Obesity

dave28 said:
rural wales

the nearest gym is 3 miles away and the next nearest is a 1 hour round trip

both are small and right next door to schools so there is always a load of kids in there messing about and being loud and obnoxious
Click to expand...

Wing-Man said:
where i live in Yorkshire there is 0 in walking distance. 2 within a 20min drive and 5 if your willing to drive says 30-40min.
takeaways there is 7 in my small village and if you did the same comparison say withing the 20min drive like the 2 gyms, you would be well into the 20's or 30's.

the 2 close to me, 1 is a council gym that is massively underfunded and it always full. the second is £68 a month as top class gear and is very nice place to go.
when you ask people there not willing to pay £68 its too much, but ask them how much there paying on takeaways. i have 1 a week and for the 2 of us its about £40.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're both outliers then, because just checking the towns and villages around me, there are multiple gyms in all of them.

Of course, there will be more fast-food outlets than gyms, but there are more ways to exercise than just going to the gym.
 
Last edited:
dave28 said:
Fast food places in my area, dozens.

Gyms in my area, 1 small one.
Click to expand...

You can't out-train a bad diet. You don't need to choose to go to the fast food place. You don't need a gym to be healthy.

People are lazy and choose convenience over quality. End of.

People say they don't have time to cook. That's not an excuse. Make time. If you're worried about your health and weight do something about it. Don't blame the fact that poor food choices exist.
 
I can lose weight without setting foot in the gym. I can burn calories many other ways. If I want to build muscles then I will go to the gym but for simple calories burning exercise, just walk. Put on a podcast for an hour and walk. It's free.

Remember don't ruin it by getting a Big Mac on the way home to treat yourself. An hour walk burns around 250 cal, a Big Mac is 560 cal.
 
Wing-Man said:
where i live in Yorkshire there is 0 in walking distance. 2 within a 20min drive and 5 if your willing to drive says 30-40min.
takeaways there is 7 in my small village and if you did the same comparison say withing the 20min drive like the 2 gyms, you would be well into the 20's or 30's.

the 2 close to me, 1 is a council gym that is massively underfunded and it always full. the second is £68 a month as top class gear and is very nice place to go.
when you ask people there not willing to pay £68 its too much, but ask them how much there paying on takeaways. i have 1 a week and for the 2 of us its about £40.
Click to expand...
You don't need a gym to exercise. In fact they're probably counter-productive for most people as frankly trying to use a gym to burn calories is going to suck. See plenty of lard-arses at my gym who just go and sit in the jacuzzi for an hour and go home and no doubt tell their partner they had a hardcore workout.

If you want to lose weight and get healthy you just just walk more, doesn't cost anything. No gym is no excuse.
 
Wing-Man said:
are they really the problem? 2000cal's of meet and veg, or 2000cal's ultra processed food, is still only 2000cal's
people like someone or somthing to blame, so its not themselves and now its just processed food we blame.
Click to expand...
No, they're not the same. Added sugar, too much fat will mean you get less food to fill you up the for the same calories. Plus the UPF will often have nasty addatives which aren't good for you. Modified starches, hydrogenated oils, colourings.. All these things effect your gut.

Think of it this way. Which will keep you fuller for longer. 1000 calories of a varied salad with some protein, or 1000 calories of donuts?
 
Wing-Man said:
you wish.
Click to expand...

I don't wish, I just googled.

5niUskF.png


www.healthline.com

Calories Burned Walking: 1 Mile, 1 Hour, Calculator

The number of calories you burn while walking depends on different factors, including your weight, pace, terrain, and more.
www.healthline.com www.healthline.com



The equation is: calories burned = BMR x METs/24 x hour
  • A 35-year-old man who weighs 200 pounds, is 5 foot 10 inches (BMR = 1,686), and walks for 60 minutes at 3.0 mph (3.5 METs) for 60 minutes will burn 246 calories.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I don't wish, I just googled.

