You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
2kg is a huge swing either way for me and requires a massive amount of riding and moderate dieting over 6 months to shift. I can’t diet hard and still ride to the degree I’m used to.
Just picking up on this, and being blunt, no wonder it’s a struggle for you then. As you put it, (massive) amounts of exercise, and only moderate diet changes doesn’t really work. It’s a classic confirmation of not being able to out exercise a bad diet. If it were me, I’d totally tip it on it’s head. You need a massive change in your diet & probably just worry about riding your bike (or whatever exercise you do) for fun.
Sure, that may be true, but by assuming that all fatties are simply in denial and if you just bucked your ideas up you’d be thin you are creating a highly damaging culture surrounding the issue.
So, what’s the answer then? Like a lot of things in life, if you put a half arsed effort in, you're only ever going to get a half arsed effort out.
Take an average suggestion of losing 20% of your daily calorie intake to lose weight. That 4-500 calories is remarkably easy fritter way by not doing it properly & tracking everything you put into your mouth. It sounds harsh, but it is the reality.
Just picking up on this, and being blunt, no wonder it’s a struggle for you then. As you put it, (massive) amounts of exercise, and only moderate diet changes doesn’t really work.
I didn't say moderate diet changes, I said moderately dieting, by which I mean moderate calorie restriction.
Believe me, I've tried every combination of exercise, duration, intensity, cardio, weights, calorie restriction (including food diaries and weighing food etc), low vs high GI etc etc. I have a very good understanding of how my own body responds. The issue has always been consistency for me - my lifestyle is not constant since my job sends me all over the place and sometimes I can get the riding in and sometimes I can't. But what's interesting is that some things that work once end up not working second or third time around, due to some kind of adaptation apparently.
If it were me, I’d totally tip it on it’s head. You need a massive change in your diet & probably just worry about riding your bike (or whatever exercise you do) for fun.
If I restrict calories too much, I can't ride for shit and it stops being fun. If I eat to fuel my riding and not feel tired all the time, I don't lose weight.
So, what’s the answer then? Like a lot of things in life, if you put a half arsed effort in, you’re only ever going to get a half arsed effort out.
The answer is to understand what's happening and how YOUR OWN body responds, and not feeling defeated if you don't get the same results as someone else. Or, crucially, not criticising other people for not getting the same results that you got. 'Well I managed it, why can't you?' can be pretty damaging. Because there are people out there who do the right thing and still aren't skinny.
As the expert said, we have less control than we might think. So you do your best, but don't give up when you don't get the results you thought you would.
If I restrict calories too much, I can’t ride for shit and it stops being fun. If I eat to fuel my riding and not feel tired all the time, I don’t lose weight.
here's a suggestion. How about stopping riding and just dieting? Go on a strict calorie deficit and don't exercise, then see what happens.
If I restrict calories too much, I can’t ride for shit and it stops being fun. If I eat to fuel my riding and not feel tired all the time, I don’t lose weight.
Give us some examples then - what is a 'normal' non diet day & what's a calorie restricted diet look like to you, what sort of macro's do you aim for? Do you eat back the calories you exercise?
What sort of riding/exercise are you doing with the dieting that's becoming hard & meaning you can't do it?
How about stopping riding and just dieting? Go on a strict calorie deficit and don’t exercise, then see what happens.
Thought about that, but it would frustrate me greatly. But it's still an option.
Give us some examples then – what is a ‘normal’ non diet day & what’s a calorie restricted diet look like to you, what sort of macro’s do you aim for? Do you eat back the calories you exercise?
What sort of riding/exercise are you doing with the dieting that’s becoming hard & meaning you can’t do it?
Well, if you want to talk about me, I can oblige. I am not currently counting macros because most of the time I eat away from home so it's too difficult to bother with. I'm currently following the iDiet plan which worked spectacularly the first time and seems to have less and less effect on my weight each time. However it has improved my fitness considerably. My current plan is to use my current work situation to increase the riding hours at lower intensity (currently done 21 hours this month about half road) and stick to the iDiet. Lost about 1.5kg since Christmas.
