thehammerdog

Beer, Chips, Eggs, Beer, Ice cream & 46 yrs old......not enough hrs in the day to ride it off.

Doug5150

The OP's original question was, "why can people who are so active still not be totally thin"--and the reason was as I said. Some of it is genetics you are born with, and some of it is factors that are working on the same level, but the exact cause isn't known.

Here's another news story to ponder:
DNA swab tests kids’ athletic ability
https://www.necn.com/11/13/11/DNA-swa...22&feedID=4213

"... Atlas is based in Boulder, Colorado. For $160 per child, they send a kit with instructions on how to get a DNA swab.

The swabs are sent to Atlas, then to a lab in Australia.

The company is looking for something called the ACTN-three gene, which is responsible for fast-twitch explosive muscles.

"It's really just a tool in a tool box of an athlete to analyze a scenario," says Nat Carruthers, President of Operations.

It's all about sports science. If one doesn't have a lot of ACTN-three, one may be better suited for endurance sports, like cycling and swimming.

A little bit of ACTN-three means one is a mixed-pattern athlete with strength and endurance, and one has potential in just about any sport.

The third and final category is strength and power. When one falls under this category, it means one has a lot of ACTN-three in the body. ..."





A lot of people bristle at the notion that much of your fate is written when you are conceived, but the more research is done, the more this is being found to be true.

You can do anything and have fun of course--but the reason that most of us were never Olympic-level athletes has much more to do with just the claim that one "didn't try hard enough". And if you are willing to disregard genetics as a factor, then you might as well disregard everything else too--because everything else is based on the genetic constraints present.

BarracksSi

Notice, though, that at least at this point, they're not saying that you will always be slow and weak if you don't have any ACTN-three. They're only saying that you'd be good for endurance, or strength, or a mix of the two -- but nowhere did he say "couch potato."

I've only been realizing this recently -- that we, as a population, generally under-train ourselves down to a performance level that is much lower than the human body is capable of doing. I'll never be in the Olympics, I'll never be a Tour climber, I'll never be a pro athlete, but if I work hard, I can become quick enough to make a good showing at a pickup game of ball.

So what if genetics prevent me from being a select athlete among the all-stars at the top of the 1% of all great athletes that are better than anyone else in their specific discipline of sport (in short, "an Olympian")? There's nothing that says I can't train and eat like they do.

BarracksSi

Skimming back through this thread (it's not as old as I thought, either ) --

Here's an idea from a NYT columnist back in July:
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/op...pagewanted=all

dwellman

Or, we could eliminate USDA entirely. . .

Reynolds 

I'm 60, 172 cm, 69 kg, and I don't consider me too fat (well, a little belly, perhaps...). Over 40yrs, my weight fluctuated between 65/74, last 10yrs between 66/70, also rode 100,000+ kms in that period. My wife says it's because "I don't care too much about food".

idc

Agreed. The corn + soy subsidies are ridiculous. Actually subsidies in general are.

HFCS is usually either 55% fructose, 42% glucose or 42% fructose, 53% glucose. Sugar is 50/50 so HFCS is actually pretty similar to sugar and processed virtually the same way. The problem is that while glucose is an easily metabolized fuel for your body, fructose is not so great for you if you don't use it quickly.

Yup.

mpath

This nature vs nurture debate will continue to rage on for quite a bit longer yet. Both camps will justify each position with hordes of "scientific studies". Some of us will take a sampling of those "studies" to justify/rationalize why we are what we are, eg. I was born with fat DNA so there's nothing I can do about it, um, where's my donut? Or, come hell or high water I'm going to train myself to be a pro athlete/prodigy something or other.

No doubt it makes for interesting discussion.

gregf83 

There's nothing wrong with fructose while you're exercising. Studies have found improved performance when consuming fructose and glucose vs glucose alone. I often eat dates (lots of fructose) while riding and don't have any problems.

trobinson017

For me it's one word: beer. I likes my beer. From the back I look fit and trim. From the side I look bulbous.

idc

True, I shouldn't have worded it like that. It's fine for fuel when you're exercising.

