercise (3 to 5 days a week)
1.55

Hard exercise (5 or more days a week)
1.725

Jenny only exercises lightly so 1434.4 x 1.375 = 1971.5
1971.5 is how many calories she would need to maintain her weight of 150lbs. To lose a pound of weight a week she would need 3500 less calories for the whole week. That equals out to 500 a day less and she would need to eat 1471.5.

Another way to determine your BMR is like this:

# Females
Weight x 10

# Males
Weight x 11

150 x 10 = 1500

Then from there we multiply it by a percentage based on Jenny's Metabolism

Slow Metabolism
Under 30yrs old 30%
30-40yrs old 25%
Over 40yrs old 20%

Moderate Metabolism
Under 30 yrs old 40%
30-40yrs old 35%
Over 40yrs old 30%

Fast Metabolism
Under 30yrs old 50%
30-40yrs old 45%
Over 40yrs old 40%

Well Jenny thinks she has a slow metabolism so we multiply 1500 x .25 = 375 then we add 1500 + 375 = 1875.

In the top formula Jenny got 1971.5 and in the bottom she got 1875. There is roughly only a 100 calorie difference between working out and having a slow metabolism? Yep about that much. Wait a minute we didn't factor in Jenny's height in the bottom one. When we multiplied her weight by 10 that included a rough average of height and other things. I have no clue what the other things are or why I had to add and multiply what I did in the first one either. I just know from experience not only mine that it truly equals out to 1lb a week.

To the user "Amazed" you could have a medical condition that prevents it. I never said you didn't if it came out that way I am sorry. I used to make up excuses why I was overweight and one week I tracked how much I ate and drank without knowing my BMR. I was told to do that then after a week I got my BMR and was amazed how many calories I consumed. They weren't far over my limit because I have stayed at the same weight for a period of time but I just thought to myself how stupid I was. If I would cut this out or that out I could lose weight. I have and have kept it off for 4 years and am in really good shape. I am not bragging about it. Again I am just speaking from what I know.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by reeko124
 


I think anyone mature enough to be reading these boards would know whether or not they're weight has more to do with their habits than their genetic make-up and circumstances, which is why the majority of your responses have been negative. Rightfully so.

As someone pointed out, you cannot possibly know a person's situation unless you are in it, at close range and experiencing it for yourself. How can you possibly assume to be able to understand both your own circumstance and the circumstance of someone else, in full detail, considering all factors, unless you are God.

For example: you're OP does not consider people who have children but have later on, say, lost their legs. Not only do you want to rip their children away from them, but you want to take away one of the few pleasures they have left, eating, by telling them they now have to cut it down to a teaspoon of oatmeal per serving because they are now unable to meet your standards of physical appearences.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mmariebored
reply to post by reeko124
 


I think anyone mature enough to be reading these boards would know whether or not they're weight has more to do with their habits than their genetic make-up and circumstances, which is why the majority of your responses have been negative. Rightfully so.

As someone pointed out, you cannot possibly know a person's situation unless you are in it, at close range and experiencing it for yourself. How can you possibly assume to be able to understand both your own circumstance and the circumstance of someone else, in full detail, considering all factors, unless you are God.

For example: you're OP does not consider people who have children but have later on, say, lost their legs. Not only do you want to rip their children away from them, but you want to take away one of the few pleasures they have left, eating, by telling them they now have to cut it down to a teaspoon of oatmeal per serving because they are now unable to meet your standards of physical appearences.





You are trying to say I agree with with the OP? On to other comments:

Again you have failed to understand what I have said about anything I have written. Its just amazing to me. It really is.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   
There are things in life which we all crave, whether it be a great body according to how others view us, or allowing our taste for love and delight to control how our bodies look from the outside, however it is always something so much deeper than what others see on the outside that defines who we are on the inside.

I admit I have not followed this thread, I feel for the Op if they have not changed and grown from this thread and what the compassionate members must have brought to the table, I leave this piece for the Op as well as all my fellow members as my final words for this thread.

www.hasanyonetoldyou.com...



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by reeko124
 


Go back and read the posting from RedCairo, as I don't know how to link to the exact posting, it is on page 9. You might learn a thing to two and realize that calorie intake vs exercise, is not the "savior" for everyone that it has been for you.

I am glad that you have been able to rework your situation, and manage your weight.

Sometimes, admit it or not, body shape, height, metabolism, etc dictates how much a person weighs (to an extent as muscle weighs more than fat), as well as where a person carries their weight.

No matter what a families eating and exercise habits might be, I can in no way condone children being removed from a family because of weight issues. I would definitely support education though in regards to eating habits and exercise. I would also support places where families could afford to go to work out, or use an exercise pool.

My body shape and natural size, proves to me personally that for many people extra weight does not mean over eater. Period.

Peace



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by amazed
 


I read it I understand what redcairo has said do I agree with everything no I do not but that is not the point. Its just some here don't understand what I have said.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRealDonPedros
 


Really OT, but I absolute LOVED Bill Hicks when I was a kid, thought he was pure genius. I'm amazed that I've thought so little about him as an adult, so thanks for giving me reason to return to his material and see how I interpret it from an adult perspective.

