Too Fat for the Boy Scouts? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-11-2009, 11:20 PM   #31
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. V View Post
Not everyone who is overweight, overeats.
How many? Why then?


eta: here. I did the research for you. http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obes...ng_factors.htm
__________________

__________________
martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 02:23 AM   #32
Refugee
 
Mr. V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: in a French-ass restaurant
Posts: 1,482
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Genomics|Training|Perspectives|Knowing Obesity and Genetics

mwahs
__________________

__________________
Mr. V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 02:44 AM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Genetics controls a lot, but the fact is that energy intake versus energy expended is what controls fat, how easily you put weight on, or how strong your appetite is, may be largely genetic, but if you are eating about as much as you expend you won't gain weight.

While some of us are able to gain weight more easily, and have a harder time getting it off, that issue pales in comparison to eating nachos for lunch and burgers for dinner. If you consistently control your energy intake over a decent period of time then you will get results.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 03:04 AM   #34
Refugee
 
Mr. V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: in a French-ass restaurant
Posts: 1,482
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Genetics controls a lot, but the fact is that energy intake versus energy expended is what controls fat, how easily you put weight on, or how strong your appetite is, may be largely genetic, but if you are eating about as much as you expend you won't gain weight.

While some of us are able to gain weight more easily, and have a harder time getting it off, that issue pales in comparison to eating nachos for lunch and burgers for dinner. If you consistently control your energy intake over a decent period of time then you will get results.

The Hacker's Diet
Well yeah, but my point is that a lot of overweight people do not overeat - in fact, I know people who have very similar diets, but because of their genetic make-up, some are able to stay rake thin, where as some put weight on without indulging in ice cream, nachos, burgers etc. daily.

To summarize, it's harder for some to stay at a healthy weight than others, and saying "all fat people eat too much" is an unfair oversimplification.
__________________
Mr. V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 03:20 AM   #35
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Having a slow metabolism doesn't mean you're not overeating if you get overweight, though, because balanced energy input/output is by definition relative to the individual. Unless perhaps one has one of the very rare genetic disorders mentioned in your link, if your caloric intake exceeds your energy needs, then you're overeating, period.

I do think that invoking moralistic language like "gluttony" is not a particularly constructive way to make this point.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 03:29 AM   #36
Refugee
 
Mr. V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: in a French-ass restaurant
Posts: 1,482
Local Time: 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Having a slow metabolism doesn't mean you're not overeating if you get overweight, though, because balanced energy input/output is by definition relative to the individual. Unless perhaps one has one of the very rare genetic disorders mentioned in your link, if your caloric intake exceeds your energy needs, then you're overeating, period.

I do think that invoking moralistic language like "gluttony" is not a particularly constructive way to make this point.
I suppose, yeah. You've pretty much nailed it with that second bit there.
__________________
Mr. V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 08:22 AM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 01:52 AM
I don't see why it would even matter how much genetics controls metabolism or weight gain. Bottom line is someone that is severely overweight should not be doing long, difficult hikes because they are putting themselves and the rest of their group at risk.
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 04:05 PM   #38
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:52 AM
I don't think anyone was saying it mattered with regard to the Scouts policy, that was just a separate tangent that developed around the issue of how people become overweight/obese.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 04:22 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:52 PM
I think the Scouts policy is ill advised.

It seems they draw a line - this BMI is OK, that BMI is not.

So if a man weighs 275 his BMI keeps him out.

And a man at 274 may just hit the acceptable BMI.

I probably would not want the second on the outing either.
If he has a heart attack, are the Scouts liable?

My BMI is around 24, well within the acceptable range.
If I try to hike 5 miles up a hill, I may require medical attention.

If I were a Scouts dad or stepdad I would exclude myself, even though I look reasonably fit. I am out of shape.


edit to add

I checked their chart, I am within their recommended range.
I could gain 53 pounds and be within the maximum allowable.

But 54 pounds, would exclude me.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 04:28 PM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:52 AM
the BMI thing is crap. it does not take into account muscle or body structure.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 04:45 PM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:52 PM
listen here,

yes, you have beautiful muscle or body structure





but, the BMI is great

we need a guide, we all need to be on the same page

many want to argue the fact that different people process food differently and our bodies convert it to fat differently

or that portions are too big now, 2 and 1/2 time the size they were 30 - 40 years ago

or that Americans do not walk anywhere, they take a cab 3 miles to walk on a treadmill for 30 minutes or ride an elevator up 15 floors to hop on a stair master for 20 minutes.

or we can not buy gas, go into the office, or any check out line without junk food practically force fed to us.


it the grand scheme of things

it is only calories consumed verses calories burned

if it is on your body, it only got there one way, by your hand putting it in your mouth,
over and over and over again.

so BMI is good, we need a common measuring stick.

there is an acceptable good range,
big bone and reasonable muscles can put one higher in the good range
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 06:31 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:52 AM
Perhaps the Boy Scouts should rethink the Hotdog Eating Contest merit badge.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 06:48 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:52 AM
By the way, for those that think corn syrup in our diet is to blame for the obesity problem, one company is taking notice.

Pepsi Throwback, Mountain Dew Throwback » Sugar-sweetened Pepsi-Cola and Mtn Dew without High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) � BevReview.com

Still higher calories than a diet drink obviously but if nothing else it really does taste better.

Somethings did actually used to be better (it's not always just "old people talk") and one sip of these will prove it.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2009, 06:50 PM   #44
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,720
Local Time: 10:52 PM
There are a few places around Seattle where you can buy Coca-Cola made in Mexico, and it's made with real sugar.

I bought one from a mobile taco truck that's near my workplace, and one sip took me right back to being 10 years old, sitting on the porch with my dad and drinking a Coke out of the bottle, back when it was Coke with real sugar.

So yeah, I approve of Pepsi's new drink, even though I don't like Pepsi.
__________________
corianderstem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2009, 04:08 PM   #45
you are what you is
 
Salome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 22,016
Local Time: 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I think the Scouts policy is ill advised.

It seems they draw a line - this BMI is OK, that BMI is not.

So if a man weighs 275 his BMI keeps him out.

And a man at 274 may just hit the acceptable BMI.

I probably would not want the second on the outing either.
If he has a heart attack, are the Scouts liable?

My BMI is around 24, well within the acceptable range.
If I try to hike 5 miles up a hill, I may require medical attention.

If I were a Scouts dad or stepdad I would exclude myself, even though I look reasonably fit. I am out of shape.


to make this a policy is indeed ill advised


besides it also seems a bit random
why only have a policy re. someone's weight?
why not also make them do an iq and eq test
surely as important when going hiking with a group of scouts as your waistline?
__________________

__________________
“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa
Salome is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com