BarracksSi

I wouldn't do that, though. Maybe reform its thinking so that it's less misguided and susceptible to corporate interests, but if we didn't have a regulatory agency for food, we'd be back to snorting snake oil.

mpath

I think most for the most part, we already are........just look at the obesity rates and its related diseases in North America, and compare to other parts of the civilized world. Staggering.

Not a knock on the USDA (and I've worked intimately with the FDA in my corporate career).

Mithrandir

Subsidies are a solid concept. True, our current corn/soy subsidy situation has gotten completely out of hand, but one bad implementation of it shouldn't be used to condemn the entire concept.

There are two major points in favor of food subsidies. Given substantial wage disparities between countries, at a certain point it becomes extremely profitable to import all of your food from a foreign country. This can have disastrous consequences if those countries suddenly decide they don't want to sell you their food anymore. So from a national defense standpoint it makes sense to ensure that it is always profitable to grow food within your own borders.

Secondly, the free market is dumb. The will of the people at large rarely correllates with what the people actually need to survive as a healthy society. Right now the number 1 crop in the US is corn simply because of the insane amount of subsidies put into it. Now imagine a completely free market; the #1 vegetable crop in the country would easily become Potatoes simply due to the volume of demand for french fries alone. People would stop planting healthier crops such as broccoli and cabbage simply because they are less profitable, thus decreasing supply and increasing price. Suddenly it becomes that much more expensive to eat healthy, and everyone who tries is at a disadvantage.

So, the concept of food subsidies is not flawed, but various implementations, especially our current implementation, are very flawed.

Nachoman

Why are we still so fat?
In a word . . . PIZZA!!!

BarracksSi

But... but... but... pizza is a vegetable!

Sean T

Wow, seriously? If there weren't subsidies no one would plant healthier items?
I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that the government in the form of the USDA is there to make us eat our veggies.

Machka 

+1

I came to that realisation when I started advancing in long distance cycling, and particularly randonneuring. Prior to my first century, the 100 mile distance seemed huge ... and anything longer than that seemed almost impossible. By the time I had done my 4th 1200K, however, I had come to the conclusion that the human body is capable of so much more than what we give it credit for.

Eat a healthy, low-calorie diet (high in veggies and lean meats, without sauces and other fattening things on them) and get out there and ride, and ride, and ride ... and mix it up with walking, skiing, canoeing, swimming, weight lifting, and other exercise throughout the day. And you'll lose weight and get stronger.

surgeonstone

I'll tell you why we are too fat....because we eat too much.

scruggle

Is this a joke? Either way, this kind of petitio principii explains very little. I guess it's good if you need a quick answer in order to dodge the issue.

That is - one is still left with the question, why do people eat too much? If the answer is any variant of "personal responsibility", "free choice", "laziness", that just circles back into "why do people choose to eat too much/be lazy/fail to exercise responsibility?"

surgeonstone

YI take it you have not read the entire thread or my earlier response. Yes it is a joke in the sense that we are back to square 1.

scruggle

Why? I read the thread and your posts. At one time you said the problem was simple (as simple as calories in vs. calories out) and another time you admitted there were 'subtleties to a difficult problem' upon which you could expound for days. If you're making a joke, fine.

Touting 'personal responsibility' or 'ownership' doesn't do any heavy lifting in explaining or addressing rising rates of obesity. The obese are continually reminded that they should do something about their bodies, they have plenty of negative reinforcement, and there are undeniable incentives for them to exercise and to have different eating habits - yet people remain obese. If it was so simple, people would not. I agree with you that there are subtleties to this difficult problem.

banerjek

Saying we are back to square 1 implies we had left it at some time...

surgeonstone

Good point.

wrr1020

Speak for yourself, i'm in the best shape of my life. Then again i'm young and have a very fast metabolism.