Incidentally I gained about 2kg when I started back in the gym lifting weights due to uncontrollable hunger which put me back to a long term 89kg or so - that was a shock. But it offset the 3kg I lost the summer holiday before last, where I did no exercise but spent a week floating in icy waters off Scotland with a snorkel on getting extremely cold. Yes, maybe calories in vs calories out, but I probably ended up developing some brown adipose tissue, so I lost 3kg in two weeks doing nothing but floating and eating biscuits, and it stayed off for about 6 months too.
Do you eat back the calories you exercise?
Yeah if the intensity is too high I end up getting hungrier and hungrier and I can't function so I have to have some calories back in, at which point my weight stabilises. I feel as if the yoyo on-off cycle has strengthened the feedback cycle somehow.
How about stopping riding and just dieting? Go on a strict calorie deficit and don’t exercise, then see what happens.
**** that! Just stop weighing yourself and judge fitness on recovery time, speed, reps anything other than stopping riding. I’m around 12st 4kg (only weigh myself when setting suspension). Got hugely back in to exercise last year. Weigh pretty much the same, but I’m a totally different shape and feel better. Lose the scales 😀
If I restrict calories too much, I can’t ride for shit and it stops being fun. If I eat to fuel my riding and not feel tired all the time, I don’t lose weight.
I had that nightmare dilemma at the start, I think most people do. I also think it gets worse before it gets better.
The question is do you want to lose weight? If you do you need to give up some stuff you like. If Riding is stopping you lose weight then you need to can the riding, or ride less fun rides. The good news is in 2 months you'll have so much spare energy you'll be back riding with a vengence. The bad news is the other stuff you have to give up will need to stay off the menu forever (but you won't miss them after a while).
If you don't want to lose weight that's great too, you might decide that leaving things as they are suits you better overall.
Recently we had a weight loss competition at work - I dropped 7.5Kg in 6 weeks through using the Wahoo Kickr trainer in the garage most nights and not eating much for an evening meal - mostly a nutty yoghurt and a few brazil nuts. Other than that I had my usual (weekday) crappy diet of a sandwich and a cappuccino for lunch, and a medium Caramel Latte in the morning - which in itself is a lot of calories.
The Kickr sessions were maybe 25 miles, maybe more sometimes, which isn't too much of a push if you are watching a movie on Netflix.
I weigh myself everyday and therefore have a reasonable idea of what foods will pile the weight on, and the effect on me of eating late.
I've since put weight on, but that's mainly laziness whilst I've had some patella tracking issues, which I seem to be getting to the end of - so will back on the trainer for some more weight loss, and then maybe some running as well.
I was the same weight before the competition when I was younger (26?) and dropped 2 1/4 stone through running and changing my diet only slightly - including eating more baked potatoes as I've found they help me loose weight, even if I pile the butter on to them...
This time I didn't lose as much because the competition was shorter, but I could have kept on going. I am 55 in a months time.
Katie Hopkins has it.. 😆
As the expert said, we have less control than we might think.
So the expert knows what we think? The paper didnt say that by the way, but it did say its hard to extrapolate the findings to the general population.
You might have more control than you think.
I think the biggest problem people have when trying to lose weight is not treating it as a lifestyle choice but instead some task, chore or objective you have to grind through for 6 weeks and then, phew, you can sit back - you've done it. And if you didn't - well just try again next Jan.
When you think of it as a lifestyle choice the strategy changes. Just as cycling is a 'lifestyle' hobby - if you started cycling tomorrow you wouldn't go straight into a Tour De France - you'd fail miserably, right? Instead you practice, evaluate, improve over time until your capacity allows you to achieve your goals.
