Students to Be Graded on Weight

[lorg]

FOX Students to Be Graded on Weight

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas — To combat childhood obesity, every Arkansas public school student this month will be receiving two report cards in the mail: one assessing them on math, science and social studies, and the other grading them on their weight.

Hell no. I'd never submit to or allow that, I'd tell them to stick it up where the sun don't shine. I'd flat out refuse to participate.

[Twisted Sister]

There is a opticians in the Netherlands that had a special offer about a year ago....you would get your weight off the cost of your glasses. So, if the scales in the store had you at 80 kg, you would get Euro 80 off the total cost of your eyewear, in essence, the fatter you were the cheaper your specs would be.

There was much boggling on my part, I find this appalling on so many levels. Anyway, it's kinda related to what you were saying, kinda.

[mrmooky]

There is also concern that the weight-oriented report cards may cause an epidemic of anorexia and bulimia among older students.

No fucking shit. I would have thought that concern alone would have been enough to stop them.

[lorg]

They already have a nurse that checks your health and stuff, nothing wrong with that. But they should keep that stuff to themselves or on that need to know basis.

Having a score card is just to much. One can't threat this like some school subject that can be thought. Plus I already think the kid and the parents know if the kids weight is to much.

[Serious Paul]

We're going to know how many are overweight, how many are underweight, how many are normal weight," said Margo Bushmiaer, health services coordinator for the Little Rock School District .

Considering the litigation situation against schools at times I don't blame them for taking this route. Hell I even know that this could in theory save a child or two. Having seen the results of what some people have done to childern in black&white, let me be the first to say Rock on!

As soon as next week, each parent will receive their child's ranking. The report cards also come with helpful health information, which aims to help parents make better meal choices for their kids, as well as reiterating the importance of exercise in everyone's life.

Notice they don't say "We post it on a billboard here at school!" Its a parents responsibility to use this information in an adult fashion in the best intrest of their childern.

Considering the growing obesity problem in American childern, this is a great idea.

If parents are irresponsible enough to let their childern know what other kids weigh-well the blame is on them. Kids tease each other-thats what they do. They make fun of fat kids regardless if they know the exact number-which they have no reason to know unless a parent tells them. This could be a step in the right direction to fight obesity, other weight related problems, and more importantly in my mind abuse.

I just hope this isn't the end of their attempts. They need to make a concerted effort to make Physical Fitness a sserious goal. Too many people laugh at the physical part of education. (I did too, my PE teacher was a rock.) And for the most part playing Dodgeball isn't really what I mean. I mean an organized plan for each child through out their career as a student.

[Serious Paul]

They already have a nurse that checks your health and stuff, nothing wrong with that.

Except that as I remember it, and this outdated so some one check me on it, most nurses are really first aid providers-bandaging knees, and scrapes-in America. Now is that different in Europe?

But they should keep that stuff to themselves or on that need to know basis.

I do agree there is a privacy issue, but I disagree, obviously, with where we draw the line.

Having a score card is just too much. One can't treat this like some school subject that can be thought. Plus I already think the kid and the parents know if the kids weight is to much.

Why is a score card too much? Is it the competitive conotation? I think Score card is a bad word to use.. I think they should use progress report-thats what this should be about. Making progress. Setting goals and achieving them.

By the way what happens if a parent knows their child is participating in an unhealthy behavior and is doing nothing to help their child? what if the parent is too incompetent to educate their child properly?

I'm not saying we should have a government agency in our homes telling us what to do, but being honest in our schools shouldn't be illegal.

[Kitt]

Hell no. I'd never submit to or allow that, I'd tell them to stick it up where the sun don't shine. I'd flat out refuse to participate.

Amen to that. See, I have this thing. I know I need to lose weight. I'm workin' on it. DON'T FUCKING REMIND ME!!! Besides, if my parents want to know what I weigh, they can ask. If I'm feeling particularly bad about it, I'll tell them to piss off. Otherwise, I'll let them know. The whole fucking school administration doesn't need to know that I need to shave 20 pounds off. And another thing: what about the people who are ripped, and by every pound value, need to lose at least 50 pounds? Do they get letters saying, "Your son/daughter needs to lose 50 pounds. They are obese. Please do something."?
This whole fight against childhood obesity is retarded. You wanna get rid of it easy? Outlaw fast food, cookies, potato chips, and any kind of high-calorie, high-fat snack. Sell kids fruit. Tell them, it's this shit or nothin. Take your pick. But then that would be taking away your freedom of expression and freedom from want. Whatever.

[MooCow]

I think this is a brilliant idea. There are tings I would change about it, most notably not going by weight but percent fat. Also, I'd go on healthy weight range, meaning we'd give bad grades for being under weight as well.

However, it's a step in the right direction.

I'd flat out refuse to participate.

And you would fail in my school. You are a child, and you will do what your principals and teachers tell you to.

There is also concern that the weight-oriented report cards may cause an epidemic of anorexia and bulimia among older students.

Because obesity would be so much better. </sarcasm>

That's a crock of shit. Saying that telling kids they need to lose weight will lead to anorexia is like saying telling kids not to do drugs will lead to them refusing to take medicine. Why are people so stupid they can't grasp the simple concept of teaching kids what a healthy weight is? Yes Anorexia is bad, but so is obesity. You don't fight one by allowing the other.

Amen to that. See, I have this thing. I know I need to lose weight. I'm workin' on it. DON'T FUCKING REMIND ME!!!

The exact same thing could be said about any subject in school. "I know I need to do better in physics, don't remind me." "I know I need to do better in math, don't remind me."

Besides, if my parents want to know what I weigh, they can ask

Parents are amazingly oblivious when it comes to their own kids. You don't want to think of your kid as being fat. Sometimes you need someone outside the family to say "Hey, this isn't good. It needs to change."

If I'm feeling particularly bad about it, I'll tell them to piss off.

If you were my daughter, you would just barely live to regret doing that.

what about the people who are ripped, and by every pound value, need to lose at least 50 pounds?

We can only assume that they are doing more then simple height/weight. If not, then I agree they need to change things.

The whole fucking school administration doesn't need to know that I need to shave 20 pounds off.

So why does the whole administration need to know you're failing math?

The purpose of a school is to educate you and prepare you with the knowledge, skills, and mindset you need to survive in life. If you're fat, then obviously there is something lacking in your knowledge base and your mindset.

It is not ok to be fat. It is wrong, and disgusting. People who are fat should be ridiculed just like we ridicule drug addicts, and people with bad grammar. In the end, it's for their own good.

[Johnny the Bull]

FOX Students to Be Graded on Weight

LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas — To combat childhood obesity, every Arkansas public school student this month will be receiving two report cards in the mail: one assessing them on math, science and social studies, and the other grading them on their weight.

Hell no. I'd never submit to or allow that, I'd tell them to stick it up where the sun don't shine. I'd flat out refuse to participate.

Thats bullshit. School should be looked at as a holistic preparation for life in the real world. Part of that is eating right and exercising. Fat people simply /do not get it easy/ in the real world. Thats why I am appriciative of the education I got. Math, Science, Economics, Business, History, Law, Philosophy, English, Weights, Sport and Cadets (optional). I got smart and built up a significant level of fitness and strength.

I get pissed off with the idea that intellect is paramount. With the amount of fat fucks in the west, people should realise that while the mental is important, so is the physical.

I just wish they'd institute this in Australia so all the fat physics fuckers would get up and run. They'll hate it, about as much as the fit jocks hate physics.

[Kai]

Thanks so much Moo. No really. Because losing weight is such a simple idea, because you can read a book, study a little, and poof it happens. Because of course, everyone has access to blood testing for thyroid problems and money for after school activities for kids (god knows you can't actually play any sports or go to a gym, or even find a basketball or tennis court if you're not already in shape and can't afford the fees). Because school cafeterias have such great menus of healthy food, and parents have so much time to spend with their kids between work.

Its not as simple as you want to make it, its an entire cultural problem that having someone else besides the doctor most kids see at least once a year anyways isn't going to fix. Weight and health is a long term, lifetime skill, Algebra and English Lit aren't. There's no test you can pass once and then forget about it like school, thats where you will get anorexics and bulimics, those kids who are overachievers, or suddendly go from fine to 'bad' in one year and panic, those parents upon seeing a report card then assume its obviously something their child just needs to try harder at and push them into doing whatever it takes to 'succeed'

For the record, I sure as hell wouldn't subject my kids to some hopped-up home etc teacher made consellor trying to talk to them about their 'poor weight performance', and if the school they went to tried that, that's what private schools are the voucher system are for.

