Helmet Law for Everybody (in NYC)
The magazines and weapons aren’t doing anything… Neither is the pop. People with bad eating habits will have bad eating habits until they correct them. 64oz at a time or 20oz at a time is not the problem, it is the poor choice to begin with that is.
The real problem is what people view as healthy. This:
is not much different than this:
So why are we not banning large quantities of fruit juice?
What about pizza? Cheesecake? Before condiments the average hot dog and fries at Nathan’s is almost 1000 calories. What about Starbucks? People have some grand illusions of what is healthy and myths about that is the problem.
Empty calories are too, but pop is not the sole source.
Hell, I saw a man the other day at Qdoba, larger guy, getting a burrito (800+ calories), a pop, and he had a protein shake (particular drink was 300 calories) and I am willing to bet he thought adding the protein was a good thing.
the commercial origins of soda (or ‘pop’ for the yinzers) can be found in beverages sold by pharmacists in drug stores with intentions of health benefits. in fact, [arguably] the most economically and culturally successful of these beverages initially included substantial quantities of *cocaine* in its ingredients, and its name still bears resemblance to this!
i hope this irony is not lost on all of us
Ahh, the late 70’s…
I guess it beats a helmet war.
Coincidentally the My Fitness Pal website that I’ve been using for some weight control now has a banner ad from the American Beverage council claiming that soda is not a major contributor to obesity and diabetes. Effing corporations are amazing.
Why would they care? Their sales volume will not be impacted.
No doubt, as it should. Life is easier for them if this doesn’t happen but it won’t really change a damned thing if it does. No reason not to fight it.
And after all, pop is not inherently evil anyway. Over consumption is. The “diet industry” is what has really fucked us over. People eat and consume based on myths not facts and proven science. That is enough for a whole new thread.
Another topic for an entire thread – an advertising and media machine that for 70-80 years has disseminated propaganda that Americans should get absolutely “what we want, when we want it”, no responsibility to others, to society, only to self. Completely juvenile. Part of the reason we think we “deserve” 100 oz sodas.
When I was in high school back in the Paleolithic age, we would stop at a deli on the way home and get half gallon cartons of iced tea to drink on the way home. We definitely considered it a single serving container. Of course we WALKED to school, would play pick-up basketball for hours on end, and we didn’t think twice about walking a few miles to go see a movie. With very few exceptions we were all skinny too. So I don’t think the fatness issue is only about the food.
Forgot about teas. Add that to the list of perceived to be healthy beverages that are empty calories. The problem is not the exercise, or lack of though. When you use a heart rate monitor and all the fancy equipment to determine the amount of calories burned you will see you need to work your ass off all day long to make an appreciable difference. Eating too many calories is *the* problem.
@orionz06: My understanding is that exercise does play a factor, but more in its effect on your baseline metabolic rate than via the direct caloric burn.
So, regular exercise causes your body, even resting, to burn X*1.25 calories per hour, as opposed to burning merely X calories per hour when regular exercise is not part of your life. That doesn’t count whatever additional calories are burned as part of the activity itself, of course.
This also explains why people who cycle daily for 10-15 miles are often thinner than those who ride 100+ miles once a week…
[Note that I am pulling this info from memory and all numbers are fictitious, as I’m too lazy to find references.]
In tracking my food intake over the last 4+- months I have discovered that the amount of food people are “supposed” to eat is ridiculously tiny. Like cups tiny, as opposed to plates.
If there was some way to get the amount of food people eat above what they are supposed to eat, to people who don’t have food, there would be no hunger anywhere in this country.
Yes, it can increase the BMR as well, but there are other factors at play. The only way to lose weight is to create a caloric deficit. This requires that you know your real BMR and you stick to the deficit. Increasing the BMR and adding in exercise is exceedingly difficult relative to how easy it is to just consume less food.
The problem enters when people try to do the 6 small meals a day, have fruit, have nuts, and avoid foods that are not bad for you. All of those things screw people over. Just eat less. It is really that simple. Food is energy, add what you need and nothing more. Add less to use existing stored energy.
If it were simply things like too much food, too little exercise, lack of education, lack of self control we would not have the problems that we do with obesity and diabetes and other chronic diseases. There’s a lot of factors working together here.
You know the childhood obesity epidemic that we keep hearing about? It’s not just children, it’s infants too. Infants are being lazy and playing video games and falling prey to fast food advertising. We’re talking about changes that are occurring in the womb during pregnancy due to Mom’s diet, and maybe Dad’s too that are creating epigenetic predispositions to disease.