It's the same with eating more or less. Don't jump in to a 500cal deficit straight away. Of course that's going to make you feel like shit. Drop 50cal first for a week or so. Then 100cal for a week or so. Evaluate how you feel, hows your insulin, how is your energy levels? Monitor and improve. You can't fix X years of poor nutrition in 6 months. It's a long game.
It's the same on the opposite. If you're underweight and only eating 1400cals a day, if you suddenly scoff 2400cals in a day every day you're going to feel like utter arse and probably put on fat surplus. You tickle yourself up, give your body chance to adjust. You increase by 200cals a week.
Fitness = training. When you train, you approach things differently.
Just stop weighing yourself and judge fitness on recovery time, speed, reps anything
The problem is that with an extra 10kg over the racing snakes I'll never be good at MTB racing. To compensate for that I'd need to gain an extra 50W or so of threshold power. But then, if that's possible, and I lost weight as well, I'd be even faster.
This summer I gave up trying to lose weight and ate to recover well. I smashed my PB on my test climb by 50 seconds in 5 minutes and got the KOM. Possibly aided by how dry it was, but still!
Winter is for dieting, summer is for eating and smashing it.
Ah it's a bit difficult.
That's a bit different fromnimngenitically disposed to not lose weight.
I'm pretty sure I'm genetically predisposed to relatively stable weight.
SaxonRider reckons he's gained 7kg whilst being off the bike injured. That just wouldn't happen to me in that amount of time.
Winter is for dieting, summer is for eating and smashing it.
5 pages in and I think we're getting there. 😀
James Smith calls it.
Looking at photos of the inhabitants of the concentration camps. Were all the people with the genetic predisposition to be fat screened out from the jews, gypseys, homosexuals, disabled and various others the nazis didn't like? Just wondering as very few of them came out of there looking fat. Diet or genetics?
There can only be a limited number of scientific explanations here and the report does not identify them
1: Appetite control
2: Expelling undigested calories down the toilet
3: Producing body heat
4: Higher activity levels
In the unlikely event that you have a problem with number 2, pun intended, then you are just going to have to work against those genes 1 & 4 and turn the heating down and wear less clothes 3
Have I missed anything?
Were all the people with the genetic predisposition to be fat screened out from the jews, gypseys, homosexuals, disabled and various others the nazis didn’t like?
If there were no people with a genetic predisposition to be fat in concentration camps, the only logical conclusion is that anyone with a BMI over 24.9 is a Nazi. 🙂
Have only skim read so apologies if said elsewhere...djglover gets quite close I think.
Calories in vs calories out is too simplistic, because it's not what goes in but what you do with them. Extreme example but bowel cancer sufferers suddenly and rapidly lose weight because the disease affects the way / efficiency of extracting calories from the food they ingest. Likewise thyroidism.
I do subscribe to the empirical approach that if you are losing weight then your expenditure is higher than your effective intake (or the opposite) and I agree you should then gain a sense of where your balance point is, and that most people are increasingly on the wrong side of that point.... but simply saying that someone gains or loses weight because their intake is higher than <insert number> when that number is individual to everyone is simplistic.
It is entirely possible for two people to have the same intake and expenditure numbers, but it to be too much for one and not enough for the other based on other factors and I'm perfectly prepared to believe that genetics could be one of those factors. That's not the same as saying someone is fat because of their genetics though - in the end they're fat because they still eat too much for the amount they expend.
you only have yourselves to blame in an age where all the nutritional/health information is at your fingertips, thats if you can wipe the grease off them and take your eyes away from the idiot box in the corner of the room.
Expelling undigested calories down the toilet
I poop at least twice a day, sometimes 3 or 4 times. How often do fatties poop?
100pc agree with the point, but those projections are total fiction! Assuming BMI will rise when it's fallen on occasions in the past and is currently falling in Spain is dicey. Would have been better to have stopped the graph at the point where the data stopped. The trend is still clear!
1: Appetite control
2: Expelling undigested calories down the toilet
3: Producing body heat
4: Higher activity levels
And what affects all those things?
