Smiles is right that anyone can lose weigh - and even return to their ideal weight - simply by eating less. But more interesting is the thought that if you consistently gain just one ounce of weight per week, after 30 years you'll be 100 pounds overweight. Given how little food it takes to gain one ounce, it's amazing we aren't all obese - we eat so much more and work (physically) so much less than our ancestors.

I'm not making excuses for myself. I'm one of the lucky, lazy overeating thin ones.

Homesick wrote:

" ... anyone can lose weigh - and even return to their ideal weight - simply by eating less ... ".

In theory that's correct, but it's far better to combine eating better (and less) with regular exercise.  That combination gives you a bigger bang for yoour buck:  it keeps you much healthier in general, makes one feel better about "self", and keeps one reasonably attractive to Thai guys.

Genetics plays a very large part in original body type . . . i.e. the slim man or women who seems to stay slim no matter what.  But they too will get fatter (perhaps not so fast) over time from long years of over eating and a sedentary life.  The calories in / calories out equation is inexorable.

Trying hard not to sound like some missionary on this topic.  Of course, every man to his own.

Cheers ...


Long way from "Why Business Class?" isn't it?      One reason ~ among others ~ why I'm addicted to Sawatdee.

Smiles wrote:

Long way from "Why Business Class?" isn't it?  

Yes, in your last two posts on this thread you've covered: Genetics; Smoking and Obesity ... All a long way from "Why Business Class"

Next, will you be advocating the Canadian national sport as a way to get undesirable people out of your way on flights?

Snowkat wrote:

Aunty wrote:

... but in medical research circles it is widely acknowledged that a persons weight, fat OR slim, is largely beyond their control and is actually a product of the interaction between our genes and the environment we now all forced to live in.

What a load of BS! Having worked in 'medical research circles' I can assure you that there is a direct correlation between the amount of food and calories one consumes and ones weight and fatness.

Of course there is you dumbass! But that doesn't tell you a damn thing about why so many people are in an energy imbalance, does it? If it's as simple as you imply it is, then there wouldn't be any fat people, would there, you flat earther! They would all just eat less and there wouldn't be a problem, would there? Well wake up sunshine, there is a problem. 50% of most western people are now overweight or obese and it's getting worse. And pompous people like you haven't offered a damn single explanation for it, let alone an answer that works!

Smiles wrote:

Homesick wrote:

" ... anyone can lose weigh - and even return to their ideal weight - simply by eating less ... ".

In theory that's correct, but it's far better to combine eating better (and less) with regular exercise.  That combination gives you a bigger bang for yoour buck:  it keeps you much healthier in general, makes one feel better about "self", and keeps one reasonably attractive to Thai guys.

Genetics plays a very large part in original body type . . . i.e. the slim man or women who seems to stay slim no matter what.  But they too will get fatter (perhaps not so fast) over time from long years of over eating and a sedentary life.  The calories in / calories out equation is inexorable.

Trying hard not to sound like some missionary on this topic.  Of course, every man to his own.

Cheers ...

.

I don't like you smiles, I never have. Why, becuase you're a dickhead!

Aunty wrote:

Of course there is you dumbass! But that doesn't tell you a damn thing about why so many people are in an energy imbalance, does it? If it's as simple as you imply it is, then there wouldn't be any fat people, would there, you flat earther! They would all just eat less and there wouldn't be a problem, would there? Well wake up sunshine, there is a problem. 50% of most western people are now overweight or obese and it's getting worse. And pompous people like you haven't offered a damn single explanation for it, let alone an answer that works!

It's simple you moron, so many people are in energy imbalance because they eat too much (often unhealthy and fat laden junk food) and do too little exercise.

If these people ate less and exercised more there wouldn't be a problem. However, they do not have the intelligence and/or will-power to eat only what they need for a healthy lifestyle. Therefore, they get fat.

I've offered the explanation and the answer that works - Eat less (and give up fat laden junk food), and exercise more. If you get the balance right between the calories you consume from the type and amount you eat and the calories you require for you daily lifestyle you will lose weight and fat.

You call me a flat-earther. You're the one in denial. I would hazard a guess that you are over-weight (and probably obese) but have your head in the sand and cannot accept that it is a result of your lack of will-power and over-indulgence (or, to be blunt, greed and gluttony). It's no good blaming genes/hormones, the environment or modern life - they're just cop outs from those in denial about the true cause of their problem. Nutters like you deserve all the health problems associated with overweight and unhealthy eating that you are likely to get sooner rather than later.



Last edited by Snowkat on Mon 14 Jul, 2008 4:42 am; edited 1 time in total

The allied forces didn't find any fat people in the German prison camps at the end of world war 2

I have no sympathy with fat people they are usually greedy with no will power to loose weight, or they simply don't care. Anyway there are no shortages of boys in Pattaya to cater for the fatties so why should they care.

OK, you want to lose weight, let's say.  You seriously want to lose weight.

