If you're overweight, why buy nice clothes?

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/6/962 http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...act/263/4/E730 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8457536 http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v.../1602629a.html
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Because the body maintains homestasis. It's inherently true, anyway, since over and undereating are determined by necessary caloric requirements to maintain homeostasis. Fat people have to work to stay fat, since lipolytic hormone levels increase as fat and mass increase. A person who eats five large pizzas per day will lose weight by only eating four. It's a negative feedback loop.
Well, I would argue that if "eat less" and "move more" worked the way some people posting on this board seem to think, there is no way that millions of people would remain overweight or obese, given that they face such judgemental people on a daily basis. People may be lazy, but they're also vain as all get out. But for the sake of argument, I'll accept your premise that it's easy to lose weight - overweight people just need to eat less and move more. But why lose weight in the first place? At least one recent study (http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v1...y2009191a.html) suggests that people with very low BMIs and people with very high BMIs have greater mortality risks, but that those in the "normal" range and those in the "obese" range actually have pretty similar risks, and those who are in the "overweight" category actually are at the lowest risk. It suggests that in reality, the run-of-the-mill obese and those of us who are in the "normal" range are about the same, healthwise (all other things being equal), but we're all worse off than those who are overweight. So for me the question is: why encourage people who are overweight or obese to become like those of us who fall into the normal range? Plus, losing weight and regaining it actually appears to make one's health worse than if a person had not lost the weight in the first place, so it seems kind of silly to encourage healthy people to focus on losing weight. (I'm refering to the Lissner et all study in the New England Journal of Medicine 1991, vol 324, pg 1839-1844). If you're overweight or obese but healthy, why risk losing and regaining the weight, thus increasing your risk for being unhealthy?

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

I said 'obese'.
See the study linked above. Another (earlier) one with similar results is the Waaler et al, "Height, Weight and Mortality" 1984 study. Neither of these are gospel, and future studes may prove them to be incorrect, but both for me call into question the idea that we can assume people who are overweight or even obese are unhealthy. Basically, my contribution to this thread is simply this: it's wrong to assume overweight, and even obese, people are unhealthy. And while this is a forum devoted to style, I think it'd be silly for a healthy man to put his health at risk by trying to lose weight so he can buy nice clothes.

Originally Posted by MsMcGillicuddy

Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.



Well, I would argue that if "eat less" and "move more" worked the way some people posting on this board seem to think, there is no way that millions of people would remain overweight or obese, given that they face such judgemental people on a daily basis. People may be lazy, but they're also vain as all get out.

But for the sake of argument, I'll accept your premise that it's easy to lose weight - overweight people just need to eat less and move more.

But why lose weight in the first place? At least one recent study (http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v1...y2009191a.html) suggests that people with very low BMIs and people with very high BMIs have greater mortality risks, but that those in the "normal" range and those in the "obese" range actually have pretty similar risks, and those who are in the "overweight" category actually are at the lowest risk. It suggests that in reality, the run-of-the-mill obese and those of us who are in the "normal" range are about the same, healthwise (all other things being equal), but we're all worse off than those who are overweight. So for me the question is: why encourage people who are overweight or obese to become like those of us who fall into the normal range?

Plus, losing weight and regaining it actually appears to make one's health worse than if a person had not lost the weight in the first place, so it seems kind of silly to encourage healthy people to focus on losing weight. (I'm refering to the Lissner et all study in the New England Journal of Medicine 1991, vol 324, pg 1839-1844). If you're overweight or obese but healthy, why risk losing and regaining the weight, thus increasing your risk for being unhealthy?



See the study linked above. Another (earlier) one with similar results is the Waaler et al, "Height, Weight and Mortality" 1984 study. Neither of these are gospel, and future studes may prove them to be incorrect, but both for me call into question the idea that we can assume people who are overweight or even obese are unhealthy.

Basically, my contribution to this thread is simply this: it's wrong to assume overweight, and even obese, people are unhealthy. And while this is a forum devoted to style, I think it'd be silly for a healthy man to put his health at risk by trying to lose weight so he can buy nice clothes.

Yes, but bigger people need to buy bigger pants and this encourages cotton production which damages local environments. Therefore, people should be as small as possible to stop the destruction of the world.

The big problem with those studies is that they read largely as statistical idiosyncrasies in the face of tens of thousands of studies showing how obesity will wreck your ******* heart. With my luck, I'm not going to be the plump guy with the healthy heart or the cancer free smoker. If you're a ***** reading those studies and taking heart, are you running 5k's to insure a healthy heart?