[MooCow]

Individual findings are sent to the students' parents with guidelines on a healthy lifestyle. Because the BMI calculation doesn't consider muscle mass, parents are asked to take overweight children to a doctor to see if their child is truly unhealthy.

That's from Comcast News. So they aren't just ignoring the effect of muscle mass.

I'd also like to note that there is no indication that they are being "graded". Saying graded implies that this will effect their GPA. The article says "Last year Arkansas legislators passed a law requiring schools to find out the body-mass index of all schoolchildren and report to their parents." Sounds like all they're doing is alerting the parents to a potential problem. I'm all for that.

That Fox article is crap. It doesn't discuss the reasons why this was done, or the research that led to this law. Read the Comcast Article.

[mrmooky]

Why are people so stupid they can't grasp the simple concept of teaching kids what a healthy weight is? Yes Anorexia is bad, but so is obesity. You don't fight one by allowing the other.

Exactly. And you certainly don't fight one by introducing a ranking system that is going to encourage the other.

Now, I don't know how the grading for this thing actually works. It may be that they rank according to deviation from the mean BMI score or similar, rather than giving the most underweight students the top ranking.

The latter system would be incredibly stupid as there would be enough kids out there - especially teenage girls - who would want the number one ranking for their school/class/social circle for the public to be concerned about a rise in anorexia and bulimia. But even if the ranking was based on deviation, I can see a few problems. You can tell the typical anorexic a thousand times that anorexia is even more unhealthy than obesity, and they won't listen to you. Don't expect them to act rationally, because they are not rational people with regard to their weight. Even if you're going to give the underweight a lesser ranking, the title of "most underweight" would have a lot of appeal to anorexics. In a school with more than one student with an anorexic-type mindset, they will probably want to compete for that title.

I am not convinced that the ranking system is necessary in combating obesity. If you receive a document from your child's school telling you that he is morbidly obese and that his health is at great risk, is the additional information that he is the fifth-fattest child in the school really necessary?

[lorg]

Except that as I remember it, and this outdated so some one check me on it, most nurses are really first aid providers-bandaging knees, and scrapes-in America. Now is that different in Europe?

Can't speak for the whole continent but here they are actuall nurses with all that that includes, education etc. But then we don't have the same lawsuit culture either so they might be able to do a bit more then just handing out asprin and moist towels.

Why is a score card too much? Is it the competitive conotation? I think Score card is a bad word to use.. I think they should use progress report-thats what this should be about. Making progress. Setting goals and achieving them.

I'm not very fond of scoring and grading in general. If they are truely worried about the weight of children this is a medical problem that should be dealt with by medical professionals.

But sure PE in school is good in many ways, not just for fitness. But as you mention it is a bit much of playing dodge ball and not enough actuall fitness training. On a personal note we had a former army major as our PE teacher so we ran obsticle courses every second class and played some game the other.

By the way what happens if a parent knows their child is participating in an unhealthy behavior and is doing nothing to help their child? what if the parent is too incompetent to educate their child properly?

If they are truely misstreating their children that is a job for the social welfare people not some bandage nurse and the principle of the school the kids go to.

I'm not saying we should have a government agency in our homes telling us what to do, but being honest in our schools shouldn't be illegal

So IQ tests are fine then to? Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nobody, little Timmy scored a whooping 86 on his last IQ test and is concidered retarded and we can no longer offer him the education he needs.

Teachers here can't call students stupid, even if they infact are that, so neither should they be able to tell them that they are fat sobs.

And you would fail in my school. You are a child, and you will do what your principals and teachers tell you to.

I refused to do a lot of things in school and they couldn't fail me cause of that. Their job is to teach not tell me how live my life.

As noted I don't think this would cause massive amounts of anorexia or bulimia either, I think this is a privacy and medical issue and non of their fucking business simply cause they don't have the education or medical training to handle it or do anything about it.

It is not ok to be fat. It is wrong, and disgusting. People who are fat should be ridiculed just like we ridicule drug addicts, and people with bad grammar. In the end, it's for their own good.

Fuck that! Just like some people are born with the potential for a high IQ, easy to learn or whatever some or born with the potential or "destiny" (of lacking a better word) to become fat. I can live of sallad and work out two - three times a week, I feel fine, my doctor tell me I'm doing fine, all the tests say I'm fine but I'm truely fucked up according to BMI.

I get pissed off with the idea that intellect is paramount. With the amount of fat fucks in the west, people should realise that while the mental is important, so is the physical.

Well for me it is. But then I probably fall into your fat fucks category of people and short of sucking the fat from my body thru surgery it ain't coming off. But what I do not do is going around showing my IQ score in people faces or make fun of them cause their score is worse then mine.

If losing weight was just a matter of eating less and moving more it wouldn't be a problem unfortunatly that ain't all. Losing weight is easy in theory, a whole lot harder practically.

[MooCow]

Now, I don't know how the grading for this thing actually works. It may be that they rank according to deviation from the mean BMI score or similar, rather than giving the most underweight students the top ranking.

I don't think that's what they are doing. There is no indication in the Comcast article that they are actually comparing the students to each other. I think the Fox article used a poor choice of words.

[MooCow]

I can live of sallad and work out two - three times a week, I feel fine, my doctor tell me I'm doing fine, all the tests say I'm fine but I'm truely fucked up according to BMI

Which is why, as the article I posted stated, they use BMI as an indicator something /might/ be wrong.

You are blowing this way out of proportion. What they are doing, as clearly evidenced by the article, is reporting to parents their children's BMI. They are not "grading" them, and no one is going to be failed because of it. It clearly states that the report tells parents that BMI does not take into account many factors, and that they should take their child to a medical professional.

I'm not very fond of scoring and grading in general. If they are truely worried about the weight of children this is a medical problem that should be dealt with by medical professionals.

Ummm... hello? That's exactly what they do. "Dear parent, we believe your child may have a weight problem. You should have them evaluated by a medical professional."

So IQ tests are fine then to? Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nobody, little Timmy scored a whooping 86 on his last IQ test and is concidered retarded and we can no longer offer him the education he needs.

Did anything in the article suggest that someone's education was going to be taken away because they were fat? No, it didn't.

I think this is a privacy and medical issue and non of their fucking business simply cause they don't have the education or medical training to handle it or do anything about it.

So then you don't think that a teacher should bring potential signs of abuse, depression, suicidal tendecies, anorexia, bulemia, or learning disabilities? After all, they aren't qualified to actually diagnose any of these things, so they shouldn't make any attempt to alert the proper people to it.

born with the potential or "destiny" (of lacking a better word) to become fat

That's bullshit. The % of people who are obese because of severe medical conditions that can not be treated is incredibly small.

But what I do not do is going around showing my IQ score in people faces or make fun of them cause their score is worse then mine.

I'm sorry, but who is doing that? Except for me, I don't think anyone in the school system advocated that.

If losing weight was just a matter of eating less and moving more it wouldn't be a problem unfortunatly that ain't all

Well actually it really is.

Losing weight is easy in theory, a whole lot harder practically

According to who? I've never seen a reputable Doctor, Trainer, or Dietician say that losing weight was "easy".

It is hard, but it shouldn't be impossible. If you find it impossible, then you should consult a doctor (as the school report clearly indicates to do). It's what I did, and amazingly enough I am far healthier now then I was 2 years ago.

[3278]

1. Grading students on "weight" is stupid. Grading students on "fitness" is not.

2. Over-emphasis on the "wrong" portions of fitness - weight instead of health - does, in fact, lead to body dismorphia* conditions like anorexia and bulemia.

3. Losing weight is easy. People who can't lose weight are lazy. The number of people for whom losing weight is actually not easy is vastly smaller than the number of people who use that as an excuse not to try harder.

4. The most sad portion of all of this is that it might actually need to be done. I weigh and measure the height of my child every two weeks. I exercise with her. I know exactly how many miles she can walk, how her cardiovascular fitness is, and so on, just as I do with anyone else I spend a lot of time with. That parents might not recognize obesity or its dangers in their own children is pathetic.

*Can you even use that in this context? Well, I don't care; I like the word.

[MissTeja]

My biggest question is, if the parents, who spend day after day with their children, get a letter from the school in the mail saying their child is unhealthy and should excercise more, what is that really going to do?

