or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Ideal Weight and Form for Expensive Clothing Hobby
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ideal Weight and Form for Expensive Clothing Hobby - Page 3

post #31 of 61
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
The human body is pretty adaptable. The advantages of multiple small meals for mitigating insulin swings for individuals with sub-obese BMIs is probably nil. Most of those studies are based on fatties.
- B

True for most, until they forget how quickly their metabolism and body recovery slows down (without "supplements") when they reach their fourties. Then suddenly, the pot belly.

- M
post #32 of 61
What your saying isn't just for 500 pounders! It's for anyone. All that's required to maintain a certain weight is to match caloric intake to the number used in a day. Obviously to be healthy what you need are well balanced meals.

As far as the portion thing in the US is concerned I will agree with you wholeheartedly about that.
post #33 of 61
you guys who eat one meal a day--i don't know how you do it. i eat two piece of toast with butter and jam, yogurt with a banana and a little granola, and tea every morning for breakfast, and i'm ravenous by lunch.
post #34 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmkn View Post
I guess at the heart of my criticism is the influences behind the serving portions in the U.S.

There's that, and also the caloric density of processed / fast food / restaurant chain food that is marketed to Americans, combined with a slide toward greater phiysical inactivity.

This is a worldwide trend, and Americans are simply at the leading edge.

Forget the population stastistics, which are bad enough: look at the numbers for American children to see how grim the future is going to be.

Germaine to the "expensive clothing hobby," obesity used to be associated with poverty in the US. This has gone out the window...some old numbers, but you can extrapolate to today easily enough.

Here are the income-obesity statistics for 1971-1974:

Less than $25,000: 22.5% obese
$25,000-$40,000: 16.1% obese
$40,000-$60,000: 14.5% obese
More than $60,000: 9.7% obese

Here are the results for 2001-2002:

Less than $25,000: 32.5% obese
$25,000-$40,000: 31.3% obese
$40,000-$60,000: 30.3% obese
More than $60,000: 26.8% obese

Here's how much obesity increased in each category:

Less than $25,000: increase of 144%
$25,000-$40,000: increase of 194%
$40,000-$60,000: increase of 209%
More than $60,000: increase of 276%

Numbers are based on national surveys of adults who were at least 20 years old. Obesity was defined as body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher. Income was adjusted to year 2000 U.S. dollars.

The statistics don't include people who are overweight but not obese (BMI of 25-29.9).


- B
post #35 of 61
Kei

That's the product of eating meals at fixed times. Your training your body and mind. Those of us who eat whenever might eat our first meal at 6 am or 1 pm.
post #36 of 61
Vox that's scary and confirms my suspicion that there is way more obese and overweight people these days versus when I was in my twenties. Unfortunately I didn't know the numbers were that insane.
post #37 of 61
Fluctuation in your weight if done healthily should not effect your clothing in any drastic way... When I bulk and cut I go up and down 5-6% in bodyfat but my waist never changes. Eating every 3 hours is ok but it makes so much more sense just to eat when you feel like it. That's what I have always done at least... and I keep pretty trim.
post #38 of 61
Thread Starter 
Another way of putting this . . .

This is fine (Arny's guys)


This is better (Monsieur KL)


Even better (Mr. Joseph Abboud, who was slightly portlier in an earlier time)


- M
post #39 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
There's that, and also the caloric density of processed / fast food / restaurant chain food that is marketed to Americans, combined with a slide toward greater phiysical inactivity.

This is a worldwide trend, and Americans are simply at the leading edge.

Forget the population stastistics, which are bad enough: look at the numbers for American children to see how grim the future is going to be.

Germaine to the "expensive clothing hobby," obesity used to be associated with poverty in the US. This has gone out the window...some old numbers, but you can extrapolate to today easily enough.

Here are the income-obesity statistics for 1971-1974:

Less than $25,000: 22.5% obese
$25,000-$40,000: 16.1% obese
$40,000-$60,000: 14.5% obese
More than $60,000: 9.7% obese

Here are the results for 2001-2002:

Less than $25,000: 32.5% obese
$25,000-$40,000: 31.3% obese
$40,000-$60,000: 30.3% obese
More than $60,000: 26.8% obese

Here's how much obesity increased in each category:

Less than $25,000: increase of 144%
$25,000-$40,000: increase of 194%
$40,000-$60,000: increase of 209%
More than $60,000: increase of 276%

Numbers are based on national surveys of adults who were at least 20 years old. Obesity was defined as body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher. Income was adjusted to year 2000 U.S. dollars.

The statistics don't include people who are overweight but not obese (BMI of 25-29.9).


