Michele 1 #26 January 30, 2006 Quoteit's funny how far people go to legitimize their laziness. And it's funny how far people go to ostracize and berate someone who they believe is "lazy." As Kris said, there are MANY factors which go into obesity...does everyone have all of them? No. Are some people "lazy"? Sure. But there may be a number of people who have a combination of things that combine to increase weight gain. Me? It's a combination of medication, bad dieting habits (meaning starvation type diets for two decades[killing the metabolism]), and genetic tendencies towards higher percentage of "fat cells"...it's not exactly me being lazy. Could I work out for three hours a day? Sure...but could you? So despite my initial reaction of "oh, fuck you" to this thread, I thought I'd take a moment to articulate the issues from someone who you just might want to stay away from, lest you catch a virus, or catch being "lazy" from me. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #27 January 30, 2006 QuoteFWIW: If you actually look at the findings, it indicates that there is a link between exposure to a certain virus and the body's propensity to store fat. QuotePhysiologist Leah Whigham of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and her colleagues inoculated young male chickens with three strains of adenovirus--Ad-2, Ad-31 and Ad-37. She and her team then monitored the chickens for three and a half weeks, recording their food intake throughout. Though the infected chickens and noninfected controls consumed the same amount of food and were exposed to the same conditions, chickens carrying Ad-37 were found to have nearly three times as much fat in their guts and more than two times as much fat over their entire body at the end of the three-and-a-half week period. The other two virus strains appeared to have little effect on weight Intake and excercise apear to have been controlled for. Hmmmm. So they've proven that there are chemicals that can cause weight retention. Doesn't convince me of anything - especially when injecting adrenovirus into chickens. Like I said, if you have body chemistry issues then you need to act accordingly. I wonder if they put the chickens on a corrective plan after turning them into fatties." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #28 January 30, 2006 Quoteespecially when injecting adrenovirus into chickens. What exactly is an adrenovirus? Is that some sort of virus that causes people to seek out an adrenaline rush? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dolph 0 #29 January 30, 2006 Hey Michele. I'm as lazy as they get. My only exercise is running landings out and running to the plane. I eat crap junk food and don't have an ounce of self discipline when it comes to exercise. So, if laziness and bad diet was the sole factor here, I think my wingload would be significantly higher than it is. I'm a skinny fuck despite my bad eating/exercise habits. My feeling is that if you take a group of 100 people, give them the same amount of food and the same amount of exercise, you'll have 100 overweight, normal weight and skinny bastards. And you can bet your ass the normals will call people lazy fatsos and skeletons. Both overweight and underweight will have to put in more effort to get "normal" weight. Given an average group of people with an average amount of self discipline towards food and exercise, the comparison of body fat ain't particularly fair. Having said that, those outside the normal weight range will just have to work a little harder or accept things as they are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #30 January 30, 2006 QuoteAnd it's funny how far people go to ostracize and berate someone who they believe is "lazy." I only speak the truth. First of all, I'm not referring to overweight, or underweight people for that matter, people. I'm referring to obese people. People (most, I know there are always exceptions) don't become obese for strictly uncontrollable reason Ifan there's medical or physical issues making it easier to gain weight, then of course, there will be a bit of extra weight. But if these factors are accounted for, not being lazy, then the person won't be overweight. For exaplie, if, even after knowing about the medical/physical disadvantages he has, he continues to eat mcdonalds daily and never excercise, and hence becomes obese, that's laziness, not bad metabolism. It doesn't take three hours day to stay in better shape. Running an hour a day is enough, even an hour every other day would suffice. Of course, some people would have to work a bit harder. That's just how it is. Life wasn't meant to be easy. Myself, I didn't have a problem losing weight, I had a problem gaining weight. I was always grossly underweight. Growing up, I always said it was because I had a high metabolism, which I do. On top of that, I was raised vegetarian, and didn't get nearly enough protein. I had tried to work out, but never put my heart into it. Yeah, I was lazy. It took changing my eating habits and going to the gym even if I didn't want to, and doing this consistently until it became second nature. Yeah, I got in shape. So, yeah, I know there medical/genetic/physical problems, but 99% of those medical problems can be taken care of by eating better and excercising.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #31 January 30, 2006 QuoteDude, do you have some chip on your shoulder or what? And all this time, i thought it was just me. Dude does need to chill.