|
Obese have right to 2 airline seats: Canada court (pg. 22)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| failsafe |
Skipper, sorry to sound so harsh here.
You are very correct it is a two sided equation.
The first side of the equation is how much you eat.
The second side is how much you burn. If the intake is equal or less than the burn than you'll lose weight or remain the same. If the intake is greater than the burn, then anyone will put on weight.
As I mentioned before, there are no exceptions to this rule. To claim you're an exception would be saying that you've found a way to create energy from nothing, which is impossible.
Certainly people have thyroid problems, or slower metabolisms, but that doesn't exempt them from the very basic math. |
|
|
| Vivid Boy |
| Failsafe is actually very right about this. You need to find your balance between diet and exercise. Some people just need to work harder and play around with it. Most of the time when you go to a nutrionist or a personal trainer they give you a very generic map to follow. The problem is everyone is different. I'm very lucky, I can stop hitting the gymn for a while and I don't get fatter I just shrink in size a bit, but remain a bit cut. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by failsafe
Skipper, sorry to sound so harsh here.
You are very correct it is a two sided equation.
The first side of the equation is how much you eat.
The second side is how much you burn. If the intake is equal or less than the burn than you'll lose weight or remain the same. If the intake is greater than the burn, then anyone will put on weight.
As I mentioned before, there are no exceptions to this rule. To claim you're an exception would be saying that you've found a way to create energy from nothing, which is impossible.
Certainly people have thyroid problems, or slower metabolisms, but that doesn't exempt them from the very basic math. |
I didn't claim an exception.
What I did claim is that in the context of this issue, it's not entirely about how much you eat (which is within someone's control). It can also be about thyroid problems or slower metabolism, where the amount of food that would need to be consumed to balance out the in/out calorie equation is simply not nutritionally sound or sufficient to sustain a regular lifestyle. In that case, balancing the equation to maintain a healthy body weight is not within a person's control. |
|
|
| yankeeBaby |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jennypie
I wasn't directing any of that at you personally. My apologies.
QUOTE]
To be clear, there is a difference between taking something as a personal attack and feeling offended by a general statement. In using a different example, its kind of like saying "all poor people are lazy" or something like that. I know people tear apart different examples in these threads, so think broadly please. I am just using this as a reference point.
There are going to be reasons why people are poor: one guy maybe a lazy with no job, while another maybe a teen who lost his mom to cancer and has to support his family on a high school education pay. (or whatever exmaple you want to insert here). There are ALWAYS factors to why people are the way they are but people ususally dont care enough to find out why.
While I am NOT obese, or even close to it, I am simply using MY experiences as someone with weight troubles, and saying that it is unfair for people to assume that they are lazy or gluttons. YES, there are people out there who do this, but I am simply saying that I took offense to the BROAD bias and statements being made when I DO work hard at maintaining. (not just jenny but others).
and to answer failsagfe: I actually had a trainer for 2 years in college, as well as a nutritionist. on the summers I worked out with my best friend from college who is also a trainer. I KNOW what I am doing to take care of my body, and I DO exrcise portion control. You can claim all you want that this is "simple math" but, please, come do what I do for a few YEARS and not lose any weight and see how it feels. I have to work at this everyday simply to MAINTAIN my weight. I feel awesome, and I am not one of those fat people who is out of breath after 2 flights of stairs. The trainer that I originally was speaking about was BEYOND frustrated with my progress because he would try every routine in the book with little reward. (ask chimera, she has seen me bust it out hard on a elliptical for an hour and barely lose my breath...I am NOT out of shape by any means!) My muscle would grow like mad, but the extra weight would never go away.
I can sit here all day and repeat myself a hundred times but I can see that everyone here just thinks that "oh there is a way and you are just not doing it." This conversation is boring me and just not worth my time if people refuse to listen. There is a way and I will tell you how:
I recall a time that I did lose 15-20 lbs and do yo know what I was doing? Eating an orange and a piece of turkey a day for 6 months, working out 2 hours a day and taking diet pills. I was almost fainting trying to lose the weight because I was so sick of it. After 5-6 months I lost the above mentioned weight and then plateaued without losing anymore for 4 more months (doing the same routine). I refuse to do that to myself again, because, again, I chose to be HEALTHY. being healthy is more important to me than being super skinny. |
|
|
| failsafe |
I call utter and complete embellishment on your "orange and piece of turkey" sob story. Unless by piece of turkey, you actually meant entire turkey. There's no way possible you ate like 500 calories a day, FOR 6 MONTHS, and didn't waste away. Even a tiny person, which you claim not to be, would need over 1500 calories a day to sustain themselves. You claimed to be eating almost non-existent calorie intake, and working out at the gym for 2hrs a day. Do you think we're absolute morons?