For the parent who already acknowledges the problem, this could make them become harsher on the child. While their health is important, we must remember that children are delicate and they're desperately trying to build self-esteem during these years. Having their parents coming down on them in anything but a patient, yet encouraging manner could be very detrimental to areas of their health that are not physical.

For the parent who does not already acknowledge the problem, what is this school expecting? That parents will suddenly get smacked hard enough that that little light bulb in their head turns on finally? Most parents with children in these conditions for this long of a period of time will either not acknowledge that their is a problem, or be obese themselves and not want to face the music.

When it comes right down to it, yes, weight is easy to take off. All it takes is some willpower, commitment and minor lifestyle changes. However, I do believe that keeping it off is a whole nother ballgame. It's possible, but for many, this point is where it honestly becomes difficult.

Children need encouragment for healthy lifestyles. Hats off to this school for having the balls to stand up and face parents, in hopes that at least a couple might do something about it. I do think there's some problems with the option they chose, but at least they're trying something. And I'm sure before making such a big expenditure, they have a healthier-than-most cafeteria food selection and other non-hypocritical face-saving measures. I hope.

One alternative to this plan that I think would work just as well if not better would be to have the school's P.E. teacher discuss these things with parents already at parent-teacher conferences, where they can be one on one rather than a parent getting a very impersonal, dry flyer in the mail.

[Gunny]

I refused to do a lot of things in school and they couldn't fail me cause of that. Their job is to teach not tell me how live my life.

Not entirely true. In all the schools I attended, participation was a healthy chunk of your grading. If you can show good reason for your refusal to participate (against religion, pacifist, etc) then you can make up for it by some other means. Otherwise, you are docked in grade for not participating and that /can/ give you a failing grade.

But that's Texas, I can't speak for other schools across America.

[Salvation122]

Jesus, is this the week for stupid political bullshit?! I swear to God, every time I see the news it makes me want to throw something heavy at the TV or across the room. Hard.

[Daki]

Going off memory of an article I read months ago so I don't have many of the specifics. One of the school districts here in Illinois (Naperville I believe) has turned Physical Education in actual EDUCATION. Each student has their body fat tested and learns the basics of exercise and how to do it properly. Examples:

- How to understand nutritional information and the difference between fats, carbs, and their effects on your system.

- Determining their target heart rate when exercising (either for cardio improvement or weight loss)

- Proper methods for exercising and lifting weights. Dispelling old myths about certain things and teaching them how to find a routine that works for them.


Depending on what category the child falls into, the exercise portion of PE is suited to them. Children who are dangerously overweight or poor when it comes to their fitness are put on programs to help with the problem. It's a great program that is focusing on actual education. The best part, the dozen or so students interviewed loved it. One in particular who was very overweight was going up to the teacher after every class, convered in sweet, and smiling about the imporvements in his distance on the bike while keeping his heart rate in the target area.

Kids are not stupid nor blind. Those that are ovverweight, in my opinion, would welcome a teacher treating them more as an adult than a child and teaching them how to imporve their situation. Granted this was one school and one article but each child said they were very happy to learn everything in that class.

In spirit, I agree with the idea in the article Moo posted here. The particulars leave much to be desired but I am seeing more and more children who are overweight and obese. If the parents cannot educate them on nutrition (because many adults don't know themselves) then I'm glad some school are starting to teach it.

[Cain]

1. Grading students on "weight" is stupid. Grading students on "fitness" is not.

Agreed.

2. Over-emphasis on the "wrong" portions of fitness - weight instead of health - does, in fact, lead to body dismorphia* conditions like anorexia and bulemia.

*No, you can't use dysmorphia that way. You're right that overemphasis on weight leads to eating disorders, but anorexia and bulimia are not primarily delusional disorders. Nitpick over.

3. Losing weight is easy. People who can't lose weight are lazy. The number of people for whom losing weight is actually not easy is vastly smaller than the number of people who use that as an excuse not to try harder.

Losing weight is easy. Losing weight healthily is more difficult. Keeping the weight off is ever more difficult.

Look, the big problem nowadays isn't just the obesity issue-- it's the yo-yo weight loss. Set point theory means that we can lose a lot of weight quickly, but our bodies will try and gain it all back, even on a mildly restricted diet. True weight loss involves total lifestyle change, which is not easy for anyone. (Plus the fact that healthier foods are typically more expensive... if I could afford to eat salmon and wild rice instead of ground chub and instant potatoes, I sure as hell would.)

What will help this? For one, eliminate vending machines from all schools-- no selling of soda or cookies except at bake sales. Second, completely re-evaluate school lunches, so they provide the healthiest and least-fattening foods possible. Replace every damn bread product with whole-grain foods. Give out snacks of fruit and desserts of yoghurt instead of chips and jello. Show parents that you're practicing what you preach.

[Szechuan]

2. Over-emphasis on the "wrong" portions of fitness - weight instead of health - does, in fact, lead to body dismorphia* conditions like anorexia and bulemia.

*No, you can't use dysmorphia that way. You're right that overemphasis on weight leads to eating disorders, but anorexia and bulimia are not primarily delusional disorders. Nitpick over.

How do anorexia and bulimia not involve at least a mild delusion? Teach me!

[3278]

You're right that overemphasis on weight leads to eating disorders, but anorexia and bulimia are not primarily delusional disorders.

That's...an interesting perspective.

Losing weight is easy. Losing weight healthily is more difficult. Keeping the weight off is ever more difficult.

No, it's all pretty easy. Unless you're one of a very few select people, weight loss is this simple: use more energy than you take in. Keeping weight off is just as simple: don't take in more energy than you use. That's it. It's really simple: what apparently isn't simple for most people is getting off their asses. That's what people are unwilling to do. The simple fact of the matter is, if you're fat, you could be not-fat if you just got off your ass.

Most people seem to think it'll happen all at once, too: that's silly. If you can notice changes in your body that quickly, you're probably overdoing it. What you have to do is walk an extra hour a day, eat a little less [or a lot less] and do that for six months. Then weigh yourself. You'll weigh less than you did six months earlier.

True weight loss involves total lifestyle change, which is not easy for anyone.

That's a choice. I think it can be easy if you just do it and stop saying it's hard.

(Plus the fact that healthier foods are typically more expensive... if I could afford to eat salmon and wild rice instead of ground chub and instant potatoes, I sure as hell would.)

Myth. Healthier food doesn' t have to be more expensive, but that generally means - gasp! - more work. Which is something fat people usually aren't in to.

What will help this? For one, eliminate vending machines from all schools-- no selling of soda or cookies except at bake sales. Second, completely re-evaluate school lunches, so they provide the healthiest and least-fattening foods possible.

Amen! How schools can justify having pop machines is beyond me. Kids should eat at least as well at school as they do at home. [And they really, really don't.]

[Cain]

How do anorexia and bulimia not involve at least a mild delusion? Teach me!

Well, first of all, they're completely separate disorders.

Bulimia basically only has one symptom, and that's the binge/purge cycle. Your actual weight doesn't factor into it anywhere-- there are both emaciated and obese people with bulimia, and some of normal weight. You don't need any unrealistic body imagery to have bulimia, you only need to binge/purge on a regular basis.

Anorexia is a bit more complex, and in fact Bulimia can be secondary to an anorexia diagnosis-- part of why they're confused so readily. But while the popular misconception is that they see themselves as groosly fat, that isn't really the situation. What we have are unrealistic body shape expectations, and not delusions.

Here are the diagnostic criteria for anorexia. Note that body delusions aren't required, just unrealistic/overexaggerated body shape goals. A delusion is much more serious disturbance overall.

No, it's all pretty easy. Unless you're one of a very few select people, weight loss is this simple: use more energy than you take in. Keeping weight off is just as simple: don't take in more energy than you use. That's it.

Good grasp of the basics, but not so good on the specifics.

Yes, any weight loss program will require a reallocation of calories in vs. calories out. However, losing fat as opposed to weight is a bit more difficult than that. Anyone can crash-diet, and lose a bundle of pounds; but much of that will be water loss. Also, crash-dieting can lead to other serious health issues, such as malnourishment or vitamin deficiency. You can't just reduce your calories; you have to very carefully choose what nutrients come along with those reduced calories.