Also, remember that this is not just an issue for the overweight. There is a rise in thin people getting diabetes and chronic diseases too. Some are skinny-fat in that they look lean, but actually have a high percentage of unhealthy body fat. So we can’t assume that we can gauge a person’s health and fitness just by glancing at them.
Sure, some cases are pretty easy. As a dietitian, I love easy cases, like the young woman who was having a hard time losing pregnancy weight but at only 5 feet tall she was drinking 1600 calories a day of sweet ice tea. Easy peasy. But as a whole the situation is more complex.
The Walt Disney Company, in an effort to address concerns about entertainment’s role in childhood obesity, plans to announce on Tuesday that all products advertised on its child-focused television channels, radio stations and Web sites must comply with a strict new set of nutritional standards.
It *is* too much food. How that happens might be harder to control but show me someone who has eaten their BMR-500kcal for a period of time and not lost fat.
If you live beside a Wendy’s and work at McDonald’s of course the odds are stacked against you but fat is fat is fat and is the result of stored energy, not a billboard.
@orionz- what about after that period of time? How sustainable will it be? One of the major problems we see in the research literature is that the body adapts and fights to keep it’s body fat. Even at the expense of BMR and lean tissue.
For example, Biggest Loser contestants by the end have a much lower BMR than people their size who have not been obese. Part of why it’s so hard to maintain weight loss is because the now lean body must continue to eat smaller than expected portions AND exercise much more than expected for a person of that size. Addressing the metabolic issues is more meaningful than just doing the math.
In the 18th century it was commonly thought there was a relationship between excessive amounts of blood and fever. The cure was bloodletting, which actually worked, sometimes. But it turned out that the actual physiological process underlying fever had nothing to do with the amount of blood in the body, and bloodletting was generally a really bad idea.
The relationship between overeating and being overweight seems more soundly based than 18th century theories, but consider that reducing caloric intake rarely works to reduce weight when tested over a long period, say five years. For one thing, the body seems to adjust (reduce its metabolic level) to get the weight back up to where it “thinks” it should be. For another, all the shaming in the world doesn’t seem to work well enough.
Some other treatments, especially gastric bypass, do seem to work well, and have passed in scientific tests. But advocating simply eating less as a cure for overweight, while obviously “right”, is not a scientifically supported treatment.
“…adding in exercise is exceedingly difficult relative to how easy it is to just consume less food.”
Perhaps easy for you. That is an extremely blithe statement and not at all true. I am finding it extremely hard to live within the 4 tablespoons of food I am “supposed” to eat every day. I can’t even imagine how difficult it must be for people with severe issues.
It is simple for me to hop on a bike and ride for 3 hours, but you are correct in saying that even that will not control weight.
Anonymous 06/05/2012 at 2:35pm #
@reddan 10-15 miles is about 40-60 minutes of riding time. And just out of 40 minutes range when you burn all you “spare” carbs. Cycling is an aerobic activity. So after ride you burning your callories for about a couple hours. The same is true for 100 miles. may be a little bit longer. But getting out 5 times a week you are getting 5 hours of ride and about 10 hours of post ride, total 15 hours. If you ride on a weekend 50 miles you will get the same 5 hours and 2 extra, total 7 hours.
BTW weight lifting (and any anaerobic workout)) speeds up you BMR much faster and you have post burning from 24 hours and up to 48 hours. And this is why you never do anaerobic workout two consecutive days. In terms of cycling — no interval training two days in a raw.
MrM could tell us a lot about it.
@tabby: Correct. Their BMR will be lower after a significant loss. The calculations are just estimates anyway. At that point the people should track their intake, exercise, and weight response and adjust accordingly.
@Edmonds: How much are you supposed to eat? How much are you eating? How much are you riding?
My point was that if we take the standard 500 calorie deficit that is almost universally accepted for weight loss it is more often than not easier for people to eat 500 less calories than to burn it off. This might only mean one less iced tea and having something other than a bagel and cream cheese for breakfast. That doesn’t mean do not exercise. If one can sustain that deficit and eat more because of exercise that is obviously better, but does everyone have 3 hours? Can everyone sustain the needed intensity? No matter the free time we all eat.
Anonymous 06/05/2012 at 2:54pm #
@tabby From what I’ve read and I’ve been told is that if you start to lose weight too aggressively then it’s a trigger point for your body to lower MBR. And this is a reason why doctors/dieticians recommend to lose no more than 2 pounds per week.