Originally Posted by why

Click to expand...

Yes, but bigger people need to buy bigger pants and this encourages cotton production which damages local environments. Therefore, people should be as small as possible to stop the destruction of the world.
Maybe they could buy cotton off-set credits?

Originally Posted by db_ggmm

Click to expand...

The big problem with those studies is that they read largely as statistical idiosyncrasies in the face of tens of thousands of studies showing how obesity will wreck your ******* heart. With my luck, I'm not going to be the plump guy with the healthy heart or the cancer free smoker. If you're a ***** reading those studies and taking heart, are you running 5k's to insure a healthy heart?

There's some evidence that even those "tens of thousands" of other studies don't show that it is obesity that ruins your heart; instead they show a correlation between weight and health, and once you control for activity (sedentary, moderately active, active, etc.), obesity isn't such a problem.

Originally Posted by MsMcGillicuddy

Click to expand...

Basically, my contribution to this thread is simply this: it's wrong to assume overweight, and even obese, people are unhealthy. And while this is a forum devoted to style, I think it'd be silly for a healthy man to put his health at risk by trying to lose weight so he can buy nice clothes.

Its always silly for a healthy man to put his health at risk. For the small percentage of Jumbosaurs for which consuming an economy sized bag of funions while making their supermarket rounds in an electric cart is an act of self preservation (get it?) physical aesthetic consideratons should be set aside as an act of good sense!

Originally Posted by MsMcGillicuddy

Click to expand...

There's some evidence that even those "tens of thousands" of other studies don't show that it is obesity that ruins your heart; instead they show a correlation between weight and health, and once you control for activity (sedentary, moderately active, active, etc.), obesity isn't such a problem.

I think the message to take out of this is that once you control for activity levels and diet patterns, being overweight itself is not a huge risk factor (if at all). In other words, if you control for the major factors that make someone overweight, then just the state of being overweight does not put them at increased risk of mortality.

What does that prove? Nothing, it just says that it's not just being overweight that is the problem, it's the lifestyle these people lead that is.

PS "Overweight" is a narrow category that most of the people you would call "fat" do not fit into, BMI 25-30 only if you look at your reference. Most men who regularly work out at the gym doing weight training will fall into this category (as I myself do) with a very low body fat %, which will make these numbers appear even healthier than they really are.

Obesity is a huge risk factor, which is what I think most of this thread is referring to.

You don't have to stop eating what you like. Eat it but don't eat large amounts of it. And don't eat it every single day. (Who the hell eats the same exact thing everyday anyway?)

Don't ignore my last sentence. You even quoted it. I've read articles about fit-fatties, but I've read a lot suggesting the harm those articles are doing to people who are assuming too much. If you exercise honestly and intensely and have a good diet, you can do a lot for your heath health, but the vast majority of people reading those articles and deciding they are fat-fit just don't.

I'm saddened by the guys in this thread reacting strongly against BB1's "drink only water" suggestion when caloric drinks are so heavily blamed for obesity. Maybe they are somewhat joking. And the foie gras guy - my diet and exercise considers foie gras to be fine in moderation and I'm really quite strict. I respect culinary pleasures and treat them as special events.

Originally Posted by redcaimen

Click to expand...

Both states involve choices. The idea that its some kind of gargantuan effort not to be a corpulent blubber ball in your 40's is just silly though. No, you cant just sit there and graze on pizza and beer all day but just a little bit of self control is all thats needed.

Why is correct. Variation in metabolism is way overblown and is useful more as an excuse than a rational explanation for porkiness.

Way too many trundleasaurs in america. The metabolism bullshit just dovetails with our national and pathetic sense of victimhood. "it it werent for my "illness" I wouldnt be such a fatass". Yeah, right.

Not sure why you are talking about metabolism problems, as I didn't raise them. Further, getting fat for me was not about grazing on pizza and beer, but rather business lunches, business dinners, and eating and drinking socially for enjoyment.

Now, you do tend to burn less calories when you're a desk jockey or busy executive than you did when you were 21 and had time to cycle 300 miles a week or lift weights six days a week. That's pretty simple. Cutting down your caloric intake to compensate is also pretty simple, but then you have to toss in what it means to be human.

Either way, 33#s off for me now. My initial goal had been 200# target weight, but I think I'm going down to 190. Another wonderful thing about hitting 40 is that unless you really work at it, you lose several pounds of lean body mass per decade. 190, here I come.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

God, I can't stop laughing over this poast. I would rather die that replace all drinks with water. Give up wine, Scotch, and the multitude of tasty things I drink? Never.

