4 ms·

Wow! Can I blame this for my obesity?

zeofig 10y ago
You legitimately can (combined with other, related, avenues of blame). Of course, doing so won't remove your obesity.
manmal 10y ago
What good is blame? You can focus on what you know is good for you and improve your health little by little. Blame might keep you from doing that.
internaut 10y ago
Sometimes it really could be a conspiracy. http://imgur.com/W7AcUDV http://imgur.com/W7AcUDV Medieval peasants ate 4000 - 5000 calories per day. As late as the 40s, it was recommended that people eat 3000 calories per day and many men ate 4000 calories per day. Now it is recommended we eat 2250 calories per day. Neither of the first two groups are known for being fat. Actually the opposite. They look amazing in photos, all of them. This is despite many of them eating low quality foods and insane amounts of fats and sweets. Gluttony is not new. Fat people everywhere is new. So the number of calories we've been absorbing has steadily decreased over time. It is all physical activity that accounts for the discrepancy? I'm not confident that is the case. It sounds wrong to me because although I accept that our grandparents were far more physically active than we are it is known that exercise burns calories at a low rate. Exercise has always been a bad way to lose weight. It has always been easier to lose weight by eating less. You could skip the gym for two days by neglecting to eat half a mars bar. I wonder whether there is some other systemic affect at work. Like the temperature is warmer outside so we burn less calories just living. I'm sure that's probably wrong, I'm just offering up that there may be some alternative explanation than the conventional one. Here's another one. Our brains use most calories. Maybe we're using them in less energy intensive ways than we used to. Maybe our brains actually use up more energy when engaged in physical activity for an actual purpose i.e. not mindlessly zoned out on a treadmill and that is a hidden multiplier affect. Now I'm going to make a sandwich because I'm hungry.
- voltagex_ 10y ago
  >Medieval peasants ate 4000 - 5000 calories per day. As late as the 40s, it was recommended that people eat 3000 calories per day and many men ate 4000 calories per day. That's the input, but what's the output? If your hypothetical peasant was burning 6000 cal a day, that's very different if they were burning only 1000 cal.
- lsc 10y ago
  >I'm not confident that is the case. It sounds wrong to me because although I accept that our grandparents were far more physically active than we are it is known that exercise burns calories at a low rate. Exercise has always been a bad way to lose weight. It has always been easier to lose weight by eating less. You could skip the gym for two days by neglecting to eat half a mars bar. I don't want to call you out for exaggerating, but you are approaching exaggeration by orders of magnitude. A mars bar is under 300 calories. For me? a 6', 210lb man? bicycling for one hour at 14-16MPH is gonna burn well north of 900 kcals. (Note, this is completely reasonable at my fitness level, though I need to carry water; I'll consume a litre during that time period, and judging from the condition of my clothing, excrete it from my skin; without it I make it about 20 minutes and then slow to 8mph. As far as I can tell, if you are carrying around as much spare weight as I am, there's no reason to use gels or really worry about eating extra before or during the ride; but the water is essential to performance.) Check out some numbers for walking: http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedwalking.htm http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedwalking.htm My point here is just that cardio is a real thing. And it takes time and effort and sweat, (oh my god, the sweat) but it is a real thing, and one of the interesting bits is that the fatter you are, the more you burn doing any cardio activity. I'd bet money that the increased caloric intake of our ancestors is entirely explained by their increased physical activity.
  - internaut 10y ago
    > I don't want to call you out for exaggerating, but you are approaching exaggeration by orders of magnitude. A mars bar is under 300 calories. I was making a general point. It is easier to stop eating than to lose weight by exercise. Much easier. Also mars bars have been undergoing food inflation. It's another sinister conspiracy we can actually prove is real. They used to be about 1/3 bigger. The world around you seems a little darker now doesn't it. > For me? a 6', 210lb man? bicycling for one hour at 14-16MPH is gonna burn well north of 900 kcals. I should warn you that those machine counters are kind of optimistic. The human body is really good at holding onto calories. We walk and run very efficiently, I think we may even be the most efficient at long distance running in the animal kingdom. I'm not trying to stop you running or cycling around. I approve of it. It is very good for your health even if it doesn't lose many calories. I think there is also a multiplier affect indirectly coming from exercise in that it elevates mood and this makes you less likely to binge on food. It is however probably not the calories you burned per se that are causing you to lose weight, not unless you're the 1% that actually exercise seriously and continually. Maybe this is subjective. I don't consider 500 calories a lot of food, but to me it's a significant amount of running. A mouthful of food vs half an hour on a treadmill. > I'd bet money that the increased caloric intake of our ancestors is entirely explained by their increased physical activity. I'm not denying our ancestors were very much more physically active than we are. Probably that accounts for at least half the results despite us also eating half or less of the calories we used to. I think there could be confounding factors. Like a slightly warmer world would presumably mean the inhabitants burn less calories on an ongoing basis. Less obvious factors could invisibly add 50 or 100 calories per day and that would add up over time. By the way I am not fat! This isn't an attempt to avoid guilt :)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
segmondy 10y ago
Nah, blame your diet and caloric intake. You can however possibly blame your allergy! My allergy flares up when I eat out often, haven't been able to isolate it. When I eat at home for long and only home cooked meal, it clears up!

