View Full Version : Vast Majority of Americans Likely to Become Fat
This is no surprise but the article tells us that things are going to get worse before they get better.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7279844/did/9583615/
I don't understand why sugars in foods and processed foods don't get discussed much. People discuss fastfood, big portions, and sedentary lifestyles, which are key factors, of course, but have any of you looked at how much partially hydrogenated oils and high fructose cornsyrup we eat?
Food for thought.
What can we, MA athletes, do about this?
Let the discussion begin....
Rasputin
10-04-2005, 11:54
Let them eat cake! As their bloated forms grow ponderous and immobile, we will be in the perfect position to stage our bloodless coup!
Mark Barlow
10-04-2005, 11:59
Been there, done that, got the XXXL t-shirt to prove it.
Rasputin
10-04-2005, 12:02
Oh wait, you are serious, aren't you?
Oh.
In that case, do as I try to do for my family: cook healthy meals for them at home.
Encourage them to take lunches from home instead of fast food.
Keep fresh fruits in the house and use them to reward young children instead of sweet treats.
Restrict children from watching too much TV or computer games and instead make them play with actual hands-on toys which require physical movement.
Make sure that everyone in the family gets enough sleep, since sleep deprivation leads to increased stress which inhibits cortisol uptake and can exacerbate weight gain.
And, last but not least, encourage each other to get off the fartsponge (couch) and hit the ground running!
People need to develop a different mindset about growing old... life does not end after 60.
Case in point: Harvard's 92 yr old boxing coach (who still boxes).
Oh wait, you are serious, aren't you?
Make sure that everyone in the family gets enough sleep, since sleep deprivation leads to increased stress which inhibits cortisol uptake and can exacerbate weight gain.
Well, yes, I was trying to be serious, at least.
Is this true, about sleep and cortisol? I have heard the marketing but I don't know a thing about the actual science behind it.
Jason W? Do you know about this?
Fartsponge... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Rasputin
10-04-2005, 13:37
http://stress.about.com/cs/cortisol/a/cortweight.htm
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53304
http://www.drweil.com/u/QA/QA323853/
http://www.weightlossmd.com/can_stress_cause_weight_gain.asp
The best cites I can produce on short notice.
Rasputin
10-04-2005, 13:42
Case in point: Harvard's 92 yr old boxing coach (who still boxes).
Booyah! Call Don King! We have the new fight of the century!
Tommy Rawson, 92, boxing coach for Harvard, against Helio Gracie, jiujitsu patriarch, 92, in a steel cage no-holds-barred match!
AndrewSimonsen
10-04-2005, 13:49
I read that the number one cause of childhood obesity wasn't diet, but rather the amount of exercise. I ate all kinds of crud, but I was active in sports and was hence a twig.
Tony Dismukes
10-04-2005, 15:45
I read that the number one cause of childhood obesity wasn't diet, but rather the amount of exercise.
Exactly. The same could be said for most adult obesity. Yes, the average American doesn't eat the best diet, but the big health problem is the lack of exercise. Contrary to widespread belief, being "overweight" isn't a huge health risk. Being severely out of shape is. The confusion comes about because many people have a metabolism that turns them overweight when they get out of shape. (I'm the reverse - when I was out of shape I was skinny as a toothpick.)
AndrewSimonsen
10-04-2005, 16:07
Yeah, isn't the Governator over weight?
The cortisol idea has some sound physiological principles behind it but when you examine it a little more closely it doesn't hold water per se. Cortisol is one of the many anabolic/catabolic hormones that is upregulated in an acute fashion during exercise or other times of stress.
Cortisol plays an important role in regulation of central nervous system activity, sexual function, and helps to maintain blood glucose and electrolyte balance. In addition the production of cortisol is an important step in the production of other steroid hormones such as aldosterone, progesterone, and DHEA. Thus, the concept of deliberately lowering the cortisol response from normal circadian levels will probably have ramifications beyond those that are readily apparent.