I don't follow those rules I listed 100% of the time myself. They are nothing more than general guidelines to be taken to heart, not slavishly followed like a kind of torture. If you have to continually force yourself to obey such rules, then you are following another "diet" which will likely fail in the long term.

I still enjoy alcohol, but only about once a week as opposed to every evening. And if at a party or social gathering, I'll usually consume plenty of drinks just like everyone else. So it's hardily a "food prison" as you like to make it sound.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

No, I won't get into the many reasons people put weight on (or take it off either, be it a planned weight loss or unplanned of becoming a bone rack (140 at 5'10"? Yikes)).

5'10" 140 lbs is likely quite close to an ideal weight for me. While there is no universally agreed standard for ideal weight, the American Heart Association recommends using the Metropolitan Life Insurance tables from 1959 for this purpose since these are from a time when Americans were not so fat like they are today.

For 5'10" and a small frame like myself the tables show my ideal weight as between 137 and 147 lbs. It is quite obvious that people's perception of ideal weight has increased over time to match the cultural norms of what they see around them, thus the reason why you believe such weights are ridiculously skinny. Also, when visiting many countries outside of the US, I've noticed I don't look overly skinny relative to everyone else.

Originally Posted by BB1

Click to expand...

I don't follow those rules I listed 100% of the time myself. They are nothing more than general guidelines to be taken to heart, not slavishly followed like a kind of torture. If you have to continually force yourself to obey such rules, then you are following another "diet" which will likely fail in the long term.

I still enjoy alcohol, but only about once a week as opposed to every evening. And if at a party or social gathering, I'll usually consume plenty of drinks just like everyone else. So it's hardily a "food prison" as you like to make it sound.



5'10" 140 lbs is likely quite close to an ideal weight for me. While there is no universally agreed standard for ideal weight, the American Heart Association recommends using the Metropolitan Life Insurance tables from 1959 for this purpose since these are from a time when Americans were not so fat like they are today.

For 5'10" and a small frame like myself the tables show my ideal weight as between 137 and 147 lbs. It is quite obvious that people's perception of ideal weight has increased over time to match the cultural norms of what they see around them, thus the reason why you believe such weights are ridiculously skinny. Also, when visiting many countries outside of the US, I've noticed I don't look overly skinny relative to everyone else.

You certainly presented such that one would believe them to be continuous rules. In fact, read your post. You went so far as to talk about the permanence they must have in one's diet. Maybe you should have presented them as "guidelines" in the first place?

As to your build, you are correct. Some men are quite effete and should be what would be painfully thin on other men.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

You certainly presented such that one would believe them to be continuous rules. In fact, read your post. You went so far as to talk about the permanence they must have in one's diet. Maybe you should have presented them as "guidelines" in the first place?

As to your build, you are correct. Some men are quite effete and should be what would be painfully thin on other men.

I don't like to have preconceptions of people so I'll pose this as a question; Is this beneath you?

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

You certainly presented such that one would believe them to be continuous rules. In fact, read your post. You went so far as to talk about the permanence they must have in one's diet. Maybe you should have presented them as "guidelines" in the first place?

As to your build, you are correct. Some men are quite effete and should be what would be painfully thin on other men.

Get a ******* clue, *****.

Originally Posted by Piobaire

Click to expand...

Not sure why you are talking about metabolism problems, as I didn't raise them. Further, getting fat for me was not about grazing on pizza and beer, but rather business lunches, business dinners, and eating and drinking socially for enjoyment.

Now, you do tend to burn less calories when you're a desk jockey or busy executive than you did when you were 21 and had time to cycle 300 miles a week or lift weights six days a week. That's pretty simple. Cutting down your caloric intake to compensate is also pretty simple, but then you have to toss in what it means to be human.

Either way, 33#s off for me now. My initial goal had been 200# target weight, but I think I'm going down to 190. Another wonderful thing about hitting 40 is that unless you really work at it, you lose several pounds of lean body mass per decade. 190, here I come.


I was responding to more just you. The metabolism thing strikes me as a particularly egregious form of rationalization. It doesnt necessarily apply to you.

I always toss in what it means to be human. Its the best part! I like fat people who accept their fatness. Falstaff types. For those that dont want to be fat the road ahead is clear.

I myself am working on my girlish figure.