Last time I thought about him was when I watched Zeitgeist, loved their use of his Revelations material, it fit perfectly with the movie's message.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazed
No matter what a families eating and exercise habits might be, I can in no way condone children being removed from a family because of weight issues. I would definitely support education though in regards to eating habits and exercise. I would also support places where families could afford to go to work out, or use an exercise pool.


It's been a long time since I read this, so I haven't specific quotes. But an unusual percentage of my friends are adoptees, and as a result I have some interest in that situation in general. I once read about some research that made it clear that adoptive children followed the pattern of their birth parents, not their adoptive parents--even those adopted from birth. They might have a-parents thin and be overweight, or have a-parents overweight and the kids would be thin, but it was vastly more correlated to genetics than upbringing.

Also, many of those in the study had siblings--other adoptees or siblings born of the mother--so raised in the same general environment by the same person with the same general habits, which is what was initially thought to make children overweight, that 'probably their mothers were overfeeding them, even unintentionally'. Didn't turn out to be the case at all, and if there were 5 children of 5 mothers in a family of close ages raised together, they might be 5 completely different bodyfat ratios.

This is NOT to say that environment does not matter--I personally believe it does. I'm relatively certain if I still ran around warehouses in a hardhat 14 hours a day barking at my men I'd be thinner than I am as a programmer who sits all the time. I'm pretty certain that if any child were involved in a good deal of consistent exercise they would probably have less 'extra' bodyfat than they would have otherwise. (And this NOT because of calories burned, but rather, because exercise decreases insulin-resistance, and insulin is the primary fat-storage hormone.) Anything that affects glandular secretions and hormones, including stress but other things as well, can make the situation better or worse.

I'm reading a book right now called "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" by Robert M. Sapolsky (a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford). It's written very entertainingly. Anyway there are some sections in there where he is talking about various things, for example pain perception (emotional) and, interestingly enough, bodily-reaction as well, and how it's pretty well arbitrary in many cases. With NO physical differences at all, the perception of pain can range from unnoticed to agony and everywhere in between, and the body's own response to things can be changed, based solely on say, hypnosis. (Totally separate from this book: My favorite scoffer story is from the end of last century where a man volunteered to have his leg sawed off--it had to be done and he thought it would be a good chance to demo it--while using only hypnosis; no morphine, as pain relief. This was done as an official demonstration for a medical board. Their conclusion? ... the guy was faking it; probably he just didn't feel them sawing his leg off. LOL!)

Anyway the minor point I'm making here is that even when there is demonstrably *no* difference in *physical* elements, a shift in mental elements--including life circumstance, and probably even nutritional fulfillment since that can affect so much about mood--can cause significant change in personal perception of self (like maybe being tired all the time vs. feeling like playing racquetball, who knows) as well as actual change in the body's responses. So given that's the case, trying to make a case for obvious genetic variability seems almost redundant, as there is variability in humans based on factors even well outside that.

In the Taubes book he shows a photo of a woman in medical treatment maybe a century ago (I don't remember the date) who is severely obese from the waist down and severely emaciated from the waist up. Is she guilty of overeating, or undereating? Which 'half' of her is the glutton if she's only got one mouth? It is a startling photo and is used to underscore the point that the body creates and stores glycerides in fat cells, and empties them from fat cells to be used as energy, and this is a hormonally regulated system and obviously the hormonal regulation part can get out of whack. And is doing so a good deal in today's world.

That's not to say that poor eating habits are not ever part of the initial impetus; but the reality is that essentially our standard diet is screwing up a huge % of human bodies hormonally, starting in early childhood. It's doing worse to them if the genetic line does not process carbohydrate well. But much of the metabolic damage that is being done in our culture, is not being done suddenly, because someone out of the blue just felt like sitting around while eating bonbons to excess; it's being done on seemingly 'fairly normal' (for modern culture, not for the human body) diets over the course of a lifetime. Depending on the diet and the genetics, this might show up when you're 8 years old -- or when you're 42 -- it varies.

So this means that eventually the damage starts causing change in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and the person is not doing anything different than they ever were (the same eating habits that had them thin most of their life, or even much better ones, are not stopping weight gain). Since the modern idea of a diet (low fat/cal high carb) is the polar opposite of what the body needs at this point -- the blood sugar (insulin is a hormone) issues caused by this just make the problem worse, as well as undereating causing other side-effects that make the body fight back -- it's a spiraling circle downwards to yet worse metabolic problems and more body fat.

Now MANY people who are only slightly overweight don't have too serious a condition yet and if they merely reduce calories and exercise they will lose weight. For people who are only slightly overweight, and who are not women 35+ (likely in our culture to have issues with thyroid, peri-menopause, and other hormonally based 'sluggish metabolism' effects), a "typical diet and exercise" will probably work just fine for them. Of course this'd make them and onlookers think that's all it eas for anyone. But really, that category is getting more rare.

Best,
PJ









 
6
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join