Besides which, the body can only lose so much fat poundage per week; no matter how hard you diet, losing more than a pound or two of fat every week isn't possible for most. And even if you do, it's not healthy. (I once got laryngitis so bad, I couldn't eat for three days. I lost ten pounds. I very nearly ended up in the hospital. Extreme example, but I think you get my point-- gradual weight loss is better than abrupt.)

Second, you don't seem to be aware of set point theory. Once you've lost some fat, your body thinks it's in a starvation cycle, and responds by lowering your metabolism. You need to either decrease your calories or increase your exercise to compensate; which makes your body slow down the resting metabolism even more, ad infinitum.

The set point can be changed with regular excercise and adding extra lean muscle, but it's not "easy" by any stretch of the imagination. It can take years of excercise to permanently alter your set point, and even longer for some people.

None of this really contradicts your point, but it does go to show that it's not as easy as "eat less and excercise more".

That's a choice. I think it can be easy if you just do it and stop saying it's hard.

How readily could you quit smoking? Reduce your internet time by two hours a day?

Completely overhauling your life is not easy, since changing ingrained habits is never a simple matter. It's doable, but I don't think it's quite as easy as you make it sound.

Myth. Healthier food doesn' t have to be more expensive, but that generally means - gasp! - more work. Which is something fat people usually aren't in to.

Okay. I live in Seattle, and we have a lot of salmon around these parts. Even so, good salmon costs about 10 dollars a pound for fresh-caught Chinook, the best and healthiest kind. Compare that to 1.29/lb for ground chub, there is a huge difference.

Or try this: Compare two types of carbohydrates, ramen noodles and amaranth noodles. Whole-grain amaranth is decidedly a whole lot healthier than ramen; ramen also has added fat and sodium, plus a ton of preservatives. Whole-grain araranth noodles, last I checked, was going for about five dollars a package. Ramen was going for three dollars a *crate*-- ten cents a packet.

There are many popular unhealthy foods that are dirt cheap-- in fact, that's why they're so popular. If you could afford prime Idahos, would you eat instant potatoes? Yes, heathly eating doesn't have to be overly expensive; but they can't compete with the dirt cheap stuff.

BTW-- I could work for my salmon. I could spend a hundred or so on fishing gear, another hundred on boat and motor rental, plus launch fees, and go out for a day to get all the salmon I can catch. Of course, game restrictions only allow me to catch one chinook each launch, and I'm not that good of a fisherman, so maybe I'd get two in a day. On an average chinook, I'd end up with about ten pounds of edible meat on each. So, I'd have spent two hundred dollars for a maximum of 20 lbs of salmon. Ten dollars a pound, and a full day of my life. If I have the time, it wouldn't be so bad; but if I'm busy with school and life and a baby girl, it's not worth the investment.

[Marius]

You need to either decrease your calories or increase your exercise to compensate; which makes your body slow down the resting metabolism even more, ad infinitum.

No, not ad infinitum. Don't be silly.

Yes, heathly eating doesn't have to be overly expensive; but they can't compete with the dirt cheap stuff.

Baloney. Screw amaranth. Regular pasta is not more expensive than ramen. Fresh vegetables are about as inexpensive as food gets. Rice couldn't possibly be cheaper. Chicken breast costs almost nothing.

[Cain]

No, not ad infinitum. Don't be silly.

Exaggeration, but you get the point. It can continue spirialing down for quite a while.

Baloney. Screw amaranth. Regular pasta is not more expensive than ramen. Fresh vegetables are about as inexpensive as food gets. Rice couldn't possibly be cheaper. Chicken breast costs almost nothing.

Regular pasta isn't the healthiest-- whole grains have the most health benefits. Regular isn't as bad as ramen, but it's not ten cents a pack, either. Fresh veggies depend on your area and season, although frozen are usually affordable. Rice prices, in my area at least, have shot through the roof recently. (And wild rice, the healthiest, is still astronomical.) Chicken breast, boneless and skinless, is going for five bucks a pound in my area. (Frozen is cheaper, but not by much-- I paid twelve bucks for about 3 pounds.)

Healhier choices are availiable and affordable, but the *healthiest* choices cost through the roof. And making those healthier choices taste good does require more cooking skill.

[Serious Paul]

Can't speak for the whole continent but here they are actuall nurses with all that that includes, education etc. But then we don't have the same lawsuit culture either so they might be able to do a bit more then just handing out asprin and moist towels.

Yeah see around here, as far as I know (and this is just what I gather from my sister and cousin who have school age childern, my own are still not at the age they'll attend anytime soon.) here in Michigan, and this is pretty similar I think (again with the caveat) the rest of the US, Nurses may be actual nurses, but few schools utilize them beyond first responder roles.

Which I think is a shame. I agree with 3278, Daki,JTB, yourself and some of the others who have stated we need more education and less smear the queer with basketballs.

I took a weightlifting and fitness course in my junior year with Uncle Joseph. Of the 20 or so guys who took the class, only five or so of us were actually lifting weights, and getting some sort of idea of our overall fitness level. Most of the rest of them were kicking the bobo with each other and bowling (Don't ask-it was huge at our HS for whatever reason...)

I think, and as I walked through Meijer's today I think my experience backs me up, that we don't actually emphasize the body as part of our education. Jocks are dumb, and all brains are weakilings, right? Why shouldn't we try for the best of both in our childern?

Now I am not going to say we should do it at the exspense of their self esteem, or something like that, but I do think we have to go further than we do.

Now I am not going to comment too much on weight loss-the fact is every one has a different body and no one proven method works best-otherwise we'd all do it. But i can say that we as a nation need to be honest with ourselves. being heavy doesn't make you a bad person-just an unhealthy one. Eventually you will pay the price.

Now I do recognize its your right to eat what you want and etc...but I don't honestly think for one minute any of us would like to be heavy, heavier or that we'd rewfuse skinny if it were offered to us.

I'm not very fond of scoring and grading in general. If they are truely worried about the weight of children this is a medical problem that should be dealt with by medical professionals.

I disagree. Your doctor shouldn't exclude any one else from your care if they want to participate. Its a medical problem that can be dealt with holistic methods. why not make fitness a community goal? Not the facetious pursuit of vanity, but real fitness.

If they are truely misstreating their children that is a job for the social welfare people not some bandage nurse and the principle of the school the kids go to

Well see I think an adminsitrator, and a teacher have the duty to point out things like this to me. If my child wasn't being taught correctly at home, I'd want to know.

My child's education is not about me-its about them.

So IQ tests are fine then to? Dear Mr. and Mrs. Nobody, little Timmy scored a whooping 86 on his last IQ test and is concidered retarded and we can no longer offer him the education he needs

But, uhm,, we do testfor IQ's-basically. We have standardized testing that all students have to pass to get beyond certain grade levels, general requirments.

And while your example is extreme, I'd say that we aren't near doing anything like that. But a lot of childern are in ISD/Emotinally/Physically Impaired classes, and schools, and programs. We obviously feel the need as a society to educate everyone, I don't seethat changing here.

And no teachers can't call you stupid, but they can treat you like that. And thats wrong too. I think a teachers goal is supposed to be to push students towards their eventual intergation into adult society. This means, in my mind, teaching them not only the basics of book lore and human knowledge, but how to be a healthy responsible adult.


Of course as I post this I am eating a brat smothered in hot mustard and drinking a malted beverage.

[Buzzed]

As long as the school keeps the weight of each kid private, and not affect their gpa/overall school record, kepping this 100% out of the child's records, then im all for this. It's merely a reminder to parents.

If the weight info does transfer over to another school in the child's records, that would be a violation of privacy.

Now forcing every child to conform to a particular weight, or be excluded or penalised for it, well that would be like Hitler trying to create a superior race.

[Cain]

Yeah; my objection to this comes from a mental image of every kid tromping up for a weigh-in, with the whole line watching.

I suppose what I see as wrong with this idea is that kids won't be taught actual physical education; they'll just be told to play sports. And the fact that cafeteria lunches probably won't change-- last time I checked, school lunches were still greasy ground msytery meat, mac and cheese-flavored food product, a half-scoop of squoogy peas, jello, and a white dinner roll. Oh, and a half-pint of chocolate milk. There's a whole lot of room for improvement there; if we're going to teach kids to eat right, we need to serve them the right foods.

[Serious Paul]

I agree it shouldn't be a bunch of kids lining up. I think there is a classier way to do it-even if we line them up in groups, there should be a tact about it.

[mrmooky]

Now, I don't know how the grading for this thing actually works. It may be that they rank according to deviation from the mean BMI score or similar, rather than giving the most underweight students the top ranking.