In addition, simply lowering cortisl probably would not have that much of an effect anyway as the body would more than likely upregulate receptor activity and you would get the same amount of response for less hormone. There are many instances of alteration of receptor activity in the literature for various hormones, cortisol being one of them. One important thing to remember is that having the hormone does not guarentee a response anyway, you have to have a receptor for the hormone to bind to...
The actual ratio of cortisol to other more anabolic hormones such as testosterone is getting a great deal of attention in the literature right now as a better indicator of the bodies state (anabolic/catabolic) than only looking at cortisol alone. In reality this is drastically simplistic considering the cascade of events that occur when one or more of these hormones is secreted in the bloodstream.
One major problem when discussing any sort of hormone interactions and how they affect the body's ability to do something is that all of these hormones exist not as one single entity but as a family of hormones. For example growth hormone has several different isoforms that we know of. Testing for all of them is both impractical and virtually impossible considering that we are discovering new ones all the time. Therefore the idea that we can regulate the interactions of this one hormone and get the response that is desired is, to put it very mildly, overly simplistic.
To put things very simply, eat less, do more, eat naturally and you will lose weight... Deliberately messing with your bodies endocrine function is a very good way to screw yourself up big time....
To put things very simply, eat less, do more, ...
Thank you Jason, you took the words right out of my mouth!
Too many people whine and complain about how poor nutrition is making America fat, and then they talk avidly about the three hours of TV they sat and watched! When you point this out to them, they tend to shift the blame to anywhere but themselves. I am putting on a bit of weight myself. I'm about 15 pounds more than I like myself to be. I know it's my eating habits and not exercising enough. No one else's fault but mine.
I personally think that too much litigation has convinced the American public that they are not personally responsible for anything. Kind of a sad state of affairs really.
These opinions are not my fault, they were forced into my head by the liberal media. I hold them responsible! :)
Jay Bell
10-04-2005, 18:06
(I'm the reverse - when I was out of shape I was skinny as a toothpick.)
I've always had the exact same issue. When I'm in really bad shape, I lose weight.
Jason's equation is true, of course, but there are more factors to think about that go into that equation - types of exercise, foods that fill a person up vs. make him more hungry, slow vs. faster burning foods (spiking sugar vs. slow and steady all-day burn), foods packed with calories (fats and sugars), and so on.
I was hoping to get that kind of discussion going.
Jason's equation is true, of course, but there are more factors to think about that go into that equation - types of exercise, foods that fill a person up vs. make him more hungry, slow vs. faster burning foods (spiking sugar vs. slow and steady all-day burn), foods packed with calories (fats and sugars), and so on.
I was hoping to get that kind of discussion going.
Well, my husband is diabetic and my daughter actually has an early intolerance to sugar. Not just junk food sugar, I'm talking a lot of fruits that are very high in sugar and an over abundance of carbs. Consequently, our diet is pretty basic but very balanced. We don't have any junk food in the house, we eat a lot of fish/chicken/turkey, basic breakfast cereals like Special K or Oatmeal, we snack on oranges and other fruits that are not as high in sugar. That is basically it. No soda (not even diet). I am a big salad lover, so there are always salad varieties to be had. Popcorn is also a favorite. Cheese is a favorite. We go light on the juices. Actually juice is terrible - even concentrated orange juice is packed with natural sugars.
I have found beverages to be more of a downfall than food.
Luebbers
10-04-2005, 19:08
Jason's equation is true, of course, but there are more factors to think about that go into that equation - types of exercise, foods that fill a person up vs. make him more hungry, slow vs. faster burning foods (spiking sugar vs. slow and steady all-day burn), foods packed with calories (fats and sugars), and so on.
I was hoping to get that kind of discussion going.
That, to me, is also an important topic that does not get enough discussion. Even what you started the thread with - people do not realize how bad partially hydrogenated oils are and how prevalent they are in so many foods. It used to be that you didn't even have to list them as an ingredient, but I believe the FDA is doing something about that.
