|
Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets
(Post 15288552)
Year 'round here.
|
1 Attachment(s)
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=300075
That's my training load (based on TRIMP) from when I bought my Garmin up until today. That includes cycling (lots) running (almost none) and ruck marches (about 100 km a year) DG |
Originally Posted by Velo Vol
(Post 15288560)
On the river? Or whitewater?
|
|
Originally Posted by RecceDG
(Post 15288181)
I blame evolution.
Seriously - millions of years of the body adapting to work as best possible on a reduced-calorie, low-density (ie low calories/kg of food) diet, particularly with regard to storing excess fuel as fat whenever possible. Then *WHAM* we invent agriculture. All of a sudden, calories are cheap and plentiful, and come in densities only found in things like fats and honey (relatively rare and hard to come by) So now you can get the calories that would have taken you a week of hunting and gathering in a single meal. And on top of that, evolution bred in an instinctual aversion to heavy work - because expending calories unecessarily might kill you when there's no food to be had. But no heavy work means the fat never burns off. We are literally built to get fat and lazy on the amount of food intake and workload that is typical with modern life - because the timeframe between the discovery of agriculture and the modern day is not evolutionarily long enough to have caused counter-adaptation. Bring on the genetic engineering! I want a stomach that shuts off "hungry" at far lower calorie intake. I want a metabolism that recognises when I'm at 10% body fat and shuts off the fat storage mechanism once 10% is exceeded. I want sugar cravings shut off. DG |
Originally Posted by LowCel
(Post 15288512)
Is that a grey market Quarq?
|
Originally Posted by LAJ
(Post 15288637)
I don't believe so, LowCel. It doesn't have Red crank arms, so it is a 2012 model. Curious about the question though, as I haven't heard of grey market in these?
|
Good attempt at humor, and a bad job of spelling on my part. My mistake. :)
|
Originally Posted by RecceDG
(Post 15288181)
I blame evolution.
Seriously - millions of years of the body adapting to work as best possible on a reduced-calorie, low-density (ie low calories/kg of food) diet, particularly with regard to storing excess fuel as fat whenever possible. Then *WHAM* we invent agriculture. All of a sudden, calories are cheap and plentiful, and come in densities only found in things like fats and honey (relatively rare and hard to come by) So now you can get the calories that would have taken you a week of hunting and gathering in a single meal. And on top of that, evolution bred in an instinctual aversion to heavy work - because expending calories unecessarily might kill you when there's no food to be had. But no heavy work means the fat never burns off. We are literally built to get fat and lazy on the amount of food intake and workload that is typical with modern life - because the timeframe between the discovery of agriculture and the modern day is not evolutionarily long enough to have caused counter-adaptation. Bring on the genetic engineering! I want a stomach that shuts off "hungry" at far lower calorie intake. I want a metabolism that recognises when I'm at 10% body fat and shuts off the fat storage mechanism once 10% is exceeded. I want sugar cravings shut off. DG I blame parenting more than evolution, or perhaps the evolution of a parenting myth. We all seem to want our children to have it "easier" than we did, and we have hence bred an "easy" generation. I'm sure my parents want me to have an easier life than them, but they did not make it easy to do so. Physical labor was still a required part of life when I was younger (wood heat meant cutting tree, splitting wood, stacking cord wood), and it seems that that requirement continues to disappear. But here is a real evolution question: barring the morbidly obese, every human being has the same number (within a fairly close range) of fat storage cells. When you lose weight, these cells don't go away, they just reduce in size and are functionally empty. Why? We all inherently have the same capacity to fill our fat cells and be obese. If the argument is that original man had insufficient access to high calorie input, why so many storage units? I am not proposing any rationale, it is just a tidbit I always find interesting. |
Evolution, genetic adaptation , certainly is important. I believe the real difference is fairly simple and that though we are programmed, some more effectively than others , to store fat, that the reasons for the obesity epidemic are really quite different. One thing is for certain, the genetics present in this age of staggering obesity are no different than the genetics of our farmer for-fathers. Genetic variability does not occur that quickly.
One very interesting graph charting obesity from 1900, where we are very thin, shows a slight increase from the age of the automobile but still a relatively stable and flat curve. Around 1976 this curve goes exponentially up and just keeps on climbing. This was the time that the Japanese developed the techniques to make high fructose corn syrup. Now I am really not convinced there is any inherent evil in HFCS, one thing it does do though is stabilize foods that are frozen and processed, giving it a longer shelf life and a better "mouth feel". This substance has been instrumental in the explosion of snack foods, many targeted specifically at children now home alone in two parent worker families. Parallel and just slightly staggered to this obesity curve is another graph charting the number of snack food/ processed foods available in this nation, from 1900 on an essentially flat line but around 1976 it just goes up exponentially. Food for thought! Are the two related? We as a society eat very differently that prior eras. When I was growing up snacking was forbidden except for fruit in the afternoon after school. When we went to the beach on the weekend or on a trip to a park, part of the trip was packing a picnic for our meal. Now any given stretch of suburban USA road shows food outlets in numbers that are crazy. When you mix all the above with an organism that " evolved" in times of want where fat storage was critical for life, what was advantageous has now shifted to a danger and disease producer rather than cure. |
Originally Posted by RecceDG
(Post 15288570)
http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=300075
That's my training load (based on TRIMP) from when I bought my Garmin up until today. That includes cycling (lots) running (almost none) and ruck marches (about 100 km a year) DG Pope Pcad I |
Originally Posted by surgeonstone
(Post 15288787)
Evolution, genetic adaptation , certainly is important. I believe the real difference is fairly simple and that though we are programmed, some more effectively than others , to store fat, that the reasons for the obesity epidemic are really quite different. One thing is for certain, the genetics present in this age of staggering obesity are no different than the genetics of our farmer for-fathers. Genetic variability does not occur that quickly.
One very interesting graph charting obesity from 1900, where we are very thin, shows a slight increase from the age of the automobile but still a relatively stable and flat curve. Around 1976 this curve goes exponentially up and just keeps on climbing. This was the time that the Japanese developed the techniques to make high fructose corn syrup. Now I am really not convinced there is any inherent evil in HFCS, one thing it does do though is stabilize foods that are frozen and processed, giving it a longer shelf life and a better "mouth feel". This substance has been instrumental in the explosion of snack foods, many targeted specifically at children now home alone in two parent worker families. Parallel and just slightly staggered to this obesity curve is another graph charting the number of snack food/ processed foods available in this nation, from 1900 on an essentially flat line but around 1976 it just goes up exponentially. Food for thought! Are the two related? We as a society eat very differently that prior eras. When I was growing up snacking was forbidden except for fruit in the afternoon after school. When we went to the beach on the weekend or on a trip to a park, part of the trip was packing a picnic for our meal. Now any given stretch of suburban USA road shows food outlets in numbers that are crazy. When you mix all the above with an organism that " evolved" in times of want where fat storage was critical for life, what was advantageous has now shifted to a danger and disease producer rather than cure. |
good post Dr. Stoney!
|
Originally Posted by 2manybikes
(Post 15288847)
In some locals it also seems as if the restaurants are competing for customers by making serving size larger. This has led to some ridiculous meal sizes.
|
Originally Posted by 2manybikes
(Post 15288847)
In some locals it also seems as if the restaurants are competing for customers by making serving size larger. This has led to some ridiculous meal sizes.
|
Originally Posted by surgeonstone
(Post 15288875)
I can't imagine eating a whole meal at a restaurant in the USA. Whenever we go out as a family (of 6), we never order more than three meals and then just split them up. Or if one of us wants something that no one else wants, half is packed for lunch the next day before that person eats it.
|
Originally Posted by surgeonstone
(Post 15288592)
Wow! Beautiful, where is it? Somewhere in the UK I would imagine.
|
Originally Posted by patentcad
(Post 15288792)
We all know who you are.
|
|
Originally Posted by LAJ
(Post 15289042)
Very near where I lived when I was a wee nipper.
|
Originally Posted by Velo Vol
(Post 15288425)
711.
|
Originally Posted by LAJ
(Post 15289042)
Very near where I lived when I was a wee nipper.
|
Originally Posted by surgeonstone
(Post 15288875)
I can't imagine eating a whole meal at a restaurant in the USA. Whenever we go out as a family (of 6), we never order more than three meals and then just split them up. Or if one of us wants something that no one else wants, half is packed for lunch the next day before that person eats it.
|
Originally Posted by patentcad
(Post 15288792)
Why do you sign every post like it's a memo from the boss? We all know who you are.
Pope Pcad I |
Originally Posted by surgeonstone
(Post 15288787)
Evolution, genetic adaptation , certainly is important. I believe the real difference is fairly simple and that though we are programmed, some more effectively than others , to store fat, that the reasons for the obesity epidemic are really quite different. One thing is for certain, the genetics present in this age of staggering obesity are no different than the genetics of our farmer for-fathers. Genetic variability does not occur that quickly.
One very interesting graph charting obesity from 1900, where we are very thin, shows a slight increase from the age of the automobile but still a relatively stable and flat curve. Around 1976 this curve goes exponentially up and just keeps on climbing. This was the time that the Japanese developed the techniques to make high fructose corn syrup. Now I am really not convinced there is any inherent evil in HFCS, one thing it does do though is stabilize foods that are frozen and processed, giving it a longer shelf life and a better "mouth feel". This substance has been instrumental in the explosion of snack foods, many targeted specifically at children now home alone in two parent worker families. Parallel and just slightly staggered to this obesity curve is another graph charting the number of snack food/ processed foods available in this nation, from 1900 on an essentially flat line but around 1976 it just goes up exponentially. Food for thought! Are the two related? We as a society eat very differently that prior eras. When I was growing up snacking was forbidden except for fruit in the afternoon after school. When we went to the beach on the weekend or on a trip to a park, part of the trip was packing a picnic for our meal. Now any given stretch of suburban USA road shows food outlets in numbers that are crazy. When you mix all the above with an organism that " evolved" in times of want where fat storage was critical for life, what was advantageous has now shifted to a danger and disease producer rather than cure. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:15 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.