Obesity

tonys said:
I just wanted to know how you yourself viewed your weight and how you measured it by either your proper waist or trouser "waist".
Not what you had been told
Click to expand...

People's perceptions may vary, being overweight is common/normal now, even pushing into obesity isn't necessarily particularly large.

But once you're taking actual measurements then you're no longer being as subjective, you have something objective to compare with else what is the point of the measurements?
 
andybird123 said:
I don't wear my trousers with my gut hanging out, lol, trouser size is supposed to be at your waist, I'm losing weight but haven't downsized trousers again yet
Click to expand...
Ok, like my dad used to wear his.
I go the other way, my jeans are just below the top of the pelvis(don't feel comfortable any other way), it feels odd with the hipster type and they are only a couple of inches shorter. I seem to be like you in the thin arms and legs, a thin layer back and upper torso and the inevitable belly. This however is the problem, if I measure there I'm about 40"ish, but it's not very flabby( no abs to speak of). Put that together with IBS and diabetes for loads of fun.
 
I’ve never paid much attention to my actual weight, but way more attention to my waist size.

I found that so long as I stick between 32” and no bigger than 34” everything is fine.
 
Screeeech said:
I’ve never paid much attention to my actual weight, but way more attention to my waist size.

I found that so long as I stick between 32” and no bigger than 34” everything is fine.
Click to expand...
And as long as you're not 5'2" it probably is. :p
I'm down to 34" trousers now from a 36" and feel a lot better for it. Still have a way to go though.
 
FoxEye said:
In that case, wouldn't the solution be to just cut down on processed sugar? Rather than switching to 100% (ish) meat..?
Click to expand...
Society-wide, yes, definitely. Added sugar (sucrose) in foods other than dessert should almost not be acceptable, like smoking outside designated areas.

Diet wise, someone pointed out that recent "fad" diets have one thing in common. Be it paleo, carnivore, vegan, whatever. They inadvertently reduce ultra-processed foods. And thats why there are always people who find their diet of choice "works".
Reduced carb diets like keto are suitable to improve the already developed insulin resistance.
 
since we seem to love a good study;

In a large review of 73 meta-analyses — which included 8,601 studies — high consumption of added sugar was associated with significantly higher risks of 45 negative health outcomes, including diabetes, gout, obesity, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke, cancer, asthma, tooth decay, depression and early death.
Click to expand...

www.bmj.com

Dietary sugar consumption and health: umbrella review

Objective To evaluate the quality of evidence, potential biases, and validity of all available studies on dietary sugar consumption and health outcomes. Design Umbrella review of existing meta-analyses. Data sources PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and...
www.bmj.com www.bmj.com

But remember kids, its the meat that causes those things, not the carbs.
And Cheerios are healthy according to USDA, who we trust unequivocally.
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
since we seem to love a good study;



www.bmj.com

Dietary sugar consumption and health: umbrella review

Objective To evaluate the quality of evidence, potential biases, and validity of all available studies on dietary sugar consumption and health outcomes. Design Umbrella review of existing meta-analyses. Data sources PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and...
www.bmj.com www.bmj.com

But remember kids, its the meat that causes those things, not the carbs.
And Cheerios are healthy according to USDA, who we trust unequivocally.
Click to expand...
So if I like sugar and meat I'm screwed?
 
I guess none of you actually take portion size into account then…dismissive of the USDA. Yes their portion size is like 30g and you are going to be hungry, so suck it up. Stop over eating.

One minute you criticise GP don’t know anything about nutrition and then next minute quoting a fertility doctor as a source.

Cherry picking sources that suits your agenda much?
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I guess none of you actually take portion size into account then…dismissive of the USDA. Yes their portion size is like 30g and you are going to be hungry, so suck it up. Stop over eating.

One minute you criticise GP don’t know anything about nutrition and then next minute quoting a fertility doctor as a source.

Cherry picking sources that suits your agenda much?
Click to expand...
Doesn't cherry picking happen in all things
 
Raymond Lin said:
One minute you criticise GP don’t know anything about nutrition and then next minute quoting a fertility doctor as a source.

Cherry picking sources that suits your agenda much?
Click to expand...

To be fair they're referring to meta-analyses of many studies.