While the whoe, "eat less, do more," philosophy will usually result in weight loss, it isn't necessarily the most efficient. About three months ago, I switched to a radically healthy diet. I eat five or six meals a day and probably consume more calories than I did before. But I eat all low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-sugar, low-sodium. I make sure to get fruits and vegetables in there with the "real" food - and it's had extremely pleasing results for me.
The problem with just cutting food, is that you are basically taking your body through a mini-crash diet. If I skip breakfast, eat a small sandwich for lunch, and then eat an entire pizza for dinner, I'm probably consuming fewer calories than I am now. But, I'm doing two very bad things. First, I'm training my body to store fat. Because I eat sporadically, and binge on a particular meal, my body starts storing fat because it doesn't know when the next meal will come, or how big it will be. Also, if I eat relatively non-nutritious foods regularly, I'm wasting those calories I am consuming on food that isn't really helping my body do what it needs to do. So, I could end up with muscle loss, as well.
My advice - don't eat any fast food, if you can help it. Eat balanced meals, preferrably high in protein (white meat, fish, peanut butter), and sub in low-fat alternatives whenever possible. Eat at LEAST three squares a day - do NOT skip breakfast. Skipping breakfast, alone, can increase your chances for becoming overweight by over 400%.
Skipping breakfast, alone, can increase your chances for becoming overweight by over 400%.
This is true? How so?
Jay Bell
10-04-2005, 19:23
If I had to guess, I'd say the slowing of the metabolism.
So, next question (that's what I'd think, too, Jay) - don't you find that you remain lighter if you are hungry for every meal? Or does this slow the metabolism? Or does it vary from person to person?
I find that if I skip breakfast and have an early lunch, I do better. I'm hungry, but the pounds start coming off.
They come right back, though, if I eat normally again.
This is true? How so?
My guess is because your blood sugar is so low by lunch time, after having no food since the night before, that you overeat the rest of the day. That's sure how it works for me. I was never able to lose weight until I started eating a healthy breakfast. Now, I have changed to eating a light breakfast, followed by a light/healthy midmorning snack. Then I have a light lunch, followed by a similar mid-afternoon snack. After that, it doesnt take much dinner to make me happy.
Despite the fact that I'm eating 5X per day, when all is said and done, I've actually consumed fewer calories, and I'm never really hungry.
Another problem with the average person today is that, besides generally unhealthy food choices, the average portion size is too large. There is a HUGE difference between eating until you are "full", and eating until you are "not hungry anymore". Most people eat until they are full. I find that if I push away from the table as soon as I no longer feel hungry, I have more energy, sleep better, and lose weight.
Lastly, when you suddenly drop the number of calories you are consuming, your body goes into survival mode and your metabolism slows, making it more difficult to lose weight. This is where regular exercise is crucial, because it rev's up your metabolic rate to help you burn calories faster.
A great book about nutrition for athletes is :"In Fitness and Health, Everyone Is An Athlete", by Maffetone.
It is a good intro to learning about glycemic tendencies of different foods, and how they affect your body's insulin response, which regardless of your level of
health, can affect your energy and hunger levels
AndrewSimonsen
10-04-2005, 20:14
I'm actually trying to gain weight right now, any hints?
. Skipping breakfast, alone, can increase your chances for becoming overweight by over 400%.
By that token, I should be the fattest thing on earth. :laugh:
Funny, I absolutely police breakfast in this house. Everyone MUST have breakfast - except me. I have NEVER been a breakfast eater. Like Eric, I go for an 11:30am lunch.
I'm actually trying to gain weight right now, any hints?
French fries with gravy.
As you know my son, you can appreciate it when I say that his 6th grade discovery of French fries w/ gravy (in the middle school cafeteria) is the only thing in the world that has put weight on that boy. Of course the middle schools also use these neat little credit card type things where the bill comes to me. He thought that was great! I was not so pleased. So, the FF w/ gravy stint was pretty short lived. But, it did pack some weight on that guy. By the by, he's pushing 6' now!!!
