Let me give you a little example, using myself and my cousins. I am relatively thin, at about 150lbs to 160lbs, 6ft tall. Two of my cousins, on the other hand, being about 5'4 or less weigh around 200 or more pounds, and are, quite frankly, fat (I'm not going to water it down with euphemisms about horizontally challenged, overweight, etc).
Let's look at what I had for dinner last week (I plan my meals a week in advance, so I always know what I'm having). In all cases where meat/fish, carbohydrates, and vegetables are mentioned, they are approximately the same quantity.
Sat: Salmon, parsely potatoes, peas.
Sun: Beef in the bag, carrots, potatoes, onions.
Mon: Linsen soup, with hot dogs in it. Linsin soup is the German name for it, uses Lintels. They are flat little brown things. The soup also contains celery, carrots, potatoes, and several other vegetable in addition to hot-dog slices.
Tues: Sauerbraten, potatoe pancakes, green beans. Sauerbraten is a low-fat beef marinated in vinegar, to give it a pleasant sour taste (in Germany, the original purpose was, of course, to preserve the meat).
Wed: lean hamburger, french fries in crisco, bean salad. Bean salad consists of both italian green beans and kidney beans.
Thurs: Leftover beef, saurbraten, noodles, carrots.
Fri: Hamburgers and macaroni with tomatoe sauce on top. Bean salad.
I made no special effort to avoid carbohydrates. However, meats, vegetables, and carbohydrates were balanced.
Note: Every day, for lunch, I had a ham or salami sandwich with cheese. Breakfast is always a bagel with butter. Occasionally, the bread was rye bread without the processed white grain, which usually included large kernels. However, it was often sour-dough bread, made from white grain. Ooh...bad carbohydrates. Also, every day, I had some form of fruit along with my lunch, usually a lot of it (e.g., a large peach, grapes, cherries, and so-on and so-forth)...oooh, bad sugar.
Now, let's look at the diet of my cousins. I don't know their diet as well as I know mine, obviously, but I do know what they generally eat, and it goes something like this:
McDonalds, greasy french-fries, potatoe chips, doritos, hot-dogs, kentucky fried chicken, other pre-processed and packaged foods, soda-drinks, and so-on and so-forth.
I think the conclusions that can be drawn from this little anecdotal story are pretty self-explanatory. Needless to say, if them and I switched places and diets, our weights would start to switch places as well.
Now, to some of your other points:
"Eat less" is the dumbest advice on the planet - it only makes sense to the uninitiated. If you fail to eat the proper amount of nutrients, your metabolism will slow down dramatically.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't eat the proper amount of nutrients (btw, the jury's out on whether slowing down your metabolism is bad for you, since free-radicals are produced more in higher metabolism situations). I'm saying that you should eat less. The average american eats far more than s/he needs to meet his or her minimum nutritional requirements.
Again, this advice is wrong. All dieticians recommend snacking to level out blood sugar cycles. It is the corner stone of every major diet plan. Also, most dieticians recommend you eat a series of small meals throughout the day instead of trying to pack it all into two or three meals.
That does not mean that you should be eating doritos, twix-bars, and other crap throughout the day. Dispersing out what would otherwise be a healthy meal may indeed be fine, but justifying eating boxes of chocolate balls to "level out blood sugar levels" is absurd.
...But every cell in the body already has a supply of glycogen on hand, so in most cases new sugars aren't consumed unless you're in an aerobic target zone. They're instead turned into fat.
Again, I'm not saying that eating tons of sugars is good for you. Did I say that instead of eating a plate of bacon for breakfast, people should sprinkle brown and white sugar on french toast dipped in maple syrup? No, I did not say that.
Eat whatever you want. Just be mindful of the content of the food, and how they fit into your daily diet. Hershey's Chocolate Kisses only have 25 calories. Chocolate is also high in certain phyto-proteins which are beneficial to womens health (which explains the female fixation with chocolate). Likewise, cakes and ice cream are fine so long as you observe the label.
Eating a moderate amount of chocolate is not the same thing as gobbling it down all day every time you're bored. Part of problem with many overweight people is they eat when they have nothing else to do.
I cannot emphasize what a tremendously stupid idea simply reducing calories is. You cannot just tell someone to reduce caloreis without knowing how many calories their body needs for basic functions. Please, stop giving advice as if you know what you're talking about.
Since the vast majority of Americans are eating way way way more calories than they need for their body needs, yes I can. Also, I specifically said, "as much as is possible in good health". Namely, that means eating enough for your body's needs. Your inability to understand written English does not meaan that I don't know what I'm talking about. It means that you can't understand written English, or choose to selectively ignore qualifying parts of sentences so that you can jump up and down like a harpy.
you should'nt go telling people to drink these beverages - wine and alcohol do not contain ingredients that are not found elsewhere in the diet
Any specific examples? Drinking a glass of alcohol a night isn't going to make one fat. Drinking a six-pack or an entire bottle of wine...probably.
It takes 44 minutes of walking to equal 15 minutes of moderate jogging. Unless a person is going to walk 2 or more miles a day, this advice is useless and even misleading.
Walking is a perfectly leisurely activity that can be done without placing any significant stress on an individual. Jogging, on the other hand, imposes extreme stress on the bones and joints, as well as contorting posture. This is why I later recommeneded swimming.
Swimming will not provide an aerobic excercise, which means it is not beneficial for weight loss. Why do you think swimmers do much of their muscle training outside of the pool? Swimming is anaerobic. The only time a person should excercise in a pool is when they are morbidly obese.
As someone else noted, swimming can indeed be aerobic. Done at a slow pace, it is a continuous, but not particularly strenuous, activity, the will tax the heart over a period of time. You obviously do not understand the difference between aneorobic and aerobic exercises. Anaerobic -- does not use oxygen. Aerobic -- does use oxygen. When you swim for a hundreds yards or so, you will use enormous amounts of oxygen, and your heart will beat extremely fast. On the other hand, if you lift up 300 pounds, that is anaerobic -- you won't be out of breath, though you may feel like you're eyes will bulge out of your head.
Are you trying to sell a Bowflex or soemthing? All a person needs to weight train is a weight. They can even use their own body weight through systems like isometric and pliametric excercise.
No, actually, I think Bowflex' are too expensive (that's why I recommended the cheaper alternative). You can use regular weights. However, that can be dangerous. You can also simply use your own weight, though that gets extremely boring very quick, and limits how much resistance you get.
Your right on tone, however.
In short, all of your responses originate from your own misconceptions or your complete inability to understand the English language.
In any case, fat people in this country have a hard time losing weight because of their own poor habits, not anything I or anyone else says or does.
Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]