In addition, you could spend 8hrs a day at the gym and it wouldn't do a thing. It's all about intensity, more so than duration. You claimed not to be winded after an hour on your machine of choice. That speaks volumes as to your intensity. You try and justify that because "you're in great shape". Olympic level athletes I'd dare say are in better shape than you. If you look at the athletes at the end of their events, they're covered in sweat and gasping for breath. I guess they need better trainers. |
|
|
| chimera66 |
| uh huh she speaks the truth she works it out hard at the gym. that's saying a lot coming from me because i'm a gym nazi. also about portion control, i'm around kelly enough that i can say with absolute certainty she eats damn healthy. it's not the same for everyone which is unfortunate. portion control works for people like me who aren't predisposed to carrying extra weight. |
|
|
| Skipper |
| quote: | Originally posted by failsafe
It's all about intensity, more so than duration. |
For cardiovascular strength, yes. For fat burning, no.
In any event, isn't it just calories in/out? |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
For cardiovascular strength, yes. For fat burning, no.
In any event, isn't it just calories in/out? |
I believe higher intensity results in faster calorie-burn. I think you burn more calories sprinting the 100 meter dash than you do walking it. So higher intensity would make for more efficient use of workout time, even if your only goal is weight-loss.
Everyone's goal should be to be HEALTHY though. Weight loss is great, but without some good, healthy muscle to replace what used to be fat, your skin just folds up and flabs around (ew). Muscle is more dense than fat, so if weight-loss is your only goal, then you might be disappointed when you lose all that fat only to find a 10 pound (I have no idea what the real difference would be, just deal with this as an example) difference between being unhealthy and fat, and healthy and solid. |
|
|
| chimera66 |
| there are a certain amount of calories one needs to stay at their current weight so yes simply to lose weight you need to create a deficit which is controlling calories in/out. the problem is for those who already consuming less calories than average and are still larger...can't really expect to eat less calories or you'll be borderline anorexic. |
|
|
| failsafe |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
For cardiovascular strength, yes. For fat burning, no.
In any event, isn't it just calories in/out? |
Incorrect. You will burn more calories in a given time at a higher intensity. Because you're burning more calories, you'll lose more weight. When you're working out around 60% intensity, it does target fat. However if you spent the same hour in the gym doing 80-85% intensity, you'd be burning a far greater number of calories
And yes, it is "just" calories in/out. |
|
|
| failsafe |
| quote: | Originally posted by chimera66
there are a certain amount of calories one needs to stay at their current weight so yes simply to lose weight you need to create a deficit which is controlling calories in/out. the problem is for those who already consuming less calories than average and are still larger...can't really expect to eat less calories or you'll be borderline anorexic. |
You start off correctly, then end up in the sewer at the end.
There are plenty of nutrient rich foods which will more than satisfy your daily requirements. If you stuck to the more nutrient dense foods it's fairly easy to reduce portion size while remaining healthy. If you're worried that you've cut back to the point where you're unable to consume the nutrients that your body needs, there's about a million multi vitamins on the market now. |
|
|
| Orko |
I'm with failsafe on this one. I am not fat, and have been considered thin most of my life, but in the last few years, after my metabolism slowed down, I started to gain fat all over my body.
So, over the last few years, I took up running, and have been biking as transportation for a long time. I worked my way up from 1KM to 5KM, a few times a week. I also biked about 20KM everyday, to and from school/work. Some how, the fat that I had put on, was staying on, and I was putting on more fat. I was pretty annoyed. I was working my ass off, and yet I did not see any results.
This year, I took up weight training to try and change things up. Same results. I was stronger, more capable, but still I had a gut. So somebody suggested a new diet for me. Very low carb, fat, and salt. After about a month of the new diet, and the continued work outs, results, finally results, which took me almost 2 years of trying different things.
I had to drastically change my lifestyle, in order to eat properly. Changed the way I shopped, the way I ordered food, the way I drank. Everything was about watching those carbs, sugars, and sodium. Now, it does not even feel like a big difference, as my habits have changed permanently. I have a very simple rule, when looking at a potential meal: am I going to use all this up?
I know, I do not fall into the regular category of 'just can't loose it', as I am small on a relative scale. But, as somebody who tried for a while, and then finally saw a difference, it is possible. It really is a matter of that simple equation. Stored energy = consumed energy - energy used. When the idea, and science behind this, is very simple, realisable, and attainable, there should not really be a question.
It goes back to what Digi was saying, as this is something you can change. The fact that this equation even exists for this type of problem should be a clue. There is no equation, or strategy to deal with a disability. In some cases you can try and go to rehab, or get surgery, but these are not science law, like an energy equation.
The simple fact that this problem is not defined in our laws, makes me mad that the courts ruled in favour of the seat allowance. If you are truly disabled some how, then you should be required to show a doctors note. If that were the case, then I think a lot more people would reevaluate their condition, and what they can actually do about it. |
|
|
|
|