Edit: Wrestling starts Thursday. He is really looking forward to it. I'll forward details as I get them.
G Hendrix
10-05-2005, 00:40
French fries with gravy for weight gain? Please say it ain't so.
French fries with gravy for weight gain? Please say it ain't so.
Do tell. You suggest french fries w/ gravy for weight LOSS? Not in this lifetime.
G Hendrix
10-05-2005, 02:16
What kind of weight gain do you think you are more likely to get from such diet? Lean mass gain or FAT?
Surely, gaining fat is not a desirable outcome, under normal circumstances.
You should increase your calorie intake via a balanced and healthy diet, accompanied by exercise that induces hypertrophy, should you wish to increase lean mass gain.
Fattening yourself is not the desirable way to gain weight.
Rasputin
10-05-2005, 09:21
Oh man, I remember getting a basket of fried potatoes with gravy and cheese at the Rocket City Diner in Hattiesburg, MS. Man, those were outta sight! Who cares about weight? If you can get your hands on some of those, you can die happy at any body type!
If you can get your hands on some of those, you can die happy at any body type!
Gravy on anything is good... Especially if it is fried first.... mmmmmm
If I had to guess, I'd say the slowing of the metabolism.
Several studies have been done invenstigating the effects of WHEN you eat and how often you eat on human metabolism. Assuming you take in the same amount of total calories per day, there is no difference in metabolic level over a 24 hour period.
Raising or lowering a person's metabolism is more of a chronic adaptation rather than an acute one. If you remain active over the longer term your metabolism is going to stay high regardless if you eat one meal or six smaller ones... Whether or not it is healthy and practical to only eat one meal is a different discussion.
As far as making training adaptations however, timing of eating is HUGELY important along with the types of marcronutrients that you eat. Just don't confuse one with the other...
To the point of eating as naturally as possible, I agree wholeheartedly. Today's processed foods make it much more difficult to maintain healthy body fat levels than when you eat more naturally. Hydrogenation and other processes are many times more damaging to you in the long run than if you had just eaten the fat in the first place.
I know it seems out of place and probably too simplistic but the revised food guide pyramid is a very good place to start in order to get the appropriate amounts of macro and micronutrients that are needed on a daily basis. From that point, it is all about calorie control. In other words, if you oven bake your fries and use fat free gravy and you eat too much of it, you are still going to get fat...
In addition, dietary fat is a very important nutrient that we all need in moderation. In fact, we need more of it if we are involved in high intensity training on a regular basis. Virtually all of our steroid hormones are synthesyzed from fats and fatty acids. Furthermore, they require fats to assist with transport across cellular membranes which are made of lipids in order for them to act on their target tissues or receptors. Cutting your diet to extremely low levels of fat can seriously affect your bodies ability to regulate and repair itself.
In reality changing your diet is very difficult to do and most people fail at it. The harder you make it on yourself the worse if will go. Most of the research suggests making small changes over time that add up to big ones. For example... Reducing the number of kcalories that are consumed without changing the type of calories... Then after a month or two, making some small changes in the type of calories and a month or two later, doing the same thing. Some of our other members have made the point that the type of carbs or fats that you consumbe is very important and they are quite correct. The problem is that the more difficult you make your diet to control, the more likely you are to NOT stay with it for the long term. Just look at the number of people who yo-yo their weight in America and you will see plenty of evidence for that phenomenon. The take home message is that small, managable change over the longer term will have a much greater chance of being permanent ones. Trying to make huge changes all at once will virtually guarentee a lack of compliance...
I'm actually trying to gain weight right now, any hints?
Proteins, Andrew, and some weight lifting.
Can I suggest a big portion of steak, chicken, pork, whatever, for dinner and a big portion for lunch. This protein provides your body with the right pieces to bulk up.