I don't think that's what they are doing. There is no indication in the Comcast article that they are actually comparing the students to each other. I think the Fox article used a poor choice of words.

I hope so. If it's anything like the "second report card" the media's making it out to be, you're going to get a lot of kids opening their parents' mail and comparing results anyway. The moment you implement a universalised grading system, you're giving anorexics et al a standard for competition.

Another potential problem: if the date of the weight measurements is known, you're likely to get a number of overweight students crash dieting before that date.

[crone]

A study in the UK has shown that a third of parents don't realise their kid is overweight. It seems like a good idea for someone reliable to tell them. Some months ago here there were a lot of news stories about rising rates of obesity amongst children, and how parents don't realise it. This media hype was not accompanied by any information about what a healthy weight was, or how to find out.

Every time I measure my kids' heights, I get different results. I know their height to within about 4 inches. Every set of scales I use gives different results - by several pounds. I hope that these schools are giving accurate results.

[Serious Paul]

Now thats something I have seen as well. Quite often scales and measuring systems don't match up at all. In example the scale I use at home reads different than the machine at Meijers, and the three at work. (Which all read different from each other by the way.)

We definitely need to make sure we're using equipment that calibrated correctly.

[TLM]

Ok, on a slightly related topic; Anyone have any tips for helping me /gain/ weight? I'm about 80 kg, and my optimal BMI is supposedly 95 kg. I eat rich foods (plenty of meat, gravy, enough fruit and veg) and I eat regularly and in pretty hefty portions. I just can't seem to gain weight.

This is genetic, by the way. My dad's the same way and from I was 14 I could wear his clothes. We swap shirts fairly regularly, and clothes tailored to him will fit me almost perfectly, and vice versa.

The reason I bring this up is that Moo very nicely blasted genetic characteristics as a factor in how much you weigh. For those interested, I can supply a list of my staple foods so you can judge for yourself how I could avoid putting on any weight from what I eat. I've been trying for over 7 years to put on weight, and I didn't have any success even before I started smoking.

Now some of you will probably go "Oh, boo hoo, poor baby can't get fat." Yeah, well. Looking like a borderline anorexic isn't fun either. There's a good reason I wear pretty baggy clothes.

[Szechuan]

How do anorexia and bulimia not involve at least a mild delusion? Teach me!

Well, first of all, they're completely separate disorders.
Here are the diagnostic criteria for anorexia. Note that body delusions aren't required, just unrealistic/overexaggerated body shape goals. A delusion is much more serious disturbance overall.

So we're talking about the same thing but using different words. Gotcha.

[3278]

But while the popular misconception is that they see themselves as groosly fat, that isn't really the situation. What we have are unrealistic body shape expectations, and not delusions.

I suppose we can short-circuit the entire issue by returning to the origin of the issue: Over-emphasis on the "wrong" portions of fitness - weight instead of health - does, in fact, lead to body dysmorphia disorders as well as related conditions like anorexia and bulemia.

Good grasp of the basics, but not so good on the specifics.

Gee, thanks. Since I was talking about the basics and not the specifics, I'll try real hard not to be insulted.

Yes, any weight loss program will require a reallocation of calories in vs. calories out. However, losing fat as opposed to weight is a bit more difficult than that. Anyone can crash-diet, and lose a bundle of pounds; but much of that will be water loss. Also, crash-dieting can lead to other serious health issues, such as malnourishment or vitamin deficiency. You can't just reduce your calories; you have to very carefully choose what nutrients come along with those reduced calories.

I didn't suggest you should crash-diet. In fact, I suggest you don't. Personally, I think most people need to keep their calorie intake about the same - while leaving out the ucky stuff like caffeine, sugar, [too much] fat, etc. - but increase their physical activity gradually but drastically. It might not even be easy, but it won't kill you.

Besides which, the body can only lose so much fat poundage per week; no matter how hard you diet, losing more than a pound or two of fat every week isn't possible for most. And even if you do, it's not healthy.

Right, but I didn't suggest you do that, either.

Second, you don't seem to be aware of set point theory.

That's a fallacious assumption. In any case, I suggest that what I've recommended in no way is counterindicated by set point theory. You've given a reason that someone might find it difficult to continue losing weight consistantly for a short period, but not that someone who does what I suggest would not lose significant amounts of weight in six months.

None of this really contradicts your point, but it does go to show that it's not as easy as "eat less and excercise more".

But, see, it's not. If you eat less, and exercise more, you'll lose weight. It's that simple. The fact that you shouldn't eat /too much/ less, or exercise /too much/ more, is common sense. No one's suggesting you drop your caloric intake by 80 percent and run 12 miles a day. I find generally what works is to remove certain high-calorie foods - say, Mountain Dew, or cheese - from your diet, and replacing them with something more nutritious and less calorie-filled, and to start walking for a while each day. Maybe the first day you're such a pussy you can only walk for half an hour. Fine. That's where you start, and you walk for half an hour a day until you can walk for more than that. You park as far away as you can in parking lots. You walk across the office to talk to people instead of using the phone. You drink a half-gallon or more a day of water.

Eat less, exercise more. It's that simple. Can more be said on the issue? Yes. But it really is that simple.

How readily could you quit smoking? Reduce your internet time by two hours a day?

At various times, I've had to do each one for periods of months or years. It's not really that hard; you just have to do it. I went from a fifth of liquor a day to being dry for two years, and I did it in one day. You just say, "No more," and then the next time you want to do it, you don't. It's not hard, so long as you have self-control and willpower.

Which is really what this is all about. If you're fat, it's because you don't have enough self-control and willpower. [And you live in a civilization that's made physical effort unnecessary.] If you're fat, you know what needs to be done to make you not-fat - and it's not Vitamin K shots or the South Beach Diet - but you're just not doing it.

Okay. I live in Seattle, and we have a lot of salmon around these parts. Even so, good salmon costs about 10 dollars a pound for fresh-caught Chinook, the best and healthiest kind. Compare that to 1.29/lb for ground chub, there is a huge difference.

Dude. You don't need to buy "the best" salmon to eat "well." C'mon.

[Cain]

Personally, I think most people need to keep their calorie intake about the same - while leaving out the ucky stuff like caffeine, sugar, [too much] fat, etc. - but increase their physical activity gradually but drastically. It might not even be easy, but it won't kill you.

I know what you mean, but you're sounding an awful lot like the stupid crash-diets from a supermarket magazine. The reason why it's not as simple as "eat less and excercise more" is because if you have a choice between altering your diet by dropping a soda and dropping a salad, you should drop the soda! Too many fad diets only focus on overall calories. In fact, from a bulk standpoint, you may feel like you're eating "more"-- your foods may have less calories, but take up more space in your stomach.

Clearly, you're right when you say that we should cut out the icky stuff! In fact, "Cut out the icky stuff" is a better diet plan than "Eat less and excercise more!"

But, see, it's not. If you eat less, and exercise more, you'll lose weight. It's that simple.

It's not, but it makes for a nice sound bite. You know that it's possible for people to eat *more*, excercise more, and lose fat. It's also possible for people to eat less, excercise more, and *gain* weight (but lose fat).

I know you mean lose fat instead of weight; but earlier you pointed out that we all overemphasize weight instead of fitness. Fat percentage is the unhealthy factor, and reducing your fat percentage to healthier levels isn't quite as easy as you make it sound. Set-point theory alone means that as soon as you've lost some weight, you have to recalculate the variables in the calories in vs calories out equasion.

At various times, I've had to do each one for periods of months or years. It's not really that hard; you just have to do it. I went from a fifth of liquor a day to being dry for two years, and I did it in one day. You just say, "No more," and then the next time you want to do it, you don't. It's not hard, so long as you have self-control and willpower.

"Quitting smoking is easy-- I've done it many times." --Mark Twain.

Which is really what this is all about. If you're fat, it's because you don't have enough self-control and willpower. [And you live in a civilization that's made physical effort unnecessary.] If you're fat, you know what needs to be done to make you not-fat - and it's not Vitamin K shots or the South Beach Diet - but you're just not doing it.

Generally, you've got a point, although once again I wish you'd qualify this. There are specific conditions which do contradict your general statement, as a nitpick. I will, however, once again point out that it's fitness and not weight (or even fat, sufficient fitness levels can overcome fat percentages!) that matters. The precice words to use are: "If you're not fit*, it's most likely because you don't have enough self control and willpower. [And you live in a civilization that's made physical labor unnecessary.]"