Were all the people with the genetic predisposition to be fat screened out from the jews, gypseys, homosexuals, disabled and various others the nazis didn’t like?
What about people with a genetic disposition to post stupid things on the internet?
*And what affects all those things?*
Well apart from two which is generally illness.
The rest are conscious decisions made by the mind.....
Yas! Scotland doesn't even make it onto the chart! *detours to McDonalds on the way home*
Ha mashr need to zoom out. We are off the top of the chart !
Yas! Scotland doesn’t even make it onto the chart! *detours to McDonalds on the way home*
Drive-Thru I hope? Wouldn't want to risk burning calories by walking to the counter to get your "food".
*winking emoji*
It is entirely possible for two people to have the same intake and expenditure numbers, but it to be too much for one and not enough for the other based on other factors and I’m perfectly prepared to believe that genetics could be one of those factors. That’s not the same as saying someone is fat because of their genetics though – in the end they’re fat because they still eat too much for the amount they expend.
100% agree.
The logical bit from that would be, if it were me, wanting to lose some weight & eating a balanced diet (nothing faddy/odd):
Am I losing weight?
Yes? Ok good, keep going & review weight loss & calorie intake every few weeks. As long as there is a downward trend, happy days.
No? Eat less.
It is entirely possible for two people to have the same intake and expenditure numbers, but it to be too much for one and not enough for the other based on other factors and I’m perfectly prepared to believe that genetics could be one of those factors. That’s not the same as saying someone is fat because of their genetics though – in the end they’re fat because they still eat too much for the amount they expend.
Some evidence emerging that obesity is contagious, jv - based on the gut microbiome. Most cited report I know of is one which took a fat and lean pair of human twins and tranplanted their fecal microbiota [ie shite] into pairs of normal mice. The mice receiving the fat poo then became obese!
Moreover, and encouragingly, the lean mice microbiota could invade that of the obese mice when they were co-housed, leading to weight loss. But the reverse was not observed.
Powerful stuff, poo transplanting.
Summary here:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6150/1069
*And what affects all those things?*Well apart from two which is generally illness.
The rest are conscious decisions made by the mind…..
Are you suggesting that, for the typical person, fatness/thinness is in some way related to the choices the person makes regarding exercise and diet?
Don't be so stupid, it's all genetics.
I’d just like to congratulate myself for successfully predicting this thread and 50% of the content after reading the original BBC piece the other day. Go me 🙂
The rest are conscious decisions made by the mind…..
And what affects the mind?
Don’t be so stupid, it’s all genetics.
No-one's saying that food intake makes no difference. For ****'s sake, you bloody idiot.
My coment was a bit tongue in cheek molgrips, but serious point, fat people are rare in places where there is little food, ultimately eating less makes you less fat.
If it was purely genetic then that graph of Mr Smith's would be pretty much flat, but it isn't, so we , the population as a whole, must be doing something to make ourselves fat. Or somewhow selectivley breeding for the fat genes, maybe fatties are suddenly sexy...
No-one’s saying that food intake makes no difference. For ****’s sake, you bloody idiot.
I'd never claim to be particularly clever, but I'll rest happy in the knowledge that I'm sufficiently intelligent to regulate my calorie intake according to my body's needs.
So fat people are stupid now are they? Including the leading academic who did the study?
You're re right, you aren't very clever! Nor are you nice.
If it was purely genetic then that graph of Mr Smith’s would be pretty much flat,
No-one nisnclaiming that. The point is that your response to food is genetic to a significant extent.
No I believe he was mocking you after YOU called him an idiot rather than being general abuse of fat people.
But he's wrong. It's genetics it's nothing to do with him being intelligent.
Take an average suggestion of losing 20% of your daily calorie intake to lose weight. That 4-500 calories is remarkably easy fritter way by not doing it properly & tracking everything you put into your mouth. It sounds harsh, but it is the reality.