And lots of high weight low rep weight lifting. This provides the impetuous for your body to use those proeteins to bulk up.
But I would not try to gain weight, though. Just do your sports, have some fun, and let your body determine the right amount of mass to develop. Being big is way overrated. Please, trust me on this one.
Prince Loeffler
10-05-2005, 10:46
Science and Diet Aside ... The 5 major causes of weight problems
1) Laziness
2) Laziness
3) Laziness
4) Laziness
5) Laziness
Enough Said ! Sorry for being Harsh but its the truth. I am so tired of people complaining that they are fat, yet refuses to to anything about it. I have seen parents who are overweight themselves complains about how fat their kids are. Not surprisingly after a good karate workout would rush them to your nearest Mcdonald as a reward for working out hard and being good in class. :(
Lately the media has been assisting people get lazier each time, how ? Well, I have seen news where being fat are blames on genetics, being fat is blah blah blah. Fat people are almost never blamed for their overweight problems and so many are so damm lazy that they will rather blame their "genes" for being fat.
I do not condemm people for being fat, I despised those who complains and whine about being fat. I do have friends who are overweight, yet they make every effort to lose weight by eating healthier and excercising more.
Whew enought rant, glad to get it off my chest.. :bow: Time to get my fat behind to vacuum the living room..... :laugh:
Proteins, Andrew, and some weight lifting.
Can I suggest a big portion of steak, chicken, pork, whatever, for dinner and a big portion for lunch. This protein provides your body with the right pieces to bulk up.
And lots of high weight low rep weight lifting. This provides the impetuous for your body to use those proeteins to bulk up.
But I would not try to gain weight, though. Just do your sports, have some fun, and let your body determine the right amount of mass to develop. Being big is way overrated. Please, trust me on this one.
Not to be a jerk here but this is somewhat incorrect Erik...
The optimal intensity range for muscular hypertrophy is more moderate than that of pure strength gain. Hitting failure between 8 - 12 repetitions (which usually forces one to stay somewhere between 70 - 85% of one-repetition maximum), typically causes a much more significant endocrine response which is the stimulus for sattelite cell activation and then protein synthesis.
Dipping occasionally into the realm of pure strength training or local muscular endurance training is a very good thing to do but if you really want to add muscle, most of your time should be spent in ranges of moderate intensity and moderate volume. The research consistantly demonstrates that there is a "volume floor" for hormonal response and if you don't reach it, you will not get as significant of an endocrine and paracrine response.
Simply put, think body builders versus powerlifters... They don't train the same and nor should they as they have different goals...
My adivice would be to spend about 65 - 76 % of your time in the hypertrophy range and every 4 - 6 weeks or so do a couple of weeks of really high intensity pure strength training before backing off for a couple of weeks and then go back into the hypertrophy phase again.
Not to be a jerk here but this is somewhat incorrect Erik...
Huh? Are you kidding?
Jerk? You're no jerk.
Thanks for setting this straight. Seems I misunderstood.
Could you describe a general workout here, though? I'm not understanding exactly what the differences are between bodybuilding and powerlifting, and what hypertrophy is in terms of amount of weight and number of repetitions and number of sets.
In very general terms Erik, the difference between bodybuilding versus powerlifting is that one is concerned with gaining size of the muscle while the other is concerned with gaining strength. These things are accomplished in different ways. In addition, the actual physiologicala adaptations that are occuring are very different between gaining size and gaining strength.
Most studies show a poor relationship between a muscles cross-sectional area and its ability to express force at high levels. The reason for that are that there literally hundreds of adaptations which can occur within the central nervous system, the peripheral motor neuron, and the muscle itself which allow for greater force or contraction velocities which are not reflected through greater muscle size...
