Title sounds like it's gonna be enablist right? But then. Is it? Who knows. Exercise is great for you. I can eat whatever I want, brah.
I'm all for not being an asshole to people in general. BUT! TOLERANCE and KINDNESS =/= APPROVAL. Feeling good about being 400lbs does not reduce your risk of heart attack and stroke. Feeling good about being 400lbs does not make your nurse feel better when she rolls her ankle trying to move you. Environmental factors are a bitch. Life history factors are a bitch. Family units that encourage unhealthy habits are a bitch. Still not okay to be so fat that you hurt others.
Right? Knew this obese guy in his high school, everyone in his immediate family was obese ,including his kid (12 yo) younger brother. That was especially painful. It's really difficult to see how parental eating habits and choices impact their kids on a very basic level, which in turn makes it that much harder for the kids to be healthy when they grow up and get out.Family units that encourage unhealthy habits are a bitch.
I'm waiting on the article to be delivered from my library. I'll let you know what it actually says. EDIT: There are a lot of confounding factors, adjustments, and assumptions made in the study to get what amounts to a small but significant 2.3 kg/m change in BMI without explanation from calories. Quick note: the microbiome is not mentioned in the article a single time. At all. What they do show in the article is that they used information on caloric intake from 1971 - 1988 without corresponding exercise data because it wasn't available. So all of that is adjusted for, but the methods for any of these adjustments are not given. Another thing that they had to adjust for was the change in demographics over the course of 40 years. When the survey started the respondents were nearly 85 percent white. By the end they were down to 45 percent. That's a huge change which was also accounted for somehow. Another confounding factor which was accounted for, but hardly ever talked about at all and seems very pertinent to me, was the fact that smoking went from 37 percent among adults to 17 percent. That's a huge change in the use of a stimulant which has known appetite suppressant and weight loss properties which they just kind of glossed over. They define exercise pretty loosely. They use the MET values which have some weird inconsistencies within them in the first place. Walking is a 3.8, doing gymnastics is a 4.0, playing Softball is a 5.0. That's a weird system. But basically exercise is then defined in how many times you do it per week with adjustments made for how strenuous it is. This is a huge issue because this exercise data is based on a flawed model, which is then manipulated further to compare exercise frequency with yard work and running by occurrences per week. Finally, and hugely, the standard deviations on the BMI are all over the place and had to be corrected multiple times with regressions that amount to applied guessing. The information was based upon self-reported data in the first place and filtered out 90% of respondents to get the sample set. So basically it's the same problem I have with pretty much every study that challenges the idea that people aren't perpetual motion machines. You don't get free energy to store as fat, or muscle. If you did, then you wouldn't have to eat, which means that you create energy within yourself somehow. People don't defy physics. This article has a lot of confounding factors which are accounted for by making assumptions based on other articles which, with data that is incomplete, but they may be on to something if all their assumptions are correct. The problem is that you don't know what their assumptions look like because they are not a part of the published article. This is a huge problem for repeatability, so even further research with the same numbers might yield a very different result.
Yeah, the comment about the fitness center membership threw me a little. I didn't quite understand the point. I think getting into exercise can be free or almost entirely free. From a clothing standpoint, if you have literally no exercise gear, there might be an initial investment. I'd hope that most people had a ratty t-shirt and exercise shorts of some sort, at least a pair, in the back of their closets somewhere, and a sports bra for girls. If you have those things, and sneakers, you can start for free. But staying in it - keeping up the exercise - I think there is more of a cost investment than $50/year. Maybe it depends on what you are doing, but for instance, I had several pairs of running shorts and tops, but nothing in long sleeves or long pants. That wasn't a problem in the fall but running outside now has started to get very chilly, so I've had to invest in a few pairs of pants - besides new shoes, and so on. However, all in all I think you can do exercise really cheaply. Walking can be absolutely free besides sneakers/clothes, and bodyweight exercises are the way to go.
Exercise is great for you. I can eat whatever I want, brah.
-I could too till I was about 35 years old. Be forewarned.
Great - I have 9 more years! ;) It IS amazing having a fitbit and tracking calories, though. I ran 4.3 miles the other day and combined with walking over town apparently burned 3k calories. I don't know how accurate the fitbit is, but I figure it's gotta be more accurate that the calorie burn counter on an elliptical, at least.
Interesting if it bears out. Unfortunately it doesn't seem as though the actual study can be viewed - by me anyway. As a formerly obese person who must devote not insignificant attention to remaining fit, I would like to see more research as to why it is such an uphill effort. Just look at the relapse rates. My body does physiologically want to be obese again. As to why it might be more difficult now than in past decades... Could be microbiome related. If so microbiome transplants might help. If this proves to be a concrete phenomenon, I'm more inclined to believe it could have more to do with compositional changes to staple foods. Obesogenic compounds might also be a thing. The bottom line is folks seem to be having a really tough time controlling their weight, losing weight and a positively terrible time keeping lost weight off. The health benefits alone have made it well worth it for me. But there is an investment of time and attention that is honestly out of step with the expectations of the general population. I don't believe most people understand what they are up against when they embark on a significant weight loss that they of course wish to be lasting.
Good for you man! I've never had any problems staying skinny but my boyfriend is a bit chubby. We just moved in together and decided to both make more efforts to eat healthy and exercise. It's been more than two months of gym 3x a week and while i grew some pretty impressive muscles, my boyfriend's weightloss has ben surprisingly slow. And I can't imagine him doing anything more than he's already doing! I guess what I want to say is that since it's never really been my struggle, i've never realized how hard it can be for some people. I got triple respect for people that manage to lose weight now :)
I know that feel man. Some people are just unlucky and have to work harder :(As a formerly obese person who must devote not insignificant attention to remaining fit, I would like to see more research as to why it is such an uphill effort. Just look at the relapse rates. My body does physiologically want to be obese again.