Agree. I am sticking to 1700 calories a day so still eating well and doesn't really feel like I am on a diet. It just means that I watch what I eat so 'wasting' 300 calories on some chocolate or cheese means I have less to go for the rest of the day.
On days I cycle I just have a few more calories to play with (roughly 400 for each hour of cycling)
I wasn't really fat to start with (75kg at 1.78) but I had a bit of fat around waste and I am 4 kg heavier than a few years back so getting back to 71kg over a few months.
Takes a bit of self control but it is an easy enough approach for me.
So fat people are stupid now are they? Including the leading academic who did the study?You’re re right, you aren’t very clever! Nor are you nice.
I haven't yet stooped to calling anyone a bloody idiot.
I also wouldn't say that 'fat people are stupid'. There are plenty people who are happy being overweight, if they're healthy and happy there's nowt stupid about that.
The problem here is that the arguments being put forward aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, genetics can make it easier or harder for some people to lose/gain weight. But that doesn't cancel out the basic energy in/energy out equation.
Yes, some people have to work harder. That doesn't mean that 'eat less, move more' is any less valid, it just means it's going to be more difficult for them. You can't invent energy, it has to come from somewhere. If someone refused to accept this basic, demonstrable fact, I might think them an idiot.
Haven’t read all of the thread, I think we haven’t seen the worst of the problem over the next few decades it’s going to be awful. The amount of fat kids I see is awful and they are being brought up eating snack food and rubbish. I was really questioning my decision to give my 2 a packet of pombear things yesterday asa bribe to get out of the softplay and not fall asleep in the car. Then I remembered it was sometime last summer when I last gave them a packet. Walking out of the soft play virtually every kid had a cake or chocolate. I’m sure as a kid I pretty much ever had stuff like that apart from when I went to my nana.
Anyway I do agree some people have fat and thin genes but for the vast majority it is just poor diet and lack of exercise
But that doesn’t cancel out the basic energy in/energy out equation.
No, but it adds a shedload of terms to it.
I also wouldn’t say that ‘fat people are stupid’.
You did though.
Yes, some people have to work harder. That doesn’t mean that ‘eat less, move more’ is any less valid, it just means it’s going to be more difficult for them.
That's the entire point I've been making all along.
You can’t invent energy, it has to come from somewhere. If someone refused to accept this basic, demonstrable fact, I might think them an idiot.
As a Physics graduate I'm reasonably familiar with the laws of thermodynamics. Also with mass-energy equivalence but let's not go there just yet.
Walking out of the soft play virtually every kid had a cake or chocolate. I’m sure as a kid I pretty much ever had stuff like that apart from when I went to my nana.
That reflects more on your upbringing and possibly age. When I was a kid every kid was stuffing their faces with sweets and crisps all the time. Most were thin.
Great, so everyone agrees then?
The only way to loose weight is to be in calorie deficit, for some people, because of their genetic makeup that will prove harder to do and therefore might be more uncomfortable and may take longer to do than others because of the difference in the way everyone uses the calories they take in, throw in a layer on top of that of the psychological differences inherent in everyone will also have an impact because of a individuals relationship with food.
Marvellous.
@the OP, I do wonder if you have really understood the implications of the study, or are just using it for your own confirmation bias?
Here is some expert reaction to the study:
Prof. Keith Frayn, Emeritus Professor of Human Metabolism, University of Oxford, said:
“Thinness and fatness are two ends of a spectrum. It is well established that excessive fatness (obesity) has a strong inherited component, so it is not too much of a surprise to find that the same is true for thinness. An interesting finding from this study, though, is that not all the genes involved are the same. These results do not tell us anything about why some people remain thin. In the press release Professor Farooqi says that “Some people are just not that interested in food whereas others can eat what they like, but never put on weight”, but the results do not bear out the idea that some people can eat whatever they like and never put on weight. Nor is there any evidence for that point of view from physiological studies: almost all the evidence from genetic and physiological studies points to the fact that body weight is largely a reflection of how much we eat. If there are people who can eat what they like and not put on weight, they either don’t want to eat much, or they are the regular exercisers. People who exercise regularly were excluded by the authors from the thin cohort, so this is almost certainly a study of the genetics of low versus high energy intake.”
