Too Fat to Graduate

There is genetic disposition to a certain weight; you are correct there. However, you can't deny that people are overshooting that. And it's not healthy -- even if people are only gaining ten pounds, the increase in heart disease, diabetes, etc. that is directly proportional to the trend in increased weight is something to be concerned about.

As for not eating cheap calories, that's false -- most everything many people eat today are empty calories, in larger portions. Take the popularity of fast food. In fact, even the beverages we drink contribute -- it's shocking how many pounds could be prevented if someone just stops drinking carbonated soft drinks. Most processed foods have huge amounts of sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc. which are essentially empty calories -- just look at the ingredients on most packaged food. It's not uncommon for one of those to be amongst the top three.
 
Last edited:
gloomy-optimist said:
There is genetic disposition to a certain weight; you are correct there. However, you can't deny that people are overshooting that. And it's not healthy -- even if people are only gaining ten pounds, the increase in heart disease, diabetes, etc. that is directly proportional to the trend in increased weight is something to be concerned about.

As for not eating cheap calories, that's false -- most everything many people eat today are empty calories, in larger portions. Take the popularity of fast food. In fact, even the beverages we drink contribute -- it's shocking how many pounds could be prevented if someone just stops drinking carbonated soft drinks. Most processed foods have huge amounts of sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc. which are essentially empty calories -- just look at the ingredients on most packaged food. It's not uncommon for one of those to be amongst the top three.
Click to expand...


Right again.

I propose an experiment. Take a stroll down a middle grocery aisle, any middle grocery aisle (short of housewares and cleaning supplies, smartass) and find as many items as you can that don't boast some ludicrous amount of sodium or sugar intake or, better yet, do not contain an ounce of corn syrup. You certainly won't fill a shopping cart.
 
enfp can be shy said:
Basically, "This is Sparta!". It can be very efficient, if we agree to one little detail: kill off some people. And I mean literally, not dropout, but kill them. Because that's actually how it was done in Sparta, they didn't fire them or something like that. If we agree to that little detail, then it will work. Otherwise, they really don't know what they want to achieve.

If the Sparta scenario doesn't sound right (hopefully), then they should work with the people individually, see what is going on with the food and so on.
Click to expand...

I like it.

Give each person a year on that diet and regime, if they don't stick to it, kill them.
If they stick to it and still very little is happening, it's a medical thing.
 
TheDaringHatTrick said:
Right again.

I propose an experiment. Take a stroll down a middle grocery aisle, any middle grocery aisle (short of housewares and cleaning supplies, smartass) and find as many items as you can that don't boast some ludicrous amount of sodium or sugar intake or, better yet, do not contain an ounce of corn syrup. You certainly won't fill a shopping cart.
Click to expand...

The problem is, not many people know how much are ludicrous amounts.

I certainly don't. Shit, I don't even know what fruit and vegetables contain that I'm supposed to be eating because I was never taught and can't find books on it. That's why I just dumped all processed or cooked foods in favour of a raw very varied diet.

I've been dropping the kilograms with just my ordinary schedule.

It's maybe 0.5% IF THAT who have a biological problem with weight gain. It's about 60% who are obese.
 
I can tell you this much: It's not BMI. It *is* finding a healthy eating pattern and exercise program that can fit in your lifestyle...and it doesn't have to be that strenuous. Everyone thinks you have to exercise like crazy and eat rabbit food to have positive benefits. Not so. Simply walking 30 minutes throughout the *day* and eating moderate amounts of a variety of foods is all we truly need.

The problem is really the diet phenomenon. Everyone says you have to be "XX" size to be adored and loved and people kill themselves to get there. So what happens? They go on crazy diets right after the holidays (or right before bikini season) and lose a crap ton only to gain it all back and then some. That puts your metabolism out of whack, and then it's that much harder for you to lose it sensibly. If you've been on diets all your life, it will take a *very* long time for your body to trust you enough to lose weight. Your body has its own barometer, and if you start eating healthy long enough you'll discover what you need to be eating and in what amounts.

There are some great books out there about how dieting itself is what makes people fat. Why? Because everyone is choosing the wrong foods for their bodies. Start eating the basic food groups without the junk, and only eat the junk *occasionally.* After a few months your body will start telling you just how much it needs, and what it needs.

And eventually the weight will start coming off. It's not fast - but it will be permanent because you'll be doing what's natural for *you.*
 
Von Hase said:
For individuals, yes, for society, no.
Click to expand...

This policy is applied to individuals is it not?

I disagree with these figures, at least for America over the past 50 years. For the past 10, maybe. Also, take into consideration, if half the population gained 20 pounds, and the other half didn't, that's still an overall 10 pound gain. Half the population engaging in that much of a lifestyle and diet shift is significant.
Click to expand...