Well, I can tell you the only thing that ever worked for me.  It was/is called "The Pritikin Plan" and was extremely simple:

1. No booze.

2. No sugar.

3. No protein.

4. No fat.

You might panic and think "I'll die without protein!" but in fact you can eat reasonable amounts of things like white chicken meat...but the whole thing had better look a lot like a Thai or North African diet -- with a big pile of rice, or pasta, or some starch, and a little bit of chicken on the side.

One of the typical things I ate on the Pritikin plan was "Pea Curry."  Make some curry sauce, and stir in peas rather than meat.  Pour it over a mound of rice and dig in.

While you're doing this, you'll come to understand that things like wheat and rice are already 12 percent protein.  You'll also come to understand that probably the hardest rule is #4.  ("But I don't eat FAT!!")  Well, get used to your morning toast WITHOUT butter, and non-fat milk.  If you're like me, you'll quickly understand that fat is really delicious.  This probably was programmed into us during the many long millions of years when there was never enough to eat.

Your mileage will vary.

Henry Cate wrote:

....

1. No booze.

2. No sugar.

3. No protein.

4. No fat.

You might panic and think "I'll die without protein!" .....

Actually, I didn't even get past #1    

Henry Cate wrote:

Make some curry sauce, and stir in peas rather than meat.  Pour it over a mound of rice and dig in.

Pea curry? That sounds god awful.  Although I'm not horizontally challenged, I'd rather paint Goodyear on my side and float over a stadium than eat that crap!

Bwana wrote:

Smiles wrote:

Long way from "Why Business Class?" isn't it?  

Yes, in your last two posts on this thread you've covered: Genetics; Smoking and Obesity ... All a long way from "Why Business Class"

Next, will you be advocating the Canadian national sport as a way to get undesirable people out of your way on flights?

A BA steward demonstrates how they really think of  "Club Class" to an unsuspecting passenger after a flight to Northern Canada.

Those many born can't help it of course. Most can and yes it IS the diet, mostly. Like most farangs my waist went fron 30 to  still pushing 36 (lucky me! so it's still in the 'jenes') in my late twenties but a LOT of exercise, and moderation of my worst food and beer drinking habits  is at least giving the resemblembance of my triangular physique. It's interesting to see all the Thai kids in the shopping malls surprisingly chubby at that from refrigerators, sitting and watching television eating all that junk food and dairy products and other shit from the west imported in environmentally destructive plastic containers undersold to the local economy piled into shopping carts in air conditioned mass malls with full parking lots. Hmmmm it will be interesting to see the end all of all the effects down the road from these changes in their constitutions.

Since my first trip to Thailand 12 years ago, it seems that thais too are getting fatter and fatter, well some are. So it shoud also be in their genes. halleluja. no sure it is not, it is because they are eating more and more junk food. The first time I saw some thai guys in a Burger King I thought "why are they doing this to themselfes"

hansiThe2 wrote:

The first time I saw some thai guys in a Burger King I thought "why are they doing this to themselfes"

Because it tastes good, why else?

Homesick wrote:

Smiles is right that anyone can lose weigh - and even return to their ideal weight - simply by eating less. But more interesting is the thought that if you consistently gain just one ounce of weight per week, after 30 years you'll be 100 pounds overweight. Given how little food it takes to gain one ounce, it's amazing we aren't all obese - we eat so much more and work (physically) so much less than our ancestors.

I'm not making excuses for myself. I'm one of the lucky, lazy overeating thin ones.

Whose idea of "ideal weight"? This is largely a statistical rather than a medical concept of "ideal."

This idea originated with life insurance companies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and was based on sex and age specific height-weight tables, the data being obtained from policyholders. These tables originally stated the "average" weight of policyholders for each gender over a given age range, and it was the "average" weight that was always recommended.  "Overweight" included all individuals who exceeded a given weight range for age.  Persons who weighed 20 percent or more than average for their age and gender were penalized with higher insurance rates. "Above average" weight was generally considered bad whether it was from muscle or fat, and no distinction was made between the two.

So, until the 1940s, the life insurance tables suggested that the best weight was the average weight for one's height, age and gender.  In 1942-3, however,  the US company Metropolitan Life Insurance Company published new tables for, first, women and then for men.  The wording was changed, however, and now the weights were not given as average weight but as "ideal" weights.  Unlike previous tables, though, the weights for a given height no longer varied by age but instead by a new standard called "frame size" (i.e., small, medium and large). This "ideal weight" was determined by statisticians who, noticing that increased mortality in persons over the age of thirty was associated with weight increases over the average, assumed not only that the ideal weight was the average weight in 20-to 29 year olds but also that this was the weight one should maintain throughout one's life. The new tables, therefore, deleted the age variable and added the subjective determination of frame size.

There is some evidence that a BMI of of 25 to 30, the so-called overweight range, may be optimal, according to American research reported in 2005 and 2007 and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in November 2007. The researchers reported that overweight people have a lower death rate because they are much less likely to die from such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, infections and lung disease, and that this lower risk was not off-set by increased risks of dying from any other disease, including cancer, diabetes or heart disease.

I guess "ideal" is in the eye of the beholder.