@mikhail, yes that is one of the reasons why I don’t recommend fast weight loss. However, slow weight loss is not a guarantee that it won’t happen and that the metabolism will return to a normal state.
Just getting people to consume water instead of pop, iced tea, whatever, is often half the battle. “I don’t like just water.” “I don’t trust the water.” Not available without asking. Can’t find water fountains. No water fountains to find. People aghast at the idea of re-using a plastic bottle to *gasp* carry water around. People eating when they’re only thirsty (and then going to a fast-food joint and dropping $7.50 on garbage).
There is no profit motive in getting people to drink water.
Slow weight loss is ideal but any significant weight loss needs to be accompanied by a lifestyle change. Your example of a Biggest Loser contestant. Once they lose 200# they need to keep eating like they are light. Their old habits got them where they were in the first place. In the spirit of the thread for some people this is just no more pop or beverages with calories.
@onrionz, actually my point was that the biggest loser contestants need to keep eating and exercising like they are losing weight just in order to maintain their weight loss. like 1500 cals and 4 hours of exercise per day kind of a thing.
I’m all for lifestyle changes and people taking control and making the best decisions they can for themselves every day. I just think that it’s worth understanding that it isn’t always simple and that you can’t necessarily make judgments about a person’s life based on how they look or how you think they live.
I agree. Weight loss does not stop once the scale says so. A significant loss like that needs a period of time where you need to learn what your body can and cannot do in order to maintain the losses. The Biggest Loser people would of course need to keep their plan that got them down in weight and slowly adjust to a more “normal” lifestyle.
My implications were not that it is easy but it *is* simple. Eat less, do more. There are other factors involved but none as important as the energy in-energy out. Stored energy, fat, is the problem. The solution will always be related to it.
I do not recall making any judgments on someones life based on how they look and I cannot begin to guess how anyone lives. Not sure where that comment was directed.
@ Tabby Part of why it’s so hard to maintain weight loss is because the now lean body must continue to eat smaller than expected portions AND exercise much more than expected for a person of that size.
Losing weight is hard. Most people that try are fairly successful at that though.
The seriously obese people I know well enough to know their history have all lost weight down to roughly normal at some point.
The hard part is keeping weight off.
Compared with that, losing weight is really fast and trivially easy. Measured in weeks and months. Not years and decades. Punk stuff.
Don’t make the hard part more difficult (and probably a struggle for a longer time) by making the quick, easy part faster and easier.
I recommend seriously slow weight loss. 1/2 lbs per week for most men with no history of rebound. Less for people under 5’5″ or for people who previously lost and regained.
Sound tortuously slow – and it is. But, aside from the health benefits of slow weight loss, it’s good training for maintaining low weight.
Far better for a morbidly obese person to lose 10 pounds a year than for them to yo-yo an extra 50 lbs on (again).
Note: I’ve had a few of my freinds tell me “I’m only losing a pound or two a week.” They are ALL over 350 lbs, now.
@orionz, the comment about judgment is a general one, not at you specifically.
So I’m supposed to have 1,690 cal/day, and 60 min exercise/day. That is not easy, that’s like eating like a freaking bird for me. I haven’t had more than about 1 soda/month for 20 or so years, not a soda drinker, so I didn’t have that to cut. Haven’t have any alcohol for 6 weeks. There’s no way that’s sustainable. I have been riding to work 3 or so days/week and something on weekends, but havent’ been able to ride due to family/work/other circumstances for 10 days, so that’s out.
I have lost 12-14 lbs since January, so I guess I’m on a slow loss track. But assuming I get down to a target weight, I don’t see it being sustainable, I see no way I can live like an ascetic monk for the rest of my life. The human body is a crappy piece of equipment as far as I’m concerned.
I’ve lost weight due to extreme stress, but that isn’t sustainable. Mainly because I have a huge goal of eliminating a lot of that stress. I guess I’m somewhat lucky though, that stress causes me to not eat rather than overeat….Of course, once I realized that I lost 10 pounds last month, I was in a better mood and started eating somewhat normally again and have probably gained a bit of it back.
I can say for sure though, that biking, and starting to attempt more difficult hills, has kept me feeling healthy despite how I feel about my looks. And yes, it definitely helps that I don’t get free soda at the bakery like I used to when I was a line cook.
Thank you Tabby and edmonds. I had a post half typed up, but realized you guys both said what I was trying to agree with much better than I could second.
We’re complicated creatures. The ban is neither a complete solution nor likely the most effective solution. But it is not an orwellian gateway freedom restriction (seriously?).