You legitimately can (combined with other, related, avenues of blame). Of course, doing so won't remove your obesity.

What good is blame? You can focus on what you know is good for you and improve your health little by little. Blame might keep you from doing that.

internaut 10y ago

Sometimes it really could be a conspiracy. http://imgur.com/W7AcUDV http://imgur.com/W7AcUDV Medieval peasants ate 4000 - 5000 calories per day. As late as the 40s, it was recommended that people eat 3000 calories per day and many men ate 4000 calories per day. Now it is recommended we eat 2250 calories per day. Neither of the first two groups are known for being fat. Actually the opposite. They look amazing in photos, all of them. This is despite many of them eating low quality foods and insane amounts of fats and sweets. Gluttony is not new. Fat people everywhere is new. So the number of calories we've been absorbing has steadily decreased over time. It is all physical activity that accounts for the discrepancy? I'm not confident that is the case. It sounds wrong to me because although I accept that our grandparents were far more physically active than we are it is known that exercise burns calories at a low rate. Exercise has always been a bad way to lose weight. It has always been easier to lose weight by eating less. You could skip the gym for two days by neglecting to eat half a mars bar. I wonder whether there is some other systemic affect at work. Like the temperature is warmer outside so we burn less calories just living. I'm sure that's probably wrong, I'm just offering up that there may be some alternative explanation than the conventional one. Here's another one. Our brains use most calories. Maybe we're using them in less energy intensive ways than we used to. Maybe our brains actually use up more energy when engaged in physical activity for an actual purpose i.e. not mindlessly zoned out on a treadmill and that is a hidden multiplier affect. Now I'm going to make a sandwich because I'm hungry.

voltagex_ 10y ago
>Medieval peasants ate 4000 - 5000 calories per day. As late as the 40s, it was recommended that people eat 3000 calories per day and many men ate 4000 calories per day. That's the input, but what's the output? If your hypothetical peasant was burning 6000 cal a day, that's very different if they were burning only 1000 cal.
lsc 10y ago
>I'm not confident that is the case. It sounds wrong to me because although I accept that our grandparents were far more physically active than we are it is known that exercise burns calories at a low rate. Exercise has always been a bad way to lose weight. It has always been easier to lose weight by eating less. You could skip the gym for two days by neglecting to eat half a mars bar. I don't want to call you out for exaggerating, but you are approaching exaggeration by orders of magnitude. A mars bar is under 300 calories. For me? a 6', 210lb man? bicycling for one hour at 14-16MPH is gonna burn well north of 900 kcals. (Note, this is completely reasonable at my fitness level, though I need to carry water; I'll consume a litre during that time period, and judging from the condition of my clothing, excrete it from my skin; without it I make it about 20 minutes and then slow to 8mph. As far as I can tell, if you are carrying around as much spare weight as I am, there's no reason to use gels or really worry about eating extra before or during the ride; but the water is essential to performance.) Check out some numbers for walking: http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedwalking.htm http://www.nutristrategy.com/caloriesburnedwalking.htm My point here is just that cardio is a real thing. And it takes time and effort and sweat, (oh my god, the sweat) but it is a real thing, and one of the interesting bits is that the fatter you are, the more you burn doing any cardio activity. I'd bet money that the increased caloric intake of our ancestors is entirely explained by their increased physical activity.
- internaut 10y ago
  > I don't want to call you out for exaggerating, but you are approaching exaggeration by orders of magnitude. A mars bar is under 300 calories. I was making a general point. It is easier to stop eating than to lose weight by exercise. Much easier. Also mars bars have been undergoing food inflation. It's another sinister conspiracy we can actually prove is real. They used to be about 1/3 bigger. The world around you seems a little darker now doesn't it. > For me? a 6', 210lb man? bicycling for one hour at 14-16MPH is gonna burn well north of 900 kcals. I should warn you that those machine counters are kind of optimistic. The human body is really good at holding onto calories. We walk and run very efficiently, I think we may even be the most efficient at long distance running in the animal kingdom. I'm not trying to stop you running or cycling around. I approve of it. It is very good for your health even if it doesn't lose many calories. I think there is also a multiplier affect indirectly coming from exercise in that it elevates mood and this makes you less likely to binge on food. It is however probably not the calories you burned per se that are causing you to lose weight, not unless you're the 1% that actually exercise seriously and continually. Maybe this is subjective. I don't consider 500 calories a lot of food, but to me it's a significant amount of running. A mouthful of food vs half an hour on a treadmill. > I'd bet money that the increased caloric intake of our ancestors is entirely explained by their increased physical activity. I'm not denying our ancestors were very much more physically active than we are. Probably that accounts for at least half the results despite us also eating half or less of the calories we used to. I think there could be confounding factors. Like a slightly warmer world would presumably mean the inhabitants burn less calories on an ongoing basis. Less obvious factors could invisibly add 50 or 100 calories per day and that would add up over time. By the way I am not fat! This isn't an attempt to avoid guilt :)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

segmondy 10y ago

Nah, blame your diet and caloric intake. You can however possibly blame your allergy! My allergy flares up when I eat out often, haven't been able to isolate it. When I eat at home for long and only home cooked meal, it clears up!