There have been 600 page text books and hundreds of research articles devoted to the ways in which you can manipulate the variables of volume, intensity, frequency, rest times, and exercise selection in order to maximize results. However, in a very general sense here are some guidelines:
Hypertrophy
Intensity - 70 - 85% of one repetition maximum (1RM)
Volume - 3 to 5 sets at 8 to 12 repetitions per set
Frequency - 2 to 3 times per week
Rest times - 1 to 2 minutes between each set
Strength
Intensity - 85 - 90% of 1RM
Volume - 3 to 4 sets at 4 to 6 repetitions per set
Frequency - 1 - 2 times per week
Rest times - 2 to 4 minutes between sets
* body parts can be trained more often but will be done at a MUCH lower intensity level but at the same set and rep range. One example would be heavy upper body one day with light lower body and on your second lifting day switch them around.
Periodically, those who are training for gains in strength as their primary goal will do what is called a peaking for strength phase followed by a taper for a could of weeks to allow the body to recover. That MAY look something like this:
Peaking
Intensity - 95 to 100% of 1RM
Volume - 3 to 4 sets at 1 - 3 repetitions per set
Frequency - 1 to 2 times per week per body part
Rest times - 4 to 6 minutes between each set.
* the same method of training heavy one day and light the next will work for peaking. You can train heavy for two sessions but you can only maintain that for a couple of weeks before you need to taper in order to avoid overtraining syndrome.
Taper
Intensity - Much lower than peaking for strength or even strength probably around 60 - 70% of 1RM
Volume, freq, and rest times would all be in the range of a strength phase.
* This is usually done for a couple of weeks between cycles or before an important event such as competition or pre/post season testing to enable high levels of performance and to prevent overtraining...
This is a very simplified explanation but I hope it helps a little bit...
Jason
The optimal intensity range for muscular hypertrophy is more moderate than that of pure strength gain. Hitting failure between 8 - 12 repetitions (which usually forces one to stay somewhere between 70 - 85% of one-repetition maximum), typically causes a much more significant endocrine response which is the stimulus for sattelite cell activation and then protein synthesis.
Dipping occasionally into the realm of pure strength training or local muscular endurance training is a very good thing to do but if you really want to add muscle, most of your time should be spent in ranges of moderate intensity and moderate volume. The research consistantly demonstrates that there is a "volume floor" for hormonal response and if you don't reach it, you will not get as significant of an endocrine and paracrine response.
Simply put, think body builders versus powerlifters... They don't train the same and nor should they as they have different goals...
My adivice would be to spend about 65 - 76 % of your time in the hypertrophy range and every 4 - 6 weeks or so do a couple of weeks of really high intensity pure strength training before backing off for a couple of weeks and then go back into the hypertrophy phase again.
Jason,
A question based on my own personal experience:
Do you find that your guidelines hold true across most/all muscle groups, in particular larger vs. smaller groups? I have found that, for me anyway, my larger muscle groups, e.g., pecs, gain both strength and size fairly quickly working in the 3-6 rep range, while my smaller groups, e.g., biceps, don't respond to your optimal 8-12 rep range for stimulating growth. I seem to need several sets in the 14-18 rep area to get any growth there. Strength gains in these muscles, at the 14-18 rep area are slow, but fairly steady.
A quick question outside of the topic at hand...
Wouldn't just not eating when you're not hungry do wonders for most people?
I try not to eat when I'm not physically hungry, and I'm keeping at a fairly constantly trim weight. What I get from excess weight is mostly not drinking enough water...
Jason,
A question based on my own personal experience:
Do you find that your guidelines hold true across most/all muscle groups, in particular larger vs. smaller groups? I have found that, for me anyway, my larger muscle groups, e.g., pecs, gain both strength and size fairly quickly working in the 3-6 rep range, while my smaller groups, e.g., biceps, don't respond to your optimal 8-12 rep range for stimulating growth. I seem to need several sets in the 14-18 rep area to get any growth there. Strength gains in these muscles, at the 14-18 rep area are slow, but fairly steady.