Am I using it for my own confirmation bias? Hmm. Well I've long thought anecdotally that different people react differently to food intake. It's pretty clear based on the people I know well. I posted the study because it also seems to add a little weight to the idea.
I mean, if you have two people doing similar amounts of exercise and you give them the same calorie surplus, I'm quite confident that they won't necessarily gain the same amount of weight - if any. The 'genetic' component can manifest itself in a variety of ways of course. I mean we all know people who are warmer or colder than others - people who are happy with the heating on 18C and others who want it at 23C. So clearly that extra heat is coming from somewhere. My guess (and it's a guess) would be that that is partly due to conditioning, partly environmental and partly genetic.
Are you saying that in my thought experiment above that if you kept any two people under the same conditions with the same calorie surplus that they'd gain the same amount of weight?
I'm not saying that, Prof. Keith Frayn, Emeritus Professor of Human Metabolism, University of Oxford is
Just to be clear - you think that his comments say that if you kept any two people under the same conditions with the same calorie surplus that they’d gain the same amount of weight?
Cos I don't get that idea reading what you quoted.
if you kept any two people under the same conditions with the same calorie surplus that they’d gain the same amount of weight?
Define calorie surplus?
I think that is what he is implying with his last comment yes. I may be more nuanced than that as you say, you certainly burn more calories staying warm when you are cold for example. But I am happy to take from his reaction that this is broadly a study of the genetics of calorie intake, or to put it another way appetite control.
This thread is bizarre, i'm not sure what everyone seems to be arguing about as there seems to be universal agreement on the central point.
Great, so everyone agrees then?
The only way to loose weight is to be in calorie deficit, for some people, because of their genetic makeup that will prove harder to do and therefore might be more uncomfortable and may take longer to do than others because of the difference in the way everyone uses the calories they take in, throw in a layer on top of that of the psychological differences inherent in everyone will also have an impact because of a individuals relationship with food.
Marvellous.
Is there anyone who doesn't think this is correct???
Broadly agree with that, I think what this study shows is some people find it harder than others to control appetite, and that each group has different genes. Still I think there is causality / causation issue here.
almost all the evidence from genetic and physiological studies points to the fact that body weight is largely a reflection of how much we eat
Says the good prof. So in your thought experiment, The prof is suggesting he would expect two average people eating similar calorie excess would put on similar amounts of weight.
This thread is bizarre, i’m not sure what everyone seems to be arguing about as there seems to be universal agreement on the central point.
Yup, everyone agrees. The disagreement is 99pc Molgrips writing down stuff he doesn't agree with and then debunking it in the same post.
Just to be clear – you think that his comments say that if you kept any two people under the same conditions with the same calorie surplus that they’d gain the same amount of weight?
If you define like this
Energy Surplus = Energy from food that you eat - energy burned from living and exercising - energy in your shit
They yes I would, otherwise where else does the energy go?
I think what this study shows is some people find it harder than others to control appetite, and that each group has different genes.
No no no, what the study shows is that thin and fat people have different alleles, we have no idea what the genes are or how the different alleles work. It could be appetite, it could not be, the differences could also be completely unrelated to metabolism or weight.
After a recent run in with the school run moms I have given up worrying about their oncoming diabetes and heart disease. I am beyond being sad, I am actually sick in my stomach at the state of things. I 100% blame the moms. Yes ok there are a few lazy dads, but in my experience it is 99.999999% the moms who do this.
So, I have been doing the school bus run for over 10yrs now. Probably a 500m round trip walk. It was an opportunity to talk to the kids. Drop them off and wake up myself before work. Now the kids are at big school they don’t need walked to the bus stop, but I like it and get to see their mood before school. I got a dog and continued the walk each morning to the tune of a couple of miles. This is where problems started.