-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,070 #32 January 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteSometimes you can, and from what I found, it has something to do with the body's oxygen intake, but beyond that I don't know. However, it is possible to gain more than the mass of the food you eat. I need to see something that proves that this oxygen effect is significant, or even real to begin with. It seems pretty improbably that, if this phenomenon exists, that it would contribute greatly to one's weight. QuoteI agree that many times weight gain is the result of a high calorie low exercise lifestyle. However, sometimes it isn't. People are all dealt different hands. If you're slower at burning calories... you just gotta work more if you want to be "in shape". Regardless of the reasons for someone's obesity, they should get it in check because it is always unhealthy. If you burn a pound of hydrogen in air, how many pounds of water are produced?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #33 January 30, 2006 ITs ok Michele... you can jump with me anytimeI have a feeling a LOT of the people who are tripping on some people who are not their IDEAL little barbie( anorexic/beulemic) look...OR the hot stud athletic guy look.... have a HUGE dissapointment coming as they get older... and find their metabolism changing... Some of the guys I knew when I was younger and used to be hypercritical of such things NOW are not lookin so hot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #34 January 30, 2006 QuoteIf you burn a pound of hydrogen in air, how many pounds of water are produced? well, if oxygen weighs ~ 16 'things', and if H weighs ~ 1 'thing' and you need 2 H for each O you draw in..... and the weight given off in the reaction as energy is negligible to the weight of the H's and the O's. Then you get quite a bit more water weight than 1 pound (guess, each thing of H takes up 8 things of O, so a pound of H gives you 9 pounds of H2O). I'm just guessing here, I'm about as chemistry friendly as I'm ElecE friendly (bunch of people with wands and pointy caps....) But you still have to take in the O from the outside - it's not a closed system. That's why Nightingale's statements was subtle, but worked. (And why Narc's, even if a bit defensive, was a good analogy to NG's just more obtuse). But the discussion was really along the lines of can a system add more net mass than it takes in? this other discussion is more fun because the first is obtuse. I'd still like to see 1 pound of H reaction. I bet the person gets a few burns..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #35 January 30, 2006 QuoteIf you burn a pound of hydrogen in air, how many pounds of water are produced? About nine, but that does that happen in the body to an extent that it'd cause significant weight gain? Hell, if that was true... why would we need to drink anything ever?? Our bodies would just convert the hydrogen in the air and in our food to water... as long as we were breathing, that is. And if this DOES cause significant weight gain, which I still doubt, why haven't we heard about it?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #36 January 30, 2006 Quotewould we need to drink anything ever?? Our bodies would just convert the hydrogen in the air and in our food to water... as long as we were breathing, that is MY COPYRIGHT - I'm writing the book. THE SOUTH JERSEY DIET Lose Weight - Stop Breathing ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #37 January 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf you burn a pound of hydrogen in air, how many pounds of water are produced? And if this DOES cause significant weight gain, which I still doubt, why haven't we heard about it? Don't worry; we will. There's just spreading these great new revelations out over time so it's never forgotten that unhealthiness is uncontrollable.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,070 #38 January 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf you burn a pound of hydrogen in air, how many pounds of water are produced? About nine, but that does that happen in the body to an extent that it'd cause significant weight gain? Hell, if that was true... why would we need to drink anything ever?? Our bodies would just convert the hydrogen in the air and in our food to water... as long as we were breathing, that is. And if this DOES cause significant weight gain, which I still doubt, why haven't we heard about it? Just illustrating the point that the system under consideration includes more than a fatso and the food he eats. Metabolizing a pound of food requires a lot of air.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #39 January 30, 2006 QuoteJust illustrating the point that the system under consideration includes more than a fatso and the food he eats. Metabolizing a pound of food requires a lot of air. Point taken. Of course, if we all require similar amounts of air to metabolize similar amounts of food, wouldn't the point be moot?