<p>Re: Jack Post#102
Oh yes, I understand and know that. Actually, I over reacted on purpose to make a point. (which I see wasn’t gotten)</p>
<p>I think what it comes down to is whether to be mean and judgemental or gracious and supportive. That difference looks like the two camps we have here.</p>
<p>Re: Bay post #103 “I was merely responding to your admission that you “got out of the habit” of healthy diet and exercise and that it is “a tremendous effort” to get back into such habit. I stand by my assertion that it is a cop-out to avoid healthy diet and exercise using such an excuse. If you do not want others to comment on your lifestyle, then I suggest you not post details about it on a public forum.”</p>
<p>I gave you a strong reaction for a reason and to make a point. I sure don’t mind reactions to what I post and display on a public board. What I DO mind is sanctimonious judgemental mean hearted guilt trip laden responses that can only make someone feel bad about their situation! Which is probably REALLY hard to do something about! </p>
<p>Your “suggestion” that my explanation of why I’m having difficulty maintaining the fitness that I achieved years ago was a “cop-out” was mean spirited and not supportive. Yes, it IS difficult to maintain a healthy lifestyle and it is also difficult to earn a living. THAT is my priority right now. And if I CAN manage to get some exercise in, that would be a really good thing. Thank you for your “encouragement.” How about some generous spirited understanding and support instead of a put down and judgement about someone that you really know nothing about (despite my opening up and discussing some of personal issues.)</p>
<p>Mark,</p>
<p>To use your own words, how DARE you accuse me of being mean-spirited, when you know nothing about me! :)</p>
<p>GFG’s last post had it right. Most of us are speaking in generalities about the lack of healthy diet and exercise that currently plagues America, causing rampant obesity.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone commented directly on any particular poster’s ability to lose or not lose weight (altho I could be wrong - I can’t remember). Some people seem to be choosing to take comments personally.</p>
<p>I think it is wonderful that you are making health/fitness your priority, and I honestly and truly wish for you to achieve it (why wouldn’t I)? If calling me “mean” helps you in any way to get there, then blast away! I don’t mind.</p>
<p>I’ve been thinking about this thread. I just feel bad for the people who work at weight issues without the desired results. That, frankly, sucks. On the other hand, thought I, it is possible that all that work has had other benefits. Good for the character. Anyway, I for one have learned a lot and I thank those of you who have been so open about how this works.</p>
<p>Does it make sense that we all have the same ability to get or stay thin? I don’t think it’s a matter of willpower alone. Isn’t it possible that one person’s brain signals satiety at a different rate than another person’s? That lessons learned in childhood (clean your plate, you can’t have dessert until you eat your peas) live on in choices about food made all day, every day? I do believe that people who struggle with their weight really do struggle. And I think it’s easy for those who don’t feel the overwhelming urge to eat constantly or inappropriately to counsel others to just say no. There is probably as much variant in the ability of people to maintain appropriate body weight as there is in ability to throw or hit a baseball, or ice skate, or write sonnets or any other endeavor.</p>
<p>^^^^ Amen, sister!</p>
<p>Markphotog: It probably just wasn’t “gotten” by me. 
</p>
<p>I am always surprised, though, the amount of personal stuff people put out here on various threads, which I often find just mind-boggling. And these same people usually do get upset when other posters, understandably, feel it’s okay to comment. </p>
<p>At any rate, w/regard to weight-- I do think genetics and metabolism play a huge part here. I’ve always been very thin and really do eat as much as I like (but that’s obviously relative). That said, I also eat very healthy and have always exercised, consistently, over decades. I do have other family members who didn’t inherit the “thin genes,” and they really do struggle with weight issues. Aside from weight issues, though, I also believe that to simply eat healthy in this country takes time and some serious effort-- not willpower-- but serious effort in knowing where you food comes from, avoiding all the additives, preparing your food for yourself, sitting down to a meal, etc.</p>
<p>Re: Bay #123</p>
<p>What I thought I said was that it DOESN’T help to say that I’m “copping out” and that kind of statement is NOT supportive. It makes me want to eat bad stuff. How is that helpful? I’m trying to say that it is in fact mean spirited and not supportive to make such statements.</p>
<p>Clear?</p>
<p>Re: Jack #127</p>
<p>Yes, it sure does take a serious effort and that’s the problem. Some people don’t understand what a struggle it can be.</p>
<p>And no, I don’t really mind reactions to my personal life on a public board. I used strong language to make a point, but it looks like it didn’t work. So I’ll just agree with you that it sure does take a really committed and serious effort which some us are able to achieve and some of us aren’t.</p>
<p>Alumother: Thanks for your understanding. I really do appreciate it.</p>
<p>The GMC and others: You can continue to believe your simplistic formulas despite convincing evidence to the contrary, and you can continue to feel superior to others. I can’t stop you. Not going to try any more.</p>
<p>MarkPhotog: Again, I wasn’t really talking about “willpower” or weight issues at all. I was merely commenting about how difficult it is-- for any of us-- to attempt to eat healthy in this country. We have so much in the way of fast food, processed food, packaged foods, hormone-laden meats, etc., that to really take the time to avoid this stuff does take more money, more time, and real effort. And if one’s job requires a lot of travel and/or eating out, it’s next to impossible. Really just talking about healthy eating here (in this country)-- regardless of one’s weight issues.</p>
<p>Oops. I meant GFG.</p>
<p>I scanned her website and found it to be thought-provoking. I wonder if any of your kids or you yourself are taking Hoodia as an appetite suppressant.</p>
<p>“Isn’t it possible that one person’s brain signals satiety at a different rate than another person’s?”</p>
<p>Isn’t it possible that certain food items, eaten repeatedly, block feelings of satiety and transform metabolism, especially in folks genetically predisposed to such effects? That is a given in the world of alcohol and drug addiction (I can drink all the water I want, just not alcohol), why not in the world of food?</p>
<p>When we introduce massive quantities of a wholly new food substance into the food chain, all at one particular moment in history, and eaten by the mass of the population, why would we be surprised when there is a response? Isn’t that exactly what happens when there is a new drug epidemic? (i.e. methamphetamine)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>OK, I went to this one:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/[/url]”>http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/</a></p>
<p>Ideal weight for an average-build 5-foot female is about 100 pounds, 110 if she’s very muscular. Add 30 pounds to the highest end of the range. 140 pounds on 5 feet gives a BMI of 27, well short of the obesity threshold (>30). So even a very short woman with a large frame is not obese when 30 pounds overweight.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes and no. Millions of middle-class people decided to move to subdivisions with no sidewalks, where it is impossible to go anywhere without a car. They didn’t do that because they wanted to get fat (or because they wanted to burn fossil fuels), but it was still their decision and brought predictable results. The poorest people do indeed buy the cheapest calories they can, but middle class people are much fatter, too. The food industry does indeed tell us that the way to get bang for our buck is to buy a Big Mac and Supersize it instead of the hamburger meal that was the norm in 1960, but there again, the reasonable, healthy portion is still on the menu, and it’s still very affordable. In other words, industrial change made bad choices more readily available and more tempting, but for most middle-class people, it did not deprive us of good choices. Most of us aren’t making them, or could make them a lot more often if we tried (and I certainly include my family and myself in that group).</p>
<p>“In other words, industrial change made bad choices more readily available and more tempting…”</p>
<p>Actually, the truth is closer to an addictive substance being added to the water supply, and 50 years later folks still haven’t woken up to the fact that they could choose to drink only (expensive) bottled water. You could call that choice if you desire, but then I could also choose to only breathe oxygen from a tank in order to ward off the deleterious health impacts of air pollution, and the analogy wouldn’t be far off.</p>
<p>“Most people eat too much of the wrong things. PERIOD.”</p>
<p>Yes, and a surprising number of the worst offenders are THIN.</p>
<p>Hanna: Agree completely with your second paragraph. We live in town, complete with sidewalks, precisely because we don’t want to be dependent on a car. While we’d love to have acreage, we really do not want to have to hop into the car every time we need something. We also have the advantage of getting to bike or walk to work. We’re fortunate that we can do that, but we also deliberately made that choice years ago and gave up other things (like land) to do so. And outside big cities, mass transit in this country is a joke. I do think suburban sprawl (including malls) has been fairly destructive, on many levels.</p>
<p>mini: You <em>can</em> choose (we all can) to help lessen the air pollution, though, so that those oxygen tanks won’t be necessary. ;)</p>
<p>I never thought I’d find myself defending high fructose corn syrup, but your tone is reminiscent of the crazy flouride-in-the-water guy in Dr. Strangelove. HFCS is an artificial junk food, we eat too much of it, and large quantities don’t belong in a healthy diet, but it’s composed entirely of fructose and glucose. Glucose runs in every human’s veins; fructose has been in the human diet for millennia. When healthy people eat sucrose (table sugar), our bodies break it down into fructose and glucose. These molecules are indstinguishable from the fructose and glucose molecules that make up HFCS. Honey, 100% apple juice, Concord grapes, and other naturally sugary foods contain a lot of fructose, too, and there is some evidence that eating tons of fructose in any form is a bad idea.</p>
<p>To compare this to crystal meth in the water supply is pretty absurd.</p>
<p>You obviously have never met anyone with severe corn-based allergies, or wheat allergies. </p>
<p>I’d like to see you make the same argument about peanuts. After all, it’s just vegetable proteins and fat. (I think you’re being downright silly, but that’s just my opinion.)</p>
<p>But if you don’t want to get into an argument about metabolites, then just look at the data - when the obesity “epidemic” began, and when it spread to other countries. Simply use a public health approach. </p>
<p>“mini: You <em>can</em> choose (we all can) to help lessen the air pollution, though, so that those oxygen tanks won’t be necessary.”</p>
<p>Yes, it can be done. Take a look at the ingredients list (not the calorie or fat counts, but the ingredients list) of every thing you’ve got in your kitchen, starting with the table salt, and suggest a way to go about it.</p>
<p>And, indeed, there are people who eat too much (just as there are people who take too many drugs or drink too much alcohol). The question is why, and, specifically, why - on a population-wide basis - was the onset so sudden?</p>