I noticed that even though the bus stop is on the edge of the estate, the amount of cars who would block paths to get within 15ft of the bus stop was incredible. I noticed mothers dropping their kids off and reversing back up the road 100ft to go home. Hell one of my neighbours is the worst and insists on turning a main road with pickups for kids into a chicane because she can’t be bothered to walk or have princess in the cold for 10mins. It came to a head when I pointed out to a car I was not willing to walk through the mud to avoid her car parked 95% % on the pavement. She gave it the “who are you to tell me where to park”. I pointed out the safety aspects of her turning the road into a chicane where kids are crossing. I pointed to all the staring mums with pushchairs who had zero chance of fitting past her car. All of the mums just turned their backs to me.
I ended it there with a “cant argue with stupid as she had more practice” comment and walked off. I changed my walk route to a nice farmers field where my dog runs about and I get lovely peace and quiet. All the time I am waiting for a bus or a car to seriously hurt one of those kids (especially in this current weather).
If mums are teaching their kids that they shouldn’t walk even 250yds, What chance have schools got to instill any good habits for keeping fit.
Maybe genetics means they are all unable to walk a few hundred metres.
This thread is bizarre, i’m not sure what everyone seems to be arguing about as there seems to be universal agreement on the central point.
Yeah, the issue I have is with the way that thin people view those who struggle to lose weight. Some people don't put weight on easily, so they can have the odd cake now and then and it's fine. Some people really struggle, so have to deprive themselves to a much greater extent. And some people genuinely love cake more than others, so not eating it is more of a deprivation. It's people being shitty to each other that I can't stand. People seem to say 'I'm thin and it's easy for me, so it is also easy for you, therefore you are morally inferior', and that isn't correct.
Energy Surplus = Energy from food that you eat – energy burned from living and exercising – energy in your shit
They yes I would, otherwise where else does the energy go?
Of course but the two negative terms in that equation vary a lot and, as Farooqi suggests, you may not have as much control over it as you think. You can control how much exercise you do, but that has other knock-on effects.
The disagreement is 99pc Molgrips writing down stuff he doesn’t agree with and then debunking it in the same post.
I don't do that, you've mis-read.
100% blame the moms. Yes ok there are a few lazy dads, but in my experience it is 99.999999% the moms who do this.
What you're telling me is that mothers take more responsibility than fathers for getting their kids to school.
Last time I went on a cut I lost half a stone in a matter of weeks – it’s easily done
If it was easily done most people would be thin.
Of course but the two negative terms in that equation vary a lot and, as Farooqi suggests, you may not have as much control over it as you think
Realistically there is only one term in that equation over which anyone has control and it’s the energy in term. So basically if someone want to lose weight the most effective way to do this is eat less. Moving more will help too but mostly it’s about eating less.
as Farooqi suggests, you may not have as much control over it as you think
No, that's not what Farooqi's study says at all. It just says there are alleles of genes that thin people have inherited This is not remarkable as there have been studies that show Obese people also have groups of genes that they have inherited. It doesn't suggest that they have "most" or "much" control, and in fact...
almost all the evidence from genetic and physiological studies points to the fact that body weight is largely a reflection of how much we eat.
...is pretty much the start middle and finish of what you need to know for weight loss.
That some people find it hard, or you get upset by people telling you it's easy, or unhelpful comments like "put the cake down, fatty" are completely beside the point.
Farooqi suggests, you may not have as much control over it as you think.
How does she know what we think? We may have more control than we think, her study does not back up that statement.
Worth a watch if you don’t think calories in vs calories out is the whole story:
Jezza Clarkson though, triplets surely!
Baby name suggestions?
Can I just say that I couldn’t give a stuff if people are knowingly eating and drinking themselves into corpulence and an early death?
Just don’t sit next to me on the bloody plane, that’s all... 🙄
Carry on.