There will always be individual differences. There is no known physiological mechanism to suggest that certain muscles respond differently to training stimuli then others with the possible exception of fibre typing. Certain muscles are predominantly fast twitch such as the gastrocnemius while others such as the soleus are primarily slow twitch.
One other thing to consider is on which days you train your smaller muscles. If you have a seperate arm day for example, you would need higher volumes to get the same endocrine response because the amount of muscle used is a simulus for hormone release along with volume and intensity. That certainly could affect your results in the long term.
And lastly, a persons' state of training can have a great deal to do with how then respond to different stimuli. For example, people who are more highly trained need less frequency but higher daily volumes to make maximal gains versus people who are at a lower state of training.
In reality, people who are training for absolute strength gains rarely spend much time on smaller muscle groups as it simply takes too long for not much benefit. They prefer to work on multi-joint movements as that is going to provide the greater endocrine response and resultant strength gain.
There really are no hard and fast "rules" but rather guidelines. Exercise prescription is both an art and a science. Understanding the scientific principles is essential to be really good at the art but it is not the whole story. Having the ability to properly manipulate each variable based on the individual is the art part of things and comes with a sound scientific background and experience...
Good question...
A quick question outside of the topic at hand...
Wouldn't just not eating when you're not hungry do wonders for most people?
I try not to eat when I'm not physically hungry, and I'm keeping at a fairly constantly trim weight. What I get from excess weight is mostly not drinking enough water...
That is certainly something to consider. The psychological aspects of when you eat such as while watching a football game or when depressed often trump the actual pangs of hunger or lack thereof.
I would also have to say that your suggestion works great when you're 18 but not so great when you are 48. Not to be condisending, just making a point.
AndrewSimonsen
10-05-2005, 16:23
Proteins, Andrew, and some weight lifting.
Can I suggest a big portion of steak, chicken, pork, whatever, for dinner and a big portion for lunch. This protein provides your body with the right pieces to bulk up.
And lots of high weight low rep weight lifting. This provides the impetuous for your body to use those proeteins to bulk up.
But I would not try to gain weight, though. Just do your sports, have some fun, and let your body determine the right amount of mass to develop. Being big is way overrated. Please, trust me on this one.
I weigh 128, I'm 5'9. I don't want to be big, I just don't want to be twiggy.
Then do my diet and Jason's workout.
I think that ought to work for you. :D
That is certainly something to consider. The psychological aspects of when you eat such as while watching a football game or when depressed often trump the actual pangs of hunger or lack thereof.
I would also have to say that your suggestion works great when you're 18 but not so great when you are 48. Not to be condisending, just making a point.
The way I would take this is that yes, what is suggested would work, with a large part depending on what you would actually eat. Unfortunately, in our society, and as you state, we have become so accustomed to eating during a sedentary activity that it doesn't matter whether we're hungry or not. What's watching a movie at a theatre without hot buttered popcorn? :p
I have read (and tried), that when I think I'm hungry, to drink a glass of water first. If the body was really famished you will still be and if it was more psychological, then you won't be.
Another problem most adults have in this regard is their lives tend to revolve around food. Almost every event planned is in some way involved with eating. I know people at my work place are generally trying to figure out what to do about lunch at 0900. When my husband and I plan to go out, it is always going to have a meal of some sort in it. And generally that's all it is for us. :(
Bottom line is, most (and I'm not saying all) people don't make plans to go out for an acitivity in itself. They need to include a snack, a meal or desert to go along with it.
When I was younger, and a stringbean, the only time I ever though of food was first thing in the morning when I got up and the last thing at night before I went to bed. And I only ate enough to keep me going because I had better things to do than sit still and feed my face.
Jeez, I wish I could still do that. :p
Kara - a few tricks that may or may not help:
My wife and I get appitizers only or split an appitizer and a main course. It's not a lot of food, but I find that we're both full afterwards. The fact that the appitizer comes out first is good as it starts the (very slow) full-stomach signal.