Of course it's significant, but it still doesn't mean that I can point to a random fat person and say "this is why you're fat..." I just can't know by looking at them or weighing them, it's not right and I am willing to bet a lot of money that there are many fat people that live much healthier lifestyles than I do, so it would be hypocritical of me to make assumptions about the lifestyles of random fat people. There is no clean cut correlation between concious control of diet and exercise with BMI.

gloomy-optimist said:
There is genetic disposition to a certain weight; you are correct there. However, you can't deny that people are overshooting that.
Click to expand...

I think many people are sitting at the top of their natural weight range, but even if they did everything in their power to drop to the bottom of thier range it's possible they will still be well above the normal weight range. Everyone has a set point (narrow range) and throughout history our set points have drifted upwards (sometimes very high) there is strong selective pressure against a low set point (famines, plagues etc.) and pretty much no selective pressure against a high set point, so they keep on drifting up to sometimes ridiculous levels. Throughout time our upper limits were set by environmental pressure, so there was no need to evolve the ability to conciously regulate body weight. We never evolved that kind of defense against over consumption (we never needed to), this reflects the very high failure rates of almost all kinds of obesity treatments and interventions.

And it's not healthy -- even if people are only gaining ten pounds, the increase in heart disease, diabetes, etc. that is directly proportional to the trend in increased weight is something to be concerned about.
Click to expand...

I could increase my weight by 10 pounds and therefore increase my risk of disease, a fat person could decrease their weight by 10 pounds and reduce their risk. Now who is need of the lifestyle intervention? Even though they weigh more than me I am actively increasing my risk and they are actively decreasing theirs.

As for not eating cheap calories, that's false -- most everything many people eat today are empty calories, in larger portions. Take the popularity of fast food. In fact, even the beverages we drink contribute -- it's shocking how many pounds could be prevented if someone just stops drinking carbonated soft drinks. Most processed foods have huge amounts of sugar, high fructose corn syrup, etc. which are essentially empty calories -- just look at the ingredients on most packaged food. It's not uncommon for one of those to be amongst the top three.
Click to expand...

You miss my point, you can't resist something that isn't available to you. People in the 50s weren't showing greater restraint, education or virtue by eating fewer calories, they often simply couldn't afford as much. If the cheap calories were available they would succumb just as surely as us (and as every population with cheap calories and genetic propensity does).
 
She's not saying they're resisting, she's saying they didn't eat it, therefore they weren't as fat.
She's saying that the persons diet is the largest contributor to the persons fat percentage.
She's saying that High Fructose Corn Syrup is the leading contributor to fat gain.

I've been saying that for ages as well, ever since I read the book by that person everyone on the forum was saying should have been picked for Surgeon General of The U.S.A. (Obamas Cabinet)

High Fructose Corn Syrup is also a leading contributor for increased diabetes rates in modern society.
 
Well I'll ask the question that was hinted at my previous post, rather than mandate a certain groups of students why not enforce a general student requirement? It has been brought up we are less active than before so it can't hurt us and honestly it has been a good out for tension and stress for me personally.
 
Aye. At the moment it's at a BMI rating over 30 who have to show up. Perhaps it should be a BMI between 19 and 25, that puts a person in the healthy range, and anyone who is outside that range has to be able to do...

30 Push Ups
10 Chin Ups
1:30minute Bridge
Shuttle Run until 8.0
90 Crunches (sit ups)

What do you think?
 
Shai Gar said:
She's not saying they're resisting, she's saying they didn't eat it, therefore they weren't as fat.
She's saying that the persons diet is the largest contributor to the persons fat percentage.
She's saying that High Fructose Corn Syrup is the leading contributor to fat gain.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything special about HFCS other than it's a very cheap source of calories. New Zealand has a comparable rate of obesity as the States yet we eat very little HFCS and mostly eat cane sugar instead.

Price per calorie (doesn't matter what kind) is probably the most significant indicator of changing obesity rates.
 
kavalan said:
Well I'll ask the question that was hinted at my previous post, rather than mandate a certain groups of students why not enforce a general student requirement? It has been brought up we are less active than before so it can't hurt us and honestly it has been a good out for tension and stress for me personally.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should do anything resembling that.

All I'm stating is the cause.

Everyone has the right to live as they choose. It's the American dream to do as little as possible for the greatest rewards. The problem is that for a lot of people, they don't want to choose between two opposed options. If you want to look like an athlete, you have to live like one. If you want to lay around and eat as much as you want, you're not going to look like an athlete. It's really simple. We're stating the astonishingly inobvious here.

The problem in the Original Post is that an institution was trying to force a student to make a specific lifestyle choice or refuse their earned degree.

That's just plain wrong, regardless if the student's weight is due to genetics or a willful act of laying about and eating Cheetos all day.
 
Last edited:
I can't do 10 chin ups.
Shai Gar said:
I like it.