Just don’t sit next to me on the bloody plane, that’s all… 🙄
https://news.sky.com/video/plane-obesity-row-over-seat-space-11621270
she's got a point though, she's paid for a seat to sit on, so have the fatties next to her but they are ocupying more than a seat...
Saw this. Thought of this thread.
Kicking off on a United flight? She's brave.
The chat about insulin and what not is purely an attempt to understand what is happening. That guy's confrontational tone is not helpful either.
What about gut-bacteria? Isn't that supposed to burn a load of calories for us?
So some of what keeps the skinny, skinny is in their shite?
I found I gained weight whilst banned from this forum. Just 3 days of swallowing other peoples #### on here and I've lost 2kg.
Pom Bears anyone?
none left...
Neither is Molly coddling the majority
Pun intended 😉
https://news.sky.com/video/plane-obesity-row-over-seat-space-11621270she’s got a point though, she’s paid for a seat to sit on, so have the fatties next to her but they are ocupying more than a seat…
Is she fat-ist or is it possibly something else I wonder... the flight is half empty, not difficult to move seat for a bit more space without being a walloper about it, is it?
In saying that - if I was on flight sandwiched in-between two large folk spilling over onto my lap & had nowhere else to go, I would not be amused - i'd be taking it up with the airline though (in as polite a manner as possible)
That PT bloke up there has popped up in a few things i've seen - comes across as a bit arrogant but I find it difficult to disagree with most of what he says, he had a good rant on "cheat days" a while back, essentially if you need "cheat days" from your diet, it's a shit diet & sitting on the couch stuffing 9 pizzas into your face will undo all the previous good work & then some.
Ultimately, you can't out-train a bad diet - i've been trying for years & with a bit of self-control on the cake-front i'd easily be 10% lighter, during the summer I average about 100 miles per week commuting & winter it's about 60-80 so there's plenty of calories to spare in my diet. But my clothes still fit me & I like a beer and a pastry now and again so meh.
I found I gained weight whilst banned from this forum. Just 3 days of swallowing other peoples #### on here and I’ve lost 2kg.
Amateur. You should have learnt not to swallow by now.
Is she fat-ist
I'd say the bloke to her right is fatist.
It is something i have always wanted to understand in greater depth, yes there is the obvious that if you eat to excess, then there is a good chance you will gain weight, yes if you diet, you may lose weight.
But it clearly has so much more to it than that, socio-economic reasons, hormones, age, sex,e etc.
I have always been a "big lad" my weight tends to go between 100-110kgs, and this really does not change even with extreme amounts of dieting or exercise. Whilst i have friends who are 9 stone, who rarely exercise, who eat take away constantly and drink alcohol to excess, their BMI deeming them underweight, whilst mine deems me obese.
I only ever lose a good amount of weight, if i diet or exercise to an extreme, an extreme that is unsustainable.
For example, 14 months of commuting by bike to work, between 38 to 58 miles a day, 5 days a week, consuming around 2100-2200 calories a day (any less and i could not function), i lost about 2kgs in the first month then nothing more.
I rode Torino-Nice rally and lost about 3kgs last year, thats riding for 10+ hours a day with 2000-3000m of climbing each day for 7 days, within 2 weeks of being home (and purposefully eating well, to try and keep it off), went straight back on, all my food pretty much is home cooked.
I have played rugby at an international level and have been a soldier, all whilst carrying a good amount of "podge" around my middle.
I did Dry January, not a drop of alcohol passed these lips, and was ill for the last 10 days of it where food consumption was halved, again not a pound lost.
It is really is not just simply a case of calories in/ calories out.
I only had to watch my daughter become painfully thin just before her Type 1 diabetes (no not the one from eating too many sweets) despite the increased amount of food she ate, to see that insulin production has has quite an impact, which i know is an extreme example.
I have simply lived to learn with being a big lad, i am happy when i go to the doctors and they tell me my blood pressure is normal, and that my heart is healthy, whilst the skinny ones can takes all the photos of themselves for Instagram..