- B

It's this sort of insanity that makes me want to see a truly punitive tax imposed upon sugar in all its forms.
post #40 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
There's that, and also the caloric density of processed / fast food / restaurant chain food that is marketed to Americans, combined with a slide toward greater phiysical inactivity. This is a worldwide trend, and Americans are simply at the leading edge. Forget the population stastistics, which are bad enough: look at the numbers for American children to see how grim the future is going to be. Germaine to the "expensive clothing hobby," obesity used to be associated with poverty in the US. This has gone out the window...some old numbers, but you can extrapolate to today easily enough. Here are the income-obesity statistics for 1971-1974: Less than $25,000: 22.5% obese $25,000-$40,000: 16.1% obese $40,000-$60,000: 14.5% obese More than $60,000: 9.7% obese Here are the results for 2001-2002: Less than $25,000: 32.5% obese $25,000-$40,000: 31.3% obese $40,000-$60,000: 30.3% obese More than $60,000: 26.8% obese Here's how much obesity increased in each category: Less than $25,000: increase of 144% $25,000-$40,000: increase of 194% $40,000-$60,000: increase of 209% More than $60,000: increase of 276% Numbers are based on national surveys of adults who were at least 20 years old. Obesity was defined as body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher. Income was adjusted to year 2000 U.S. dollars. The statistics don't include people who are overweight but not obese (BMI of 25-29.9). - B
Even with CPI adjustment, it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the higher end (i.e. 60k+) simply because of the wider disparity in the higher end incomes now compared to back then.
post #41 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post

Here are the income-obesity statistics for 1971-1974:

Less than $25,000: 22.5% obese
$25,000-$40,000: 16.1% obese
$40,000-$60,000: 14.5% obese
More than $60,000: 9.7% obese

Here are the results for 2001-2002:

Less than $25,000: 32.5% obese
$25,000-$40,000: 31.3% obese
$40,000-$60,000: 30.3% obese
More than $60,000: 26.8% obese

Here's how much obesity increased in each category:

Less than $25,000: increase of 144%
$25,000-$40,000: increase of 194%
$40,000-$60,000: increase of 209%
More than $60,000: increase of 276%



- B

Math doesn't seem to work out. If you go from 22.5 to 32.5, the increase (32.5-22.5) is less than 50% increase. Still very high though.

Relative to other countries in the world, the US leads in obesity:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...health-obesity
post #42 of 61
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
Here are the income-obesity statistics
- B

Interesting, as both the credit card phenomenon and the food industry are both very predatorial in getting unwitting consumers "hooked."

Unlike the credit card industry where one can "de-obese" yourself with bankruptcy, with the food industry one is stuck once overballooned.

I am sure the emotional enticement of blind minds commonality is very strong with these two industries.

- M
post #43 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
I eat when I am hungry, and don't when I am not. I am not hungry 6 times a day, or even three times a day. There is no way I could force myself to do this.


I've no idea what the point of this thread is but when does that stop me. 5% dietary fat is too low for healthy people. Fat is needed just like everything else.

Eat only when hungry tends to force your body to pack on fat.
post #44 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post

The human body is pretty adaptable. The advantages of multiple small meals for mitigating insulin swings for individuals with sub-obese BMIs is probably nil. Most of those studies are based on fatties.

For people lifting eating multiple meals isn't about insulin so much.

1) If you snack you are less likely to cheat.

2) For those on mega doses of protein the body can only handle so much without pissing it all out.

3) Your body doesn't shut down. Keep feeding it some food and it'll keep going. Means your body is less likely to want to store fat.

4) People bulking can be eating 4K or more calories. Try doing that on one meal a day. Small meals are relative.

Finally I've no idea why having two or three snacks would stop people from eating with thier families.
post #45 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmmk View Post
I'm about 6'1" (and growing), 165. I think that's pretty healthy. I probably have ~10 lbs. of extraneous bodyfat which I'm trying to replace with muscle. This works out well for a streetwear & denim-type wardrobe, although I'd bulk up if I were wearing a suit every day.

At 6 feet, 1 inch tall, what kind of frame do you have wmmk? Do you have a small frame with a small amount of muscularity? If so, your normal weight is 175 pounds. Do you have a medium frame with a moderate amount of muscularity? If so, your normal weight is 190 pounds. Do you have a large frame with a large amount of muscularity? If so, your normal weight is 205 pounds?

Since you are still growing, for every inch that a human being grows vertically, their normal weight (but not necessarily their actual weight, though often their actual weight as well) goes up by 5 pounds (regardless of frame, gender or anything else).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Ideal Weight and Form for Expensive Clothing Hobby