*"Fit" meaning: Capable of sustaining a moderate amount of excercise.

[3278]

The reason why it's not as simple as "eat less and excercise more" is because if you have a choice between altering your diet by dropping a soda and dropping a salad, you should drop the soda!

If that's the reason it's not as simple as "eat less and exercise more," then the reason people are fat is because they're too stupid to know soda is worse for you than salad. When I say, "It's that simple," I don't mean there aren't details to consider, like "exercising until you die is bad for you." What I mean is, it's not hard, it's not complex, it's simple, it's easy. "Soda isn't very good for you," isn't a complication; it's common sense. [Which is, perhaps, uncommon.]

Clearly, you're right when you say that we should cut out the icky stuff! In fact, "Cut out the icky stuff" is a better diet plan than "Eat less and excercise more!"

No. Most people could actually go on eating the horrible crap they eat, so long as they got more active. Like eskimos, farmers, and Nepalese monks, you can eat a diet completely full of fat - you may /need/ to - so long as you're using that fat for energy.

Of course, the best idea would be to cut out the icky stuff /and/ raise your level of activity. Like eating less, and exercising more.

You know that it's possible for people to eat *more*, excercise more, and lose fat. It's also possible for people to eat less, excercise more, and *gain* weight (but lose fat).

Absolutely. In fact, under my marvelous diet plan, that's probably exactly what'll happen to people. My fault for falling into the culturally common tendancy of saying "weight" when I mean "fat." [Or better, "lack of fitness."]

Generally, you've got a point, although once again I wish you'd qualify this.

I'm sorry, but these qualifications are either specious or, in my opinion, obviously unnecessary. I also didn't feel the need to put in the qualification, "Don't drink Drain-O," although that's an important part of any fitness plan.

My point is not that all you have to do is randomly drop half your calories and double your exercise - although I speculate anyone here who did that would certainly stop being fat! - but rather that weight loss is not difficult. Instead, it's the willpower to do what you know needs to be done that's difficult. If you put in the effort, you will see results: that's a fact. Not everyone is willing to put forth that effort, though, which is why most everyone here is so fat. Simple.

[Cain]

If that's the reason it's not as simple as "eat less and exercise more," then the reason people are fat is because they're too stupid to know soda is worse for you than salad. When I say, "It's that simple," I don't mean there aren't details to consider, like "exercising until you die is bad for you." What I mean is, it's not hard, it's not complex, it's simple, it's easy. "Soda isn't very good for you," isn't a complication; it's common sense. [Which is, perhaps, uncommon.]

I wouldn't say "Too stupid" as much as "poorly educated". I mean, people might think that salads are better than soda; but then they don't realize that their cobb salads, loaded with bacon, american cheese, and dressing, is more loaded with calories, fat and empty carbohydrates than a can of soda.

No. Most people could actually go on eating the horrible crap they eat, so long as they got more active. Like eskimos, farmers, and Nepalese monks, you can eat a diet completely full of fat - you may /need/ to - so long as you're using that fat for energy.

My fault for oversimplfying. Eskimos can get away with a high-fat diet because they consume a lot of omega-6 fatty acids, which actually reduce blood pressure and blood clots (IIRC eskimos on a traditional diet have issues with bleeding out).

Most people will have much better health benefits by switching over to a vastly-reduced fat diet, dropping most empty carbohydrates in favor of whole grains and more complex carbs, and increasing the amount of leafy green vegetables. From a bulk standpoint, you may actually be eating more than before-- certainly the same calories from a healthy salad will involve more food than a hamburger-- but that is much more likely to result in fat loss.

My point is not that all you have to do is randomly drop half your calories and double your exercise - although I speculate anyone here who did that would certainly stop being fat! - but rather that weight loss is not difficult. Instead, it's the willpower to do what you know needs to be done that's difficult. If you put in the effort, you will see results: that's a fact. Not everyone is willing to put forth that effort, though, which is why most everyone here is so fat. Simple.

And my point is this: That while you may lose some weight initially, you'll rapidly plateau, and eventually gain it all back. You either need to constantly increase your effort, or make some dramatic changes in your lifestyle and diet.

Also, I think we both agree that education is key. People need to learn how to eat healthy before they can start to do so-- and given what we're feeding kids in school, and what we see on television, we get a lot of mixed signals about what's healthy and what's not. Right now, the big myth is that low-carb foods are somehow healthier for you than normal foods-- talk about a huge mistake! Or another one I just encountered, where one girl thought she was eating so much better, because she ate broccoli for dinner instead of steak-- not thinking about the half-bottle of ranch she poured on the broccoli! Permanent fat loss involves completely reassessing your life, and making complete changes. Willpower is only one ingredient in this-- you need to be able to make a healthy plan before you apply the willpower to implement it.

[3278]

I wouldn't say "Too stupid" as much as "poorly educated". I mean, people might think that salads are better than soda; but then they don't realize that their cobb salads, loaded with bacon, american cheese, and dressing, is more loaded with calories, fat and empty carbohydrates than a can of soda.

I think you have to be pretty stupid to be so poorly educated that you can't read the labels on your food.

Most people will have much better health benefits by switching over to a vastly-reduced fat diet, dropping most empty carbohydrates in favor of whole grains and more complex carbs, and increasing the amount of leafy green vegetables.

Right, but if you just do that - and it's a good thing to do, don't get me wrong - you're still not going to be as fit as if you did that and got some exercise, too. It doesn't have to be about total diet control. Most people I know can lose 2-4 pounds a week just by cutting out pop and walking an hour a day. You can certainly moderate that as necessary for your needs; some people don't want to lose weight that fast, some people don't drink pop, some people can't walk for an hour without losing a limb. My point being, take in fewer calories, use more calories, lose fat, gain fitness.

My point is not that all you have to do is randomly drop half your calories and double your exercise - although I speculate anyone here who did that would certainly stop being fat! - but rather that weight loss is not difficult. Instead, it's the willpower to do what you know needs to be done that's difficult. If you put in the effort, you will see results: that's a fact. Not everyone is willing to put forth that effort, though, which is why most everyone here is so fat. Simple.

And my point is this: That while you may lose some weight initially, you'll rapidly plateau, and eventually gain it all back. You either need to constantly increase your effort, or make some dramatic changes in your lifestyle and diet.

Let me be clear: what I'm saying isn't, "Eat less and exercise more for a month, and you'll be more fit!" I'm saying, do this forever, which isn't difficult and is actually quite pleasant once you get into it. Maybe you'll plateau in your fat loss, or your muscle gain, or cardio fitness; many people do. But you keep at it, and you will lose weight, and you will not gain it back. Yes, if you go on a diet, lose ten pounds, and then go back to life the way it was before, you will become fat again. But I'm not recommending a diet: I'm recommending a course of action that is guaranteed to cause you to lose fat, gain muscle, increase your level of fitness, give you more energy, and help you live longer. In exchange, to have to not eat crap, and to have to spend an hour a day walking about or whatnot, doesn't seem like too heavy a price to pay.

Permanent fat loss involves completely reassessing your life, and making complete changes. Willpower is only one ingredient in this-- you need to be able to make a healthy plan before you apply the willpower to implement it.

Yeah, and here's a healthy plan: eat less, exercise more. [And don't drink Drain-O, don't exercise until you die, remove the bad foods before the good foods, etc.]

[3278]

Eskimos can get away with a high-fat diet because they consume a lot of omega-6 fatty acids...

Right, and because it's incredibly cold where they live, so they need more energy to fuel their metabolisms at a rate which allows them to stay alive. They also have to work for food, unlike more traditional Americans. Like the Nepalese I mentioned, when you have to work so hard, and the conditions are so extreme, you can get away with doing things like drinking butter and eating fat. Most any one of us could survive under just the same conditions, but instead, we drink the butter and then sit on our butts.

[Cain]

Right, but if you just do that - and it's a good thing to do, don't get me wrong - you're still not going to be as fit as if you did that and got some exercise, too. It doesn't have to be about total diet control. Most people I know can lose 2-4 pounds a week just by cutting out pop and walking an hour a day. You can certainly moderate that as necessary for your needs; some people don't want to lose weight that fast, some people don't drink pop, some people can't walk for an hour without losing a limb. My point being, take in fewer calories, use more calories, lose fat, gain fitness.

Agreed as far as it goes, although I would be amazed to find anyone who could sustain a 2-4 lb/week loss for more than a month before they plateau out. (And incidentally, plateau well above their "target weight".)

Let me be clear: what I'm saying isn't, "Eat less and exercise more for a month, and you'll be more fit!" I'm saying, do this forever, which isn't difficult and is actually quite pleasant once you get into it. Maybe you'll plateau in your fat loss, or your muscle gain, or cardio fitness; many people do. But you keep at it, and you will lose weight, and you will not gain it back. Yes, if you go on a diet, lose ten pounds, and then go back to life the way it was before, you will become fat again. But I'm not recommending a diet: I'm recommending a course of action that is guaranteed to cause you to lose fat, gain muscle, increase your level of fitness, give you more energy, and help you live longer. In exchange, to have to not eat crap, and to have to spend an hour a day walking about or whatnot, doesn't seem like too heavy a price to pay.

Okay, here's the problem. If you make some minor changes-- just eating less and excercising more-- while you'll lose some weight (and fat), you'll plateau out very rapidly, far above your "target weight" in many cases. In some cases, your metabolism may slow enough that you start to regain the fat you lost!

Now, if you replace "Eat less" with "eat right"-- and acknowledge that eating right may even mean eating more-- then we're pretty much on the same page.

Right, and because it's incredibly cold where they live, so they need more energy to fuel their metabolisms at a rate which allows them to stay alive. They also have to work for food, unlike more traditional Americans. Like the Nepalese I mentioned, when you have to work so hard, and the conditions are so extreme, you can get away with doing things like drinking butter and eating fat. Most any one of us could survive under just the same conditions, but instead, we drink the butter and then sit on our butts.

Actually, anyone who eats a similar diet-- very high in specific fats-- can have huge health benefits, regardless of the environment. I seem to recall reading something about an island near Greece that has one of the longest lifespans on the planet, despite eating a diet where 50% of their calories come from fat-- olive oil, mostly. I'm not sure of the Nepalese; but don't they drink yak butter? Isn't that different than cow's butter by an awful lot?

The two places where people live the longest-- Okinawa and that island in Greece-- assume only moderate excercise and a healthy diet, in some cases exceeding the calorie levels of American popular diets. The Okinawan Diet* in fact averages about 1900 calories a day-- less than the 2500-3000 Americans eat, but still well above the 1200 a day minimum. The Greek diet is also much healthier.

If we just randomly stuck people on a 1900-calorie-a-day diet, we wouldn't see much effect, with or without moderate excercise. If we stuck people on a healthy diet at 1900-calories-a-day, plus moderate excercise, then we see greater benefits. But if we put them on a top-notch diet-- the Okinawan, for example, then we see huge longevity benefits emerging, as well as lower disease rates.

*[edit] I forgot about something else with the Okinawan diet, that is a cultural oddity to them and a major problem here. Okinawans practice something called Hara Hachi Bu-- eating until 80% full. The stretch receptors in your stomach take about 20-30 minutes to signal satiety, which means that people who eat faster will cram down more than they need. The average American finishes their meal inside of 10 minutes. Our culture, being based on doing everything quickly, is literally sabotaging our biology. One method of combating obesity should be to teach everyone to take longer at their meals, and stop eating when they feel 80% full-- by the time all the food reaches the stomach, you'll be at 100%, so you'll actually want less food. Willpower isn't nearly as required if this lesson can be taught to more people-- I discovered I ate a lot less if I just took longer about my meal. If you don't believe me, I suggest you try it for a week or so, and see for yourself.

[3278]

Okay, here's the problem. If you make some minor changes-- just eating less and excercising more-- while you'll lose some weight (and fat), you'll plateau out very rapidly, far above your "target weight" in many cases. In some cases, your metabolism may slow enough that you start to regain the fat you lost!

No. What you're saying simply isn't true in any meaningful way. If someone fat follows the advice I've given, over the time periods I've specified, they will lose fat, and they will lose weight, in a proportion roughly equivalent to the number of calories they restrict and the amount of additional effort they put in. At some points, they may plateau - although you are presenting as universal fact something that's actually often not experienced - but they will eventually continue to lose weight, particularly if they overcome the plateau with additional effort.

If we just randomly stuck people on a 1900-calorie-a-day diet, we wouldn't see much effect, with or without moderate excercise.

That's simply not true. I don't know what you mean by "much effect," or what timeframe you're considering, but moderate exercise and a 1900-calorie-a-day diet would almost certainly have a profound effect on nearly any of us even over as brief a period as six months.

If we stuck people on a healthy diet at 1900-calories-a-day, plus moderate excercise, then we see greater benefits.

Absolutely!

But if we put them on a top-notch diet-- the Okinawan, for example, then we see huge longevity benefits emerging, as well as lower disease rates.

Plus moderate exercise, of course.

If you don't believe me, I suggest you try it for a week or so, and see for yourself.

Something I noticed in Europe was the fact that people didn't eat until they were full, they ate until they weren't hungry, which is a /huge/ difference in mindset, but it's the logical thing, when you think about it, not only because of the receptor delay you mentioned, but also because that's really what your body is trying to get you to do. Your body doesn't "want" to be gorged, and in fact will "punish you" if you do. What it wants is to /not/ be hungry.

[crone]

Eat less, exercise more. It's that simple. Can more be said on the issue? Yes. But it really is that simple.

How readily could you quit smoking? Reduce your internet time by two hours a day?

At various times, I've had to do each one for periods of months or years. It's not really that hard; you just have to do it. I went from a fifth of liquor a day to being dry for two years, and I did it in one day. You just say, "No more," and then the next time you want to do it, you don't. It's not hard, so long as you have self-control and willpower.

Which is really what this is all about. If you're fat, it's because you don't have enough self-control and willpower. [And you live in a civilization that's made physical effort unnecessary.] If you're fat, you know what needs to be done to make you not-fat - and it's not Vitamin K shots or the South Beach Diet - but you're just not doing it.

Isn't that what makes it hard? That people are too busy, or too lazy, or too disorganised or whatever? There are some things about nutrition you need to know, nothing too fancy. But it is actually doing it that's hard. Willpower, what is that exactly? If you don't have it, how do you get it? It seems to me that you are brushing aside all the hard parts, then saying "'it's easy"

TLM, maybe you could try bulking up on muscle. Also, meat, fruit and veg are not exactly high energy foods (unless the meat is really fatty), maybe you should eat more junk . I know what you mean about looking underweight, my brother is skeletal, and it's a bit frightening to look at.

[3278]

Isn't that what makes it hard? That people are too busy, or too lazy, or too disorganised or whatever? There are some things about nutrition you need to know, nothing too fancy. But it is actually doing it that's hard.

Yes, exactly.

Willpower, what is that exactly? If you don't have it, how do you get it?

I only know of one way: do what you know you have to, every time. I don't know of any other ways that are under the control of the individual; willpower tends to be one of those things that the circumstances of your life provide, as opposed to something one can seek out and gain. But since the attempt is, itself, practice, I think it's perfectly possible to change.

It seems to me that you are brushing aside all the hard parts, then saying "'it's easy"

In a way, I think that's what I'm trying to do. My point is that the parts that are hard are things completely within our control, and that if we want to change, we can. Many people think that fitness is difficult or impossible for them, when in reality, given the right choices, nearly anyone can be quite fit with a fairly small amount of effort. For most people, bothering to make the effort is what's hard. That's what I'm saying, anyway.

[Cain]

No. What you're saying simply isn't true in any meaningful way. If someone fat follows the advice I've given, over the time periods I've specified, they will lose fat, and they will lose weight, in a proportion roughly equivalent to the number of calories they restrict and the amount of additional effort they put in. At some points, they may plateau - although you are presenting as universal fact something that's actually often not experienced - but they will eventually continue to lose weight, particularly if they overcome the plateau with additional effort.

I'm sorry, but the biology of this is perfectly clear. You've got it wrong.

Let me pull out my Nutrition textbook... Okay, here we go. (For the record, this is from Understanding Nutrition, ninth edition, by Whitney and Rolfes.) After any weight/fat loss, the body is triggered to produce more Lipoprotien Lipase, which triggers the body to store fat. "People easily regain weight after having lost it because they are battling against enzymes that want to store fat." (p 271).

Also, your metabolism begins to slow down, thereby reducing your caloric needs. As such, what once exactly met your needs now becomes excessive. With the added LPL levels in your body, you begin to store fat again.