The conclusion isn't don't eat carbs or keto is best though, rather it's just basic healthy eating advice; added sugar (i.e. from sweets, sugary drinks etc.) isn't good for you and should be moderated.
Conclusions High dietary sugar consumption is generally more harmful than beneficial for health, especially in cardiometabolic disease. Reducing the consumption of free sugars or added sugars to below 25 g/day (approximately 6 teaspoons/day) and limiting the consumption of sugar sweetened beverages to less than one serving/week (approximately 200-355 mL/week) are recommended to reduce the adverse effect of sugars on health.
Click to expand...
 
andybird123 said:
In a large review of 73 meta-analyses — which included 8,601 studies — high consumption of added sugar was associated with significantly higher risks of 45 negative health outcomes, including diabetes, gout, obesity, high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke, cancer, asthma, tooth decay, depression and early death.
Click to expand...
High consumption of any nutrient for a long period of time will generally come with some risks/problems, which is why it's important to have a balanced diet.
 
Raymond Lin said:
One minute you criticise GP don’t know anything about nutrition and then next minute quoting a fertility doctor as a source.

Cherry picking sources that suits your agenda much?
Click to expand...
No, I linked to studies, the fact that you don't even click through to read the source material shows how willfully ignorant you're being.

I suppose you still think humans contain zero vitamin C because you don't understand what the word "store" means.
 
andybird123 said:
No, I linked to studies, the fact that you don't even click through to read the source material shows how willfully ignorant you're being.

I suppose you still think humans contain zero vitamin C because you don't understand what the word "store" means.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, which you have forgotten. There are no studies (no matter how many), are larger than the population of The Med and the Japanese, not the number of people, not the length of time.

We are talking about hundreds of million people here. Do you have studies in the hundreds of millions?

Are we trying to be skinny here or are we trying to be healthy and live longer. (you are going to state your blood work again aren't you?)

You keep arguing over the word "store", rather than the fact that Vit.C is water soluble, and it gets processed out of our system in about 24-48hrs. That's store, 48hrs. Vitamins also gets destroyed in the cooking process, which is why you eat fresh fruit to get the most of them. Nobody here are eating raw animal offal and raw cow brain. Even if you are, it is a ridiculous way to get vitamins, in both cost and method.

The idea of even promoting eating beef to give you enough vitamin C when an orange will do it is absurd. You don't even realise how ridiculous that sounds. You get Fibre with an orange too, which is vital to gut health, which there are none in beef (in before you say, "I eat the bow's stomach content!"). Yet you keep pushing beef as some magical food that "it has everything the body needs" BS. Frankly, you sound more and more like a flat earther in the past few days.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
added sugar (i.e. from sweets, sugary drinks etc.) isn't good for you
Click to expand...
What happens when you eat any carbohydrate, what does your body do with it? It converts is to glucose.
Raymond Lin said:
As I said earlier, which you have forgotten. There are no studies (no matter how many), are larger than the population of The Med and the Japanese, not the number of people, not the length of time.

We are talking about hundreds of million people here. Do you have studies in the hundreds of millions?

Are we trying to be skinny here or are we trying to be healthy and live longer. (you are going to state your blood work again aren't you?)
Click to expand...
The reported diets of the med and Japanese that your referring to are eroneus. They eat a lot of meat in the med, it also isn't "Japan" that gets the best rap, it's Okinawa, where they eat. a lot of pork.
Hong Kong also has one of the best longevity in the world, they also have the highest meat consumption per capita. The whole "blue zone" thing has been thoroughly debunked as in accurate reporting.

There is also a large study of blood markers in centenarians which pretty heavily contradicts what doctors will tell you about cholesterol etc. guess what diet their markers are closest to/indicate?
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
What happens when you eat any carbohydrate, what does your body do with it? It converts is to glucose.

The reported diets of the med and Japanese that your referring to are eroneus. They eat a lot of meat in the med, it also isn't "Japan" that gets the best rap, it's Okinawa, where they eat. a lot of pork.
Hong Kong also has one of the best longevity in the world, they also have the highest meat consumption per capita. The whole "blue zone" thing has been thoroughly debunked as in accurate reporting.

There is also a large study of blood markers in centenarians which pretty heavily contradicts what doctors will tell you about cholesterol etc. guess what diet their markers are closest to/indicate?
Click to expand...
Bet they're all eating it with rice/noodles et al though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom