UK women are 'fattest in Europe'

[GoodSarmatian]

I get your point, but mine is, you have to have a clear standard... there has to be a line...
Where does that line go exactly?
And the one KG over or under situation still presents itself...

Just a sticky place for gubbamint to get involved, I think.

The line has to be drawn by professionals, and obviously the child would have to be tested for a genetic predisposition.
The one Kg over situation shouldn't be a problem if you give the parents some time to improve the situation after it's first discovered that the child is obese,
The government should also offer help to parents in the form of courses on parenting and nutrition. The child should only be taken away in extreme cases when the parents prove to be unconvinceable and biological factors have been ruled out.

Taking the child away was a bit too extreme in my opinion. I say let the mother keep the child, but send the child to fat camp.

And if the child becomes fat again ? Send it again to fat camp ? And if get's fat a third time ?

Here's a good example how not to do it

Link to video.
They mention a previous case where a child was taken away and it turned out to be genetical. These things have to be checked before any action is taken.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Glasgow.

And, um, Aberdeen.

And Dundee. Definitely Paisley. Most of Edinburgh, come to think of it. Perth and Stirling, for what they're worth. Pretty much all of Ayrshire. A lot of the Borders, and probably Fife. The Isles aren't too bad...

I think we have a way to test the "Ulster-Scot" hypothesis!

 

[Mise]

Gaining some fat builds some muscles to carry that fat around. But it is this extra increase that you are arguing (?) that I am asking you to prove. If it is common knowledge then please, provide source(s). Mind you I'm talking about a case where person gets a lot of fat but does not exercise.

I've only skimmed it, but here's a thing: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/5/943S.full

The mean body mass gain for the 24 subjects in the 100-d overfeeding experiment was 8.1 kg, of which 5.4 kg was fat mass increase and 2.7 kg was fat-free mass increase.

5.4/8.1 = 2/3.

What's also interesting is this:

∼63% of the excess energy intake was recovered on average as body mass changes.

...

If on average 63% of the extra energy consumed was accounted for by the changes in fat mass and fat-free mass, one was left with 121 MJ to be accounted for. We measured the energy content of the feces for several days before and after the overfeeding treatment in 16 of the 24 subjects. There was no significant change in the amount of energy that was not absorbed during digestion. Thus, the remaining energy must in all likelihood be associated with the estimated costs of protein (13.95 MJ) and fat (33.87 MJ) tissues gained and with increases in resting metabolic rate, thermic effect of food, standard postures, moving the body around and fidgeting. In fact, we were able to account for 91% of the 351 MJ energy surplus ingested by the 24 young adults in the study (Tremblay et al. 1992). One must also consider the possibility that increases in energy expenditure for postures, bodily activities and fidgeting were present not only as a result of increases in body mass but perhaps also because of a shift in the daily pattern of activities toward a more energy-demanding profile even though subjects were kept under sedentary conditions.

In otherwords, only 63% of the calorie surplus went towards increasing body mass. 28% went towards increased metabolic rate, moving the extra mass, "thermic effect of food" (no idea what that means), posture, and fidgeting. So when you run a long-term calorie surplus, your body automatically compensates a little by making you fidget more, even if you're in a very controlled environment...

 

[Traitorfish]

"thermic effect of food" (no idea what that means)

The energy required to digest the food. It basically means that the nominal calories of an item of food are slightly more than its overall impact, because part of it goes to replacing the energy that was used digesting it the first place.

 

[Mise]

Ahh, thanks. Makes sense!

 

[Disgustipated]

Supposedly celery (assuming you don't put delicious creme cheese on it) takes more calories to digest than you receive from eating the food. I just heard that on a tv trivia question, I haven't actually looked that up. I always thought that was interesting though. If you ate nothing but celery you would lose weight for sure.

 

[Narz]

Celery also has other benefits. It's very hydrating and can... oh nm family forum.

 

[Hehehe]

I've only skimmed it, but here's a thing: http://jn.nutrition.org/content/127/5/943S.full


5.4/8.1 = 2/3.

What's also interesting is this:


In otherwords, only 63% of the calorie surplus went towards increasing body mass. 28% went towards increased metabolic rate, moving the extra mass, "thermic effect of food" (no idea what that means), posture, and fidgeting. So when you run a long-term calorie surplus, your body automatically compensates a little by making you fidget more, even if you're in a very controlled environment...

Interesting article, even though it does not mention muscle (which is what my post was about). But wasn't the fidgeting just a theory? I mean the way I understand it they're thinking that is one possibility.

By the way, as for my original point, I asked a doctor's opinion. Although it was a quick question-quick answer type of thing rather than in-depth analysis, according to a doctor gaining extra weight alone will not build muscle mass, except for a little (in the legs, mainly) to carry that weight around.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Celery stalks do indeed require more calories in order to digest than are gained from digesting them. I'm not sure that the same can be said for their leaves, roots, or seeds though.

It should however be noted that celery can cause severe allergic reactions in some people. The anaphylactic shock can be fatal. I see no good reason why schools that choose to ban peanuts should not be banning celery too.

(My mother is highly allergic to celery, as well as pine nuts.)

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Supposedly celery (assuming you don't put delicious creme cheese on it) takes more calories to digest than you receive from eating the food. I just heard that on a tv trivia question, I haven't actually looked that up. I always thought that was interesting though. If you ate nothing but celery you would lose weight for sure.

I've heard the same thing about tomatoes, but more than half the sources I've checked dismiss it as a myth.
This is what wiki has to say about the subject

A negative calorie food is a food that is purported to require more food energy to be digested than it provides. That is, its thermic effect is greater than its food energy content.

While this concept is popular in dieting guides, there is no scientific evidence that any of the foods claimed as negative calorie foods are such.[1][2] Foods that are claimed to be negative in calories are mostly low-calorie fruits and vegetables such as grapefruit, lemon, lime, apple, lettuce, celery, broccoli and cabbage.[3] Celery, a commonly cited negative calorie food, actually requires only about 10% of its food energy content to be digested (due to the thermic effect).[4]

Two of the article's sources are online.

There Are No Negative-Calorie Foods - Debunking 10 Myths About Dieting". .

"Negative Calorie Diet"

It would be great if you could lose weight by just stuffing yourself with celerie and lettuce after a your daily pizza and burger, but sadly, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Mise]

Interesting article, even though it does not mention muscle (which is what my post was about).

That's what the "fat-free mass" is Any body mass that isn't fat is "lean mass", which includes bone, muscle and cartilage. But when you gain weight, your bones don't magically grow do they - it's all either fat or muscle. The study itself, in calculating the new BMR, treats the weight gain as either fat or protein.

But wasn't the fidgeting just a theory? I mean the way I understand it they're thinking that is one possibility.

Ultimately, it's accounted for by a higher basal metabolic rate. So if you do the washing up when you weigh 65kg, you will burn less energy than if you did the washing up weighing 75kg. That's true even if you're not actually doing anything - even if you're just sitting down, you'll burn more energy because your basal metabolic rate is higher. So what the study is saying is that 63% of the extra calories gained went to putting on mass (of which 67% was fat, and 33% was fat-free mass), and 28% was spent due to the increased metabolic rate of a fat person vs a skinny person.

Anecdotally, if I'm really tired and haven't eaten all day, I don't fidget - I just sit there perfectly still in front of the TV. But if I've just eaten a bag of sweets or jelly and ice-cream, I'm constantly shuffling or moving around...

 

[Hehehe]

That's what the "fat-free mass" is

No. Even the fat tissue itself is technically only 80% fat. Just because the rest of the increase is not fat does not mean it is muscle. Like I already mentioned, the article you posted does not even mention muscle, let alone claim that the rest of the increase in weight is muscle.

Ultimately, it's accounted for by a higher basal metabolic rate. So if you do the washing up when you weigh 65kg, you will burn less energy than if you did the washing up weighing 75kg. That's true even if you're not actually doing anything - even if you're just sitting down, you'll burn more energy because your basal metabolic rate is higher. So what the study is saying is that 63% of the extra calories gained went to putting on mass (of which 67% was fat, and 33% was fat-free mass), and 28% was spent due to the increased metabolic rate of a fat person vs a skinny person.

Yes, wasn't this what the link said? Or maybe I read it somewhere else then.

Anecdotally, if I'm really tired and haven't eaten all day, I don't fidget - I just sit there perfectly still in front of the TV. But if I've just eaten a bag of sweets or jelly and ice-cream, I'm constantly shuffling or moving around...

I haven't really paid close attention to my fidgeting but I usually fidget a little all the time.

EDIT: Quoted you before you edited...

 

[Mise]

No. Even the fat tissue itself is technically only 80% fat. Just because the rest of the increase is not fat does not mean it is muscle. Like I already mentioned, the article you posted does not even mention muscle, let alone claim that the rest of the increase in weight is muscle.

This really is a nonsensical thing to say.... You're just confusing "fatty acid mass" with "fat mass". When they talk about "fat mass", they are aware that fat cells contain water and other chemicals that are not lipids... They just mean it in contrast with other types of mass, i.e. bone or muscle.

But anyway it seems you're intent on being right, so do carry on without me.

 

[Tycho Brahe]

I've heard the same thing about tomatoes, but more than half the sources I've checked dismiss it as a myth.
This is what wiki has to say about the subject



Two of the article's sources are online.

There Are No Negative-Calorie Foods - Debunking 10 Myths About Dieting". .

"Negative Calorie Diet"

It would be great if you could lose weight by just stuffing yourself with celerie and lettuce after a your daily pizza and burger, but sadly, it doesn't work that way.

I've heard the same about cucumber. And pasta! That was back in the 90ies before Atkins, wen starch was the most healthy you could eat. You can get fat from eating pasta! It's impossible!

 

[Traitorfish]

"fatty acid mass"

Good band name.