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #40 January 30, 2006 QuoteJust illustrating the point that the system under consideration includes more than a fatso and the food he eats. It also requires a drive through, a deep fryer, paper hats, argentinian beef, soy, soy and more soy, and partially dyhodregenated wigglydumps...... QuoteMetabolizing a pound of food requires a lot of air. So does expelling the waste products resulting from a drive through, a deep fryer, paper hats, argentinian beef, soy, soy and more soy, and partially dyhodregenated wigglydumps ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #41 January 30, 2006 QuoteOur bodies would just convert the hydrogen in the air and in our food to water... as long as we were breathing, that is. Though I'm risking being told off for thinking things through again, you might be interested to know that air is approximately .00005% free hydrogen. Of course I just KNOW someone will carelessly cite hydrogen-containing compounds, but bound hydrogen doesn't 'burn' into water. Quote And if this DOES cause significant weight gain, which I still doubt, why haven't we heard about it? Even in a perfectly efficient 'burning', the 50ml or so of daily inhaled hydrogen would amount to less than the water vapour exhaled in a single breath. The human body is pretty damn good at regulating its water content. The MAIN point people are missing is that a pound of food does not equal a pound of amassed fat tissues. Calorie content varies, digestive efficiency varies, and triggered retained water varies. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #42 January 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteJust illustrating the point that the system under consideration includes more than a fatso and the food he eats. Metabolizing a pound of food requires a lot of air. Point taken. Of course, if we all require similar amounts of air to metabolize similar amounts of food, wouldn't the point be moot? The point is that not everybody's metabolic "engine" is as efficient as others. Some will require more oxygen, some less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #43 January 30, 2006 QuoteThough I'm risking being told off for thinking things through again You never were in the first place. Glad you came back to discuss though. QuoteThe MAIN point people are missing is that a pound of food does not equal a pound of amassed fat tissues. Calorie content varies, digestive efficiency varies, and triggered retained water varies. But Xlbs consumed (water, food) cannot result in X+2lbs gained. While what you're saying is true, it does not exclude the fact that we can't gain more than we consume.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #44 January 30, 2006 QuoteThe point is that not everybody's metabolic "engine" is as efficient as others. Some will require more oxygen, some less. See my post above. Even with varying metabolisms, can we gain more weight than we consume? Can we gain weight when we burn more calories than we consume? As you say, IF someone has a less efficient system due to low activity, disease, hormones, etc... AND they want to stay within their "healthy" weight limits, then they need to account for their individual metabolisms. Notice, nowhere did I say that we should all look like fitness instructors.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #45 January 30, 2006 Quoteit does not exclude the fact that we can't gain more than we consume. Nobody argued for that moronic claim. Why do you keep arguing against it? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #46 January 30, 2006 QuoteSo, yeah, I know there medical/genetic/physical problems, but 99% of those medical problems can be taken care of by eating better and excercising. This is simply wrong. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #47 January 30, 2006 QuoteI'd still like to see 1 pound of H reaction. I bet the person gets a few burns..... Hey, I've seen it! It goes BOOOOOM. Then there's a big echo, followed closely by a crew of chemical plant operators saying WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT?!!! in unisonillegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #48 January 30, 2006 QuoteQuoteIf YOU look closely I understood that and accounted for it with quite a bit of care. I'm not a simpleton, although it's certainly the habit around here to assume everybody else is always wrong and that they're wrong because they're stupid. Dude, do you have some chip on your shoulder or what? Where did I imply that I thought you were a simpleton or stupid? You should calm down. Your post was condescending. He was very clear when he adjusted your scenario, so he didn't need to be told to "look closely." When you responded that way, he just responded back with your exact words. Then he answered the implied "you're a dumbass" tone. Yes, I heard it too. So there's no chip that I can see, or else I share it. Being aware of and sensitive to nuance does not constitute having a chip on one's shoulder. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #49 January 30, 2006 QuoteNobody argued for that moronic claim. Why do you keep arguing against it? Because it seems many people (here and people I've had this discussion with before) STILL don't get the fact that diet and excercise can be blamed for ALL obesity. The fact that other ailments play in by having increased fat/water retention is irrelevant. Burn more than you consume, lose weight. Some people may have to work harder if they want to look like a model. Some people don't give a shit and just get fat.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rwieder 0 #50 January 30, 2006 QuoteSo there's no chip that I can see, or else I share it. Do you ever. What is your driving force when it comes to defending Narcimund? He appears quite capable of speaking for himself, maybe you dissagree?-Richard- "You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