Also, heck, go out for a drink instead of a meal! I don't know how you do with alcohol, but my family has a strange alcohol gene - we rarely get full from food but half a beer or a wine and we're stuffed. No desire for a second one, either. Strange, isn't it?
Maybe these things will work for you.
Erik - very good ideas.
However, I was raised on - eat everything on your plate. And I, at times, have that "eyes are bigger than my stomach" syndrome. Put the two together and...I'm sure you get the picture. This is one of the reasons we don't eat out very much.
I love the alcohol idea, however I personally don't care for the stuff - most of which tastes the same and like crap to me. I have an average of drinking 3-4 times a year. That would leave 361 days left to figure out what to do. ;)
Although my post was more generalized than about me personally, the only real hangup I have is the going out. My husband seems to think that going out involves the meal. And I'm sure I'm as guilty at times - just not as much. :laugh:
Personally I'd be a happier person to "go out" and hike a 10 mile trail or play some tennis or something. But the other half is not the out-doorsy or sports playing type. Yes, he loves to watch hockey (as do I) but what's a hockey game without the snacks...
Mini carrots are nice and crunchy for snacks. Sprinkle paramasan cheese on your popcorn instead of butter. Not as good, but it'll do.
I read an article once, while I was in college, that Duke Uni did some sort of study on ca. 80,000 sets of twins. It showed that the twin who drank moderately (2 drinks/day, which is an obscene amount to me, but that's considered moderate) outperformed the twin who drank too much (no surprise) and the twin who did not drink at all (surprise!)
I started splitting a beer with my roommie while studying and my GPA went from a 3.0 to a 4.0 immediately. I couldn't believe it. My sports performance also got a little better. I couldn't believe that, either.
Anyway, for people who don't have the taste for booze (sounds like you, too), actually nursing one drink while going out can kill time while you socialize. And alcohol in that size dose isn't bad for a person.
Just a thought.
Oh - and order from the appitizer menu. You'll find that you're not hungry anymore after about 20 minutes though you won't be as full as if you got the full dinner. I also eat everything on my plate. I've learned to fill it less at the start. It's very difficult to do but it helps.
...who drank moderately (2 drinks/day, which is an obscene amount to me, but that's considered moderate)...
I just have 14 beers every Saturday that way I get my full weeks worth in one shot... Just kidding, I haven't done that in QUITE a while... Couldn't resist though :up:
Personally, I plan to go against those odds given of overweight men and women. My first husband said that by the time I'm 50 I'm going to be fat and wheelchair bound. Actually he's put on a bunch of weight since he got out of the military and I've managed to lose some pounds. :cool:
I find that if I skip breakfast and have an early lunch, I do better. I'm hungry, but the pounds start coming off.
And personally I agree whole-heartedly in skipping breakfast. Once I start eating I have a tendency to continue throughout the morning. Otherwise if I skip breakfast, I'm really not that hungry until lunch. Then I just eat around 11 with no repercussions.
Granted, that supposedly slows down the metabolism, but I've lost weight and have kept it off by doing that. And I don't do that everyday.
I just have 14 beers every Saturday that way I get my full weeks worth in one shot... Just kidding, I haven't done that in QUITE a while... Couldn't resist though :up:
I didn't realize a week was considered QUITE a while. :laugh: j/k
I took care of most of my alcoholic cravings during a three month period while stationed in Kentucky. The legal drinking age was changing from 18 to 21 and I was 19 (or 20). So almost every weekend I got drunk (and sick) of almost every mixed drink (and even coolers) there were. Beer wasn't an issue; it was nasty from the start.
And since then I have had no desire to do any real drinking, even after I became legal (again).
I didn't realize a week was considered QUITE a while. :laugh: j/k
Very funny Kay, I like it!
Hm... that water thing's a good idea. I'll have to remember that. Thanks.
(especially as I tend to dehydrate myself somehow... even though I tend to drink like a fish whenever I can.)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.