To top this off, even under total fast conditions, the human body can only metabolize about a half-pound of pure fat per day. (p 147) That's under *complete* fast conditions, BTW-- nothing but water. Under safe conditions, a half-pound of pure fat per week is absolutely wonderful. In fact, a reasonable weight loss is usually within 5-10% of your initial weight, per year! (p 282)

So, the biology and all scientific evidence very clearly shows that, while what you describe works initially, it ceases to be effective in very short order-- in other words, weight loss does plateau very rapidly. What's more, the proportion between calories restricted and calories burned now changes, so the same ratios don't work anymore.

You're right that additional excercise is required after a certain point; but the plateau is inevitable, and occurs in a relatively short amount of time.

That's simply not true. I don't know what you mean by "much effect," or what timeframe you're considering, but moderate exercise and a 1900-calorie-a-day diet would almost certainly have a profound effect on nearly any of us even over as brief a period as six months.

1900 calories a day of raw sugar, combined with moderate excercise, certainly would have a profound effect-- malnourishment and vitamin deficiency. Even on a healthy diet, one needs to monitor nutrients as well as calories. I know you said that eating healthy should be assumed; but the fact is, even on a healthier diet you can miss out on many needed nutrients. A strict vegetarian, for example, can easily miss out on iron and calcium.

Something I noticed in Europe was the fact that people didn't eat until they were full, they ate until they weren't hungry, which is a /huge/ difference in mindset, but it's the logical thing, when you think about it, not only because of the receptor delay you mentioned, but also because that's really what your body is trying to get you to do. Your body doesn't "want" to be gorged, and in fact will "punish you" if you do. What it wants is to /not/ be hungry.

This is where simple "willpower" isn't enough. We're taught to eat quickly, so we can get to other things. Some people have to expend effort to eat quickly-- we encourage fast meals, fast food, eat fast and get going. Willpower alone cannot change this, it would take a huge cultural shift in order to bring it about.

Something I noticed while I was in Europe, decades ago, was that they make a bigger production out of even short meals. France in particular really encouraged socialization and relaxation during meals, and they took their sweet time about both fixing food and eating it. That also accounts for some of the difference you describe-- the goal of a meal is to enjoy the food and the company.

Rather the body doesn't "want" to be gorged as opposed to being full is a slightly different and much more technical issue. It wants satiety, but that rapidly becomes an individual measure instead of a universal one. At any event, I think that educating people to only eat to about 80% fullness, plus taking more time over their meals, would make a huge difference in the amount Americans consume.

In a way, I think that's what I'm trying to do. My point is that the parts that are hard are things completely within our control, and that if we want to change, we can. Many people think that fitness is difficult or impossible for them, when in reality, given the right choices, nearly anyone can be quite fit with a fairly small amount of effort. For most people, bothering to make the effort is what's hard. That's what I'm saying, anyway.

I see what you mean, and you're right as far as it goes. However, that doesn't mean "All fat people are lazy", or even "most". Many people can be very fit, even with a high body fat percentage. In fact, going for fitness instead of fat loss may be the healthiest approach-- yo-yo weight loss can cause more issues than maintaining a high body fat percentage with decent cardivascular fitness and regular excercise.

See, fat loss is a tricky thing-- your body inherently does not want to lose fat, and acts to preserve its fat stores. If you qualified your statements to fitness level instead of fat amounts, you're on much stronger ground. Yes, one's fitness level is largely within their control. However, one's healthy body fat percentage is determined by a lot of factors-- genetics, biology, environment, etc-- only some of which are under one's personal control.

[crone]

I only know of one way: do what you know you have to, every time. I don't know of any other ways that are under the control of the individual; willpower tends to be one of those things that the circumstances of your life provide, as opposed to something one can seek out and gain. But since the attempt is, itself, practice, I think it's perfectly possible to change.

That's a really interesting idea. Are you saying that if you are, for example, on a diet, and you know there is chocolate in the fridge, and after a bit of internal struggle, you go ahead and eat it, that over time it will be easier to resist the chocolate bar because you are building up your willpower all the while?

In a way, I think that's what I'm trying to do. My point is that the parts that are hard are things completely within our control, and that if we want to change, we can. Many people think that fitness is difficult or impossible for them, when in reality, given the right choices, nearly anyone can be quite fit with a fairly small amount of effort. For most people, bothering to make the effort is what's hard. That's what I'm saying, anyway.

I think I see. The effort involved in 'bothering' is much greater than the effort involved in getting fit. I have found that to be true in other areas of life, at least. So what's your take on the best way to start yourself 'bothering'? Assuming someone tried and failed at least once already.

[Serious Paul]

Okay I am going to raise the flag. Lets call a cease fire. Its clear you both disagree.

[3278]

I'm sorry, but the biology of this is perfectly clear. You've got it wrong.

Except that nothing you said after that contradicted me. You seem to think that because the body combats what it percieves as starvation, you cannot lose weight by moderate restriction of caloric intake and moderate increase in activity, when the evidence you presented says no such thing.

That's simply not true. I don't know what you mean by "much effect," or what timeframe you're considering, but moderate exercise and a 1900-calorie-a-day diet would almost certainly have a profound effect on nearly any of us even over as brief a period as six months.

1900 calories a day of raw sugar, combined with moderate excercise, certainly would have a profound effect-- malnourishment and vitamin deficiency.

That's nice. But we weren't talking about anything even remotely like that. If your antithesis to my thesis has to be completely absurd and non-topical, it's a good bet my thesis is correct.

Even on a healthy diet, one needs to monitor nutrients as well as calories. I know you said that eating healthy should be assumed; but the fact is, even on a healthier diet you can miss out on many needed nutrients. A strict vegetarian, for example, can easily miss out on iron and calcium.

"Strict vegetarian" does not necessarily equal "healthier diet." And you don't have to have perfect nutrition to lose fat, or even to be healthy.

I say you can lose fat by not eating so much and by raising activity. [Actually, I say that as long as you take in less than you use, you lose fat.] If the problem you have with that is temporary plateaus and "what happens if you eat nothing up raw sugar," then I think my point stands.

This is where simple "willpower" isn't enough. We're taught to eat quickly, so we can get to other things. Some people have to expend effort to eat quickly-- we encourage fast meals, fast food, eat fast and get going. Willpower alone cannot change this, it would take a huge cultural shift in order to bring it about.

Or having the willpower to not eat really quickly. That doesn't require a huge cultural shift; just willpower. I mean, are you really suggesting willpower isn't enough to lose fat because people cannot make themselves eat more slowly without shifting their entire culture?

I see what you mean, and you're right as far as it goes. However, that doesn't mean "All fat people are lazy", or even "most". Many people can be very fit, even with a high body fat percentage. In fact, going for fitness instead of fat loss may be the healthiest approach-- yo-yo weight loss can cause more issues than maintaining a high body fat percentage with decent cardivascular fitness and regular excercise.

No, fat people are lazy. In 99 out of 100 cases, people are fat because they're too lazy to get off their fat asses and do something about being fat. People almost always know what they need to do, and it's not "plateaus" or "strict vegetarianism" that's keeping them fat: it's being fat lazy Americans. They sit on their asses, eat way too much really bad food, and then complain that losing weight is hard. Anyone who has walked an hour a day, every day, for six months, and not lost any fat [while maintaining a healthy diet] can come and bitch to me about how hard it is to stop being fat. Anyone else needs to put up or shut up.

[crone]

I'm sorry, but the biology of this is perfectly clear. You've got it wrong.

Let me pull out my Nutrition textbook... Okay, here we go. (For the record, this is from Understanding Nutrition, ninth edition, by Whitney and Rolfes.) After any weight/fat loss, the body is triggered to produce more Lipoprotien Lipase, which triggers the body to store fat. "People easily regain weight after having lost it because they are battling against enzymes that want to store fat." (p 271).

Also, your metabolism begins to slow down, thereby reducing your caloric needs. As such, what once exactly met your needs now becomes excessive. With the added LPL levels in your body, you begin to store fat again.

Isn't the added exercise exercise going to counteract the slowing metabolism?And doesn't it depend on how much you have cut your calories by? If you cut them from say 3,500 to 2,500, then it seems like you will be losing weight for quite a while till you get to the point where 2,500 is enough to meet your needs. You'd lose about 90 lbs anyway.
(I get almost all my nutritional info from websites, and my mum, BTW)