5niUskF.png


www.healthline.com

Calories Burned Walking: 1 Mile, 1 Hour, Calculator

The number of calories you burn while walking depends on different factors, including your weight, pace, terrain, and more.
www.healthline.com www.healthline.com



The equation is: calories burned = BMR x METs/24 x hour
  • A 35-year-old man who weighs 200 pounds, is 5 foot 10 inches (BMR = 1,686), and walks for 60 minutes at 3.0 mph (3.5 METs) for 60 minutes will burn 246 calories.
Click to expand...

Correct! A nice easy one to remember is walking or running is approximately 100kcal per mile.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I don't wish, I just googled.
Click to expand...

well its wrong. you have to talk into account the load(fat) your carrying and walking pace. also average level of activity.
a none fat person who is active ever day will burn a lot less as there body as become much better and efficient at X activity.

it's like the cal's burned indicator on a treadmill, it lies but for a reason, when you think your burning more you feel good and are more likely to use it. if you sweat your ass off and work out you burned 80cal you are more likely to say bugger it, its too hard
 
Wing-Man said:
2000cal's is 2000cal's
Click to expand...
Doesn't work like that.
2000 cal's of donuts will have no protein, barely any vitamins, and will spike you blood sugar like crazy, leading to a sugar crash and more food cravings later.
2000's cals of salad and tuna will satiate you for far longer with no sugar spike and crash.

The 1st will likely lead to wanting to eat more again pretty soon.
 
Wing-Man said:
well its wrong. you have to talk into account the load(fat) your carrying and walking pace. also average level of activity.
a none fat person who is active ever day will burn a lot less as there body as become much better and efficient at X activity.

it's like the cal's burned indicator on a treadmill, it lies but for a reason, when you think your burning more you feel good and are more likely to use it. if you sweat your ass off and work out you burned 80cal you are more likely to say bugger it, its too hard
Click to expand...

Don't tell me I am wrong, tell the experts who came up with this formula. Who are you to tell them they are wrong? What are your qualifications exactly?

Which I why I said walking, if it's too hard, slow down, walk longer to make up for the slower pace. I never said you need to sweat either, just move. It takes energy to move....so move.
 
Last edited:
Wing-Man said:
2000cal's is 2000cal's
Click to expand...

But your body isn't that simplistic.

Sure, on the big picture 2000 cals is 2000 cals - but how your body processes, uses and stores that 2000 calories will be different dependant on the food.

Say you eat those calories in a lot of high fibre food, your body would take longer and more energy to digest it and also wouldn't be able to extract about 10-15% of those calories anyway so the net amount you receive might be ~1600. Now take those 2000 calories in high sugar smoothies you're body absorbs it quicker than it needs at that point, uses less energy to digest it and extracts virtually 100% so your net amount might be ~1950 (illustrative figures only)

Calorie counting is good as a rule of thumb, but it is a bit more nuanced than that.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
But your body isn't that simplistic.

Sure, on the big picture 2000 cals is 2000 cals - but how your body processes, uses and stores that 2000 calories will be different dependant on the food.

Say you eat those calories in a lot of high fibre food, your body would take longer and more energy to digest it and also wouldn't be able to extract about 10-15% of those calories anyway. Now take those 2000 calories in high sugar smoothies you're body absorbs it quicker than it needs at that point, uses less energy to digest it and extracts virtually 100%.

Calorie counting is good as a rule of thumb, but it is a bit more nuanced than that.
Click to expand...

That is true but I find it simpler just to take it at face value, combine it with less junk food, it works for me. Also, if I make it big enough deficit, there is no way any of the processed food calories is going to make a difference.

Like if I eat 1000 calories of junk food in a day, creating a 1000 calories deficit, how the body process it won't swing it over to the other side to put on weight. Similarly, if I eat 10,000 calories of "good" calories, I am going to put on weight regardless.

The line is grey, but it isn't like an ocean of grey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom