|
Originally Posted by flipflops
I agree with the fact that some overweight people have a love my fatness/in your face attitude BUT I have to disagree with the women are taught to be confident thing-- I think many to most women have confidence issues-- especially related to their bodies. I think many to most, especially the overweight ones, try to cover up their fat as much as possible. If you go through your day and take notice, you'll probably see that most of the big girls are pretty covered-- I think the few that aren't just (unfortunately for all) tend to get your attention because you're pretty grossed out by the display.
While we're talking about body image-- I know alot of girls get all stressed out about looking like the models in magazines. They should see how much help the models get -- check out this link: http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.ca/...creen_evo.html Many women do have a poor self-image. Women have had to fight for respect. You need confidence in order to fight. Certainly women are now at the center of attention more than they ever have been. I think that shows that women have been urged to see themselves equal to men ..for a long time running I don't think that because women still have issues regarding their bodies (or anything) that it shows that confidence hasn't been taught/shown to be central in their advancement All that shows is how far there still is to go. The ones who cover themselves up in shame are just less gullible than the "muffin top" gang "faux empowerment" States it perfectly, IMO It's not about showing T&A It's about gaining power. To show yourself off in your natural state (whatever that may be) = (in their minds) power and self-confidence To these girls Showing yourself off is believed to be the easy route to empowerment only it's the route that travels in circles forever If one can believe that they are OK at any size -so long as they have the balls to shove their size in everyones face Why take care of your body? "..lot of girls get all stressed out about looking like the models in magazines." Same problem. These girls believe that looking a certain way brings about self-confidence. Confidence comes from within. Confidence is knowing that you're a quality person with talents. If you see "confidence" pouring out of someone It ain't confidence, it's a mask. Too many girls think that confidence is a show you perform. Actually, too many girls (and boys) know they aren't confident and don't care to delve into their depths for fear of what they may not find so they do outrageous things thinking that having balls=confidence enough. I could have made that half as long but I've been going back and forth between other things |
Originally Posted by wild animals
no, it's calories in liquids that the body doesn't regulate very well. eating a lot of HFCS contributes to obesity because it is calorie-dense. it's also in just about every processed food in any american grocery store.
obesity is so common because of american culture. if anyone here thinks that being mean to fat people is going to make fat people lose weight, then that person is fooling himself. it isn't going to happen. most fat people are mean enough to themselves without your help, and it hasn't lost them any weight. just about any fat person wants to lose weight, and probably most of us are trying to. if you want fat people to get healthy then find a productive means to that end rather than looking for a way to be rude to other people without feeling bad. as far as attractiveness goes, being a superficial dick is a lot less comely than being fat, i tell you what. www.pubmed.com |
Well, HFCS doesn't have any more calories/gm than normal carbs. And a soda-can with HFCS might have 125-150 calories, while an equivalent amount of nacho cheese-sauce will have over 1000 calories. You're definitely gotta get fatter eating those nachos than drinking a soda.
There are some effects of HFCS however, such as it not raising insulin & leptin levels as much as an equal-calorie amount of regular sugar or glucose. This leaves you with not feeling as full and still hungry and you end up consuming more of it and eating more calories as a result. But it's really the extra consumption that causes the majority of the problems; people are just eating way too damn much for the level of activity that they have. Some articles: University of Florida - Scientists find sugar may have a sour side SFgate - Sugar coated. We're drowning in high fructose corn syrup. PeerTrainer - Fructose and Fat Obesity Research - Carbohydrates and Increases in Obesity: Does the Type of Carbohydrate Make a Difference? AmJournal Clinical Nutrition - Fructose misuse, the obesity epidemic AmJournal Clinical Nutrition - Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome AmJournal Clinical Nutrition - Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates... AmJournal Clinical Nutrition - Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity Montgomery College - Corn Syrup: Bittersweet Story.pdf Bodybuilding.com - Types Of Sweeteners Secretariat of the Pacific Community #66.doc Nutrition&Metabolism - Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia Another site that shows where the glucose & fructose goes when sucrose is eaten: MedBioInfo - Carbohydrate metabolism Here's a paper that shows only 40-50gm of extra fructose can have severe repercussions: RefinedFructoseNegativeImpactonHealth.pdf There's no disputing that the average weight of Americans have increased dramatically in the past 20-years. We've just become too lazy, drive everywhere, especially in circles in parking lots to save walking 50ft, and we're eating way, way too much... |
Originally Posted by slowandsteady
Actually that isn't entirely true. HFCS is worse for you than just a similar load of calories. There is actually something in the Fructose that is harmful in high doses, where sucrose and other sugars are less harmful. There are a bunch of peer reviewed articles(several hundred) on this.
www.pubmed.com And BTW, There's nothing "in" fructose that is harmful. It's fructose (pure fructose) itself in high doses that is harmful, or at least, not beneficial. Guess it's about time for a renewed HFCS argument, why not here?! I'm game. |
Originally Posted by Machka
I don't know if it is the clothing style these days, but the girls in particular (but also a few guys) wear these low cut pants, and short tops so that their gut hangs out for all the world to see!......
Is that the fashion these days? Is a large, flabby stomach the "in" thing? Just curious I think, YES. for several reasons. 1) obesity is more of the 'norm', many more overweight people than a few decades ago, more accepted. 2) the body beautiful movement, positive body image. Good thing. 3) fashion, riot gurl overtones, in your face sex and (lack of)sensibility in the 21st century. Schizophrenic and unrealistic body image is still being foisted on society by the media and advertising, but there's never been a better time in the modern era for young women to be overweight and flauntin' it! I think its okay. It's good in a way; far better for a young woman to be comfortable with who they are, isn't it? Self confident girls ARE sexier, regardless of weight. It IS troubling that inactivity and diet that often come with obesity foreshadow health problems later in life. |
My only concern with these exposed tummies is that they risk damage from the cold, since they tend to keep this "gap" open to the elements even in extreme winter*.
*-5°C or so... |
Originally Posted by mac
What about college did you have to give up sleep for? I went for 5 years + summer school and always got a minimum 8 hours every night: 3 AM to 11 AM or noon.
Lack of sleep is another reason why there are more overweight young people. Not only do you eat more if you are awake, your body doesn't regenerate / cleanse itself unless you are sleeping. And a lack of sleep makes it harder to exercise the following day. (Just for the record, I will be graduating after my supersenior year) |
Is flab "in"? |
Originally Posted by 'nother
The part you miss is that HFCS contains about the same amount of fructose as sucrose. HFCS is not pure fructose, it's about 50/50 Fructose/Glucose. There is not a single pubmed article that says HFCS is more harmful than other similar sugars (sucrose, honey, maple syrup, etc. which are *all* roughly the same mix of fructose and glucose).
And BTW, There's nothing "in" fructose that is harmful. It's fructose (pure fructose) itself in high doses that is harmful, or at least, not beneficial. Guess it's about time for a renewed HFCS argument, why not here?! I'm game. I don't quite know where to start....First of all you are wrong. Sucrose(table sugar) is 50% fructose/50% glucose after it is broken down in the small intestine HFCS is anywhere from 45%, 55% or 90% fructose Honey is similar to HFCS, but has other sugars The whole reason manufacturers use HFCS is that it is sweeter by weight than cane sugar. This reduces their costs. Most so called maple syrup is just flavored HFCS. There are many, many peer reviewed articles that do in fact show that high levels of fructose (not contained in fruit) is harmful. |
Originally Posted by slowandsteady
I don't quite know where to start....First of all you are wrong.
Sucrose(table sugar) is 50% fructose/50% glucose after it is broken down in the small intestine HFCS is anywhere from 45%, 55% or 90% fructose Honey is similar to HFCS, but has other sugars The whole reason manufacturers use HFCS is that it is sweeter by weight than cane sugar. This reduces their costs. Most so called maple syrup is just flavored HFCS. There are many, many peer reviewed articles that do in fact show that high levels of fructose (not contained in fruit) is harmful. |
Originally Posted by 'nother
OK, so something with LESS (45%) fructose than sugar is more harmful than sucrose? Explain that. Something with 5% more fructose is harmful? Explain how that can be...we're talking a gram or so in a soda can's worth? HFCS-90 does exist, but is generally only used in manufacturing; it's "cut" with glucose to make the lower-fructose HFCSs. Since it's basically pure fructose, it would not give the same sweetness profile and would not be a suitable substitute for cane sugar in most cases where cane sugar is used.
It has so few other sugars (and vitamins, people love to quote that) as to be insignificant. It also contains bee parts and other impurities. It is cheaper, but I believe there are several additional reasons they use it over sugar, including the fact that it mixes more easily into liquids (soft drinks), etc. Yet health nuts continue to insist that it is better for you than sugar. Even maple syrup out of a tree would be difficult to distinguish from HFCS (excluding the impurities). Yes, those studies and articles show that massively high levels of PURE FRUCTOSE and correspondingly low levels of glucose may be harmful. But not High Fructose Corn Syrup. They're not the same thing. This is a stumbling block for a lot of people who don't understand basic chemistry. Okay, thanks for the chuckle, as I am a scientist working in drug discovery(biotech) working towards my PhD in biochemistry. But that said, I am primarily focused on monoclonal antibodies and extracellular proteins as they pertain to infectious diseases and immune mediated inflammatory diseases. There is however some cross-over with metabolic diseases as they are inflammatory in nature. I certainly understand basic chemistry, and organic chemistry, and analytic chemistry, and protein chemistry, and biochemistry, and molecular biology. I also understand that there is no black or white in science especially as it pertains to disease models in animals and in epidemiological studies in humans. There is no good or bad. Just too simple. But this is a stumbling block for people who don't understand advanced biology or know how to CRITICALLY review literature. I design disease models and have a background in metabolic disease models focusing on leptin, adiponectin, glucagon like peptides and so on. Dosing moderate levels of fructose especially when coupled with a high fat diet, induces insulin resistance, adiposity, increased fasting blood glucose levels, impaired response to the oral glucose tolerance test when compared with control groups dosed with a diet equal in calories but contained sucrose or glucose as the sugar coupled either with a high fat(60% calories from fat) or normal chow. Additionally there were atherosclerotic lesions and nephritis. The fact that nearly everyone in the developed world has had considerable contact with HFCS, means that it is almost impossible to design a good retrospective study in humans. The best we can hope for is to use disease models to get a better understanding of the biology. There is a lot of work to be done. In the mean time, I will try to avoid the stuff. |
Originally Posted by slowandsteady
I certainly understand basic chemistry, and organic chemistry, and analytic chemistry, and protein chemistry, and biochemistry, and molecular biology. I also understand that there is no black or white in science especially as it pertains to disease models in animals and in epidemiological studies in humans. There is no good or bad. Just too simple. But this is a stumbling block for people who don't understand advanced biology or know how to CRITICALLY review literature.
I design disease models and have a background in metabolic disease models focusing on leptin, adiponectin, glucagon like peptides and so on. Dosing moderate levels of fructose especially when coupled with a high fat diet, induces insulin resistance, adiposity, increased fasting blood glucose levels, impaired response to the oral glucose tolerance test when compared with control groups dosed with a diet equal in calories but contained sucrose or glucose as the sugar coupled either with a high fat(60% calories from fat) or normal chow. Additionally there were atherosclerotic lesions and nephritis. The fact that nearly everyone in the developed world has had considerable contact with HFCS, means that it is almost impossible to design a good retrospective study in humans. The best we can hope for is to use disease models to get a better understanding of the biology. There is a lot of work to be done. In the mean time, I will try to avoid the stuff. |
Originally Posted by cmcenroe
What did you study? I suppose a five year schedule might allow for this. :p
|
Originally Posted by mac
History... I took the absolute bare minimum every semester so I could play sports, party, drink, etc. You know, that's what college is for. ;) At what other point in your life can you spend 5+ years on vacation? :D
But when you go back to University at middle age, it's a whole different story. Believe me, I'm NOT on vacation!!! I'm trying to cram as much as I can into every semester to hopefully be done a bit early, or perhaps have a slightly easier fourth year ... and I'm working part time as well. I count my spare time in minutes ... as in ... "Oh good, I've got about 12 minutes now when I've got nothing else to do and that time is too short to start on my next project." |
Originally Posted by mac
History... I took the absolute bare minimum every semester so I could play sports, party, drink, etc. You know, that's what college is for. ;) At what other point in your life can you spend 5+ years on vacation? :D
See, I am physics major, the bare minimum kicks pretty much every other major's ass. :D A good night for me these days has been about 7-8 hours, which isn't awful, but could be better. Some nights is more, some is less. However, I wont be starting my upper division classes until next year and I am transferring to UC Davis in January. I'll check back then. ;) |
It's not the transfat, which is naturally in some foods and when processed was orignially known as hydrogenated fat, soda or white bread. It is over indulged narcissistic kids who have ready access to over stuffed refrigerators who haven't walked a mile in their life unless its for a beer or pizza. You are seeing the results of the Velcro Generation where kids can't tie a shoe, add w/o a calculator and are driven to their little league games a quarter mile from their homes. We have a fashion industry (it goes by other names) that de-emphasizes the male body (feminization) with the baggy look and pack our girls into provocative wears. The need to attract the opposite sex continues. The substitute for the natural male appearance is tattoos and jewelry. Girls already had the jewelry. Now they have the tattoos to go along with the gelatonous masses hanging from exposed areas. Although more girls are playing sports, schools have de-emphasized physical education. The nanny-staters blame the food industry and say little about individual responsibilities. Can't have a victim if you do that. So we're stuck with boys wearing fat woman clothes (no offense meant) and girls that look like sausage rolls or are skinny fat girls. No other time in history has man had so many benefits and comforts. You can't expect much from the me-firsters who can't pass a mirror w/o stopping for reasons only known to themselves. Many have failed to learn about The Emperor's New Clothes and are being swindled out of their health. A lack of humility will do that. Now our children have a false sense of "self-esteem" and by the time they leave our substandard schools, they are fat, dumb and happy.
|
Grandpa, is that you? :p
|
Thank you for making my point. :D
|
This whole discussion reminds me of Mrs. Peters. She was the Church Lady at my parish and she was in charge of the altar boys, not the priests. She was a retired junior high school teacher and she was always going on about how "kids today are out of shape and most can't even run a single lap around the track." She called it "televisionitis." And this was in the mid-70s.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:27 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.