@edmunds59 But assuming I get down to a target weight, I don’t see it being sustainable,
Your mission, should you accept it, is to find a goal/target wieght/lifestyle that IS sustainable.
It doesn’t matter what you weight 3 months from now, it matters what you weigh three years from now.
If that is your current weight, that might be a little hard to swallow. But WAY better than 5 lbs heavier than you were when you started.
It’s silly to go through the painful sacrifice you have for the last 5 months, if it only leads you to be heavier a year from now than when you started. (With more intractable weight than before.)
I got my weight down to about 5 to 10 lbs overweight and kept it down there for almost a decade. Then I tried to lose those 5 more pounds – and ended up gaining 25 – which I am glacially slowly losing now. (4 fewer lbs between now and October, then 4 fewer in 2013)
@Edmonds… How are you getting those numbers? What kinds of foods are you eating that makes you feel like you are eating like a bird?
I am currently eating 1500 calories a day without issue, 200-300 increase for days I ride. I often have a hard time getting to my goal. I have a big chicken breast, greek yogurt, fibrous fruit, veggies, shrimp/salmon/tilapia, dinner is normally another meat and veggie, and normally have room to spare. Learning what is hunger and what is not is the big trick.
I give props to whoever is trying to manage their diet and health
Between being a vegan that eats homemade whole foods, cycling 30 miles a day and having a naturally lean body, I’m fortunate enough not to have to put too much thought into it
Orionz – I think it’s more learning what foods and what quantities of foods provide adequate fuel for one’s own body is the trick, not learning what hunger is and is not. (studies have also shown that some people have permanently broken their hunger reflex through long term obesity anyway, so even that may be impossible)
Your food list doesn’t include grains. Pierce’s doesn’t include animal products. My husband was on no grains, no dairy, until recently when he decided he just wasn’t gaining the weight he wanted to and felt less than great more often than not. I’ve tried lacto-ovo-veg, outright vegan, paleo, low carb, raw, raw with raw meats and sashimi, and weight watchers. Turns out the best diet for me, for sustained healthy weight management and general health, is to exercise an hour a day and then eat only what I crave (mostly super healthy lean meats, veggies, and fruits with a couple whole grains and dairy every once in a while). When I do that, it works. When I try to eat by someone else’s numbers or any numbers at all, I fail. But that’s me. My mom works WW numbers like a fiend and has sustained her loss for over 10 years. Everybody is different.
Lots of people claim that diets have “adjustment periods”, anywhere from a month to six months, but I also believe that some diets won’t mix well with some people’s biology (ignoring culture, which can have an equally huge role in dieting success). Maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know.
Edmonds, I’m barely educated on the topic, but I firmly believe that if you think something is unsustainable, it likely is. You’ve got a decent amount of self awareness, and you know how your body works (and not). I think you’ve got the gumption and stubbornness to figure it out for yourself. Don’t give up on your goal, even if you have to give up on a method that won’t get you there. Find a different one that will.
If the journey sucks, the destination will likely not be magically better.
If the journey sucks, the destination will likely not be magically better.
I may get a plaque made of that.
Yes, what each of us needs to eat to have life not suck and sustain the diet will be different but those differences do not allow us to stray from a caloric deficit to lose weight. Composition of the calories is very different but energy is energy. I eat grains, not all the time, I just listed my average workday foods. People need to figure out *how* to eat less than they currently are if they are overweight and their goal is to lose weight (or exercise). Regardless the deficit needs to be there.
We are both doing the same thing.
Ever see the South Park episode with the Toilet Safety Administration?
How much longer before I am required to have safety rails on my toilet and have some child molester give me a cavity search before I can drop a deuce in my own pot?
Let’s ban pizza, pop, candy, make everyone wear bike helmets, seat belts, etc. Maybe we should start making people wear helmets when they go for a walk, and knee pads since people CAN FALL when they go out for a walk.
While we’re at it, why don’t we have a national calorie law which requires you to report to the IRS how many calories you eat each day — and if you eat too many then they can garnish 75% of your paycheck, fine you, and throw you in jail.
We can make a law that requires all beds to have a safety rail installed so that nobody ever gets up on the wrong side of bed in the morning.
Why don’t we ALSO report to the IRS how many calories you burn exercising every day, (to be filed quarterly) then we can arrest people for Calorie evasion.
Anyone who wants the government to run every aspect of your life, please move to China already.
interesting insight: http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/do-bicycle-helmet-laws-do-more-harm-than-good.html
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Click here to login.