Give each person a year on that diet and regime, if they don't stick to it, kill them.
If they stick to it and still very little is happening, it's a medical thing.
Click to expand...
Right. And then: "On a second thought, why not kill them right away... hm? Why bother with all this?" Jingle-jingle, Stalin bells. :D

"There are fat people, there's problem. No fat people - no problem."

That's the level of understanding this school's chosen policy demonstrates. As a result of such mentality, fat people would get even more freaked out, and many of them will surely gain even more weight. People are so crazy and their problem-solving so hopelessly perverted.

First of all, people shouldn't be measured at all. Instead of this, they should be shown how they can easily, with very small steps, improve their health. Arbygil wrote a good post on that already.
 
Quinlan said:
This policy is applied to individuals is it not?



Of course it's significant, but it still doesn't mean that I can point to a random fat person and say "this is why you're fat..." I just can't know by looking at them or weighing them, it's not right and I am willing to bet a lot of money that there are many fat people that live much healthier lifestyles than I do, so it would be hypocritical of me to make assumptions about the lifestyles of random fat people. There is no clean cut correlation between concious control of diet and exercise with BMI.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, in the general population, if a person is consciously controlling their diet (in a appropriate way) their BMI should go down, assuming they are trying to lose weight and not gain muscle.

I think many people are sitting at the top of their natural weight range, but even if they did everything in their power to drop to the bottom of thier range it's possible they will still be well above the normal weight range. Everyone has a set point (narrow range) and throughout history our set points have drifted upwards (sometimes very high) there is strong selective pressure against a low set point (famines, plagues etc.) and pretty much no selective pressure against a high set point, so they keep on drifting up to sometimes ridiculous levels. Throughout time our upper limits were set by environmental pressure, so there was no need to evolve the ability to conciously regulate body weight. We never evolved that kind of defense against over consumption (we never needed to), this reflects the very high failure rates of almost all kinds of obesity treatments and interventions.
Click to expand...

The BMI isn't the most exact way to tell how healthy a person is, and it was never intended to be, so what a 'normal' weight is is a fautly concept In history, many people have grown fat over an overabundance of food, not that they were getting just as much food as they needed (if that makes sense) . Everyone has a set point where their body feels the most comfortable but you can easily exceed that now a days with the food choices that are in abundance. I think the failure of obesity treatments and interventions has to do with people thinking you can do one little thing and change something. We have never built a defense against overconsumption, but I think it has been showed that we are able to ration out our food accordingly; weight lost would be doing that, with good food, on the long time.

I could increase my weight by 10 pounds and therefore increase my risk of disease, a fat person could decrease their weight by 10 pounds and reduce their risk. Now who is need of the lifestyle intervention? Even though they weigh more than me I am actively increasing my risk and they are actively decreasing theirs.



You miss my point, you can't resist something that isn't available to you. People in the 50s weren't showing greater restraint, education or virtue by eating fewer calories, they often simply couldn't afford as much. If the cheap calories were available they would succumb just as surely as us (and as every population with cheap calories and genetic propensity does).
Click to expand...

So all is well and good? We have tons of natural inclinations and we try to improve upon them.

(Sorry, it's not the most detailed post, just some thoughts. I'm doing homework + cooking dinner, fun!)
 
Von Hase said:
The problem in the Original Post is that an institution was trying to force a student to make a specific lifestyle choice or refuse their earned degree.

That's just plain wrong, regardless if the student's weight is due to genetics or a willful act of laying about and eating Cheetos all day.
Click to expand...

No, it's really not. Because the people in the original post were coming up to graduation, with them being the first class that this would effect, and they've started their education aware of it.

The girl in question states that she knew all about it but just didn't give a crap until her final moments. Well? That's kicked her in the arse. She might be an honour student but she's failed to pay attention to ALL of the requirements for graduation.

If she doesn't like it, she can get her stuff transferred to another university and graduate there.
 
Reon said:
Unless I'm mistaken, in the general population, if a person is consciously controlling their diet (in a appropriate way) their BMI should go down, assuming they are trying to lose weight and not gain muscle.
Click to expand...

What I mean is I can eat whatever and do little exercise and still have a lower BMI than someone that is using every bit of their concious control to lose their weight.

We have tons of natural inclinations and we try to improve upon them.
Click to expand...

Of course, but our expectations of others should always be realistic and we should acknowledge difficulty when it's apparent.
 
Von Hase said:
I haven't looked like that in years.
Click to expand...
Which, strangely, happens often with others too. So we could argue if the goal to look like that is healthy, or isn't our own common sense a little disturbed. I call this effect "human consumerism". Basically, we get used to want anybody who put efforts to look like that, even if later they'll go unhealthy as a result. So what happens is, use someone to their crash-optimal, then throw them away, use the next.

p.s. VH, you look great either way, and I admire you for your strong will, what I say above is about something else.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top