Sometimes it works the other way. We cannot get our teenage daughter to eat anything but junk food half the time and yet she’s far thinner than either of us were as teenagers. Neither of us can understand it.
You can be thin eating any type of food. It’s generally just far easier to over-consume junk food, but if she’s not eating too much it won’t inherently lead to weight gain
As a teen I would out eat, in physical quantity, any 2 full grown adults and not gain weight, I was 5’11" @ 125lbs by 16. I could eat several plates of whatever was in front of me, at that time my parents made food, not prepackaged processed crap. Into my 20s I’d sit down and empty a tub of ice cream, not one of them tiny ben & jerrys containers. No weight gain until I hit 28 doing a physical job and went up to 180 lbs of muscle, now I’m 150 ish and can still eat what I want when I want, tho normally I eat to live not live to eat. Calories-in-calories-out, like BMI, is only a part of the whole picture with so many unseen things affecting it, like medicines. And no, being skinny was not an easy ride.
It is most definitely not an easy ride. I have had complete stranger come up to me in the street and lecture me about being thin. I wasn’t even underweight. I was normal for my height. Happened recently and I’m way heavier than I used to be and people STILL do it.
I assure you that it’s just a matter of your perception. Every study ever performed reveals people have a notoriously bad internal concept of the quantity of their intake, frequently being off by more than double. The problem is even further exacerbated when trying to estimate someone else’s intake
Could be something she does is burning energy and you haven’t figured out what.
I used to wonder why I never gained weight despite eating twice what other people did…I never thought to factor in being extremely active because it was normal for me. I didn’t think brutal martial arts classes or 5k runs counted as being ‘active’. I thought it was normal.
Granted I wasn’t underweight and didn’t need to gain but I really wanted to look like Zarya from Overwatch
Western capitalists are dominant globally. They enjoyed a multi decade head start. Yes, all capitalists are bad but western capitalists have been the most destructive.
China is authoritarian capitalism with communism for their under classes. They are the worlds 2nd largest economy. Their capitalist practices are just as, if not more reckless than Americas. Just because they dress it up different doesn’t mean they aren’t capitalists. They have the 2nd most billionaires in the world. So sick of everyone acting like evil begins and ends with the West because they live there and don’t get exposed to other news enough. The whole world is fucked, it’s not just “the west.”
Nobody is denying how destructive capitalism is as a whole but only a very dishonest person would deny that it was western capitalists who pushed their diseased way of being onto the rest of the world and not the reverse. The Chinese and Indians are not doing anything that western corporations have not spent the past several hundred years doing.
It really wasn’t a “choice”. Western capitalist interests have spent the past seven decades trying to bully the rest of the world into falling in line with their nefarious aims. And last I checked KFC, McDonald’s, Burger King, Dominos’ Pizza, Pizza Hut, Kelloggs, et al. were all western interests. I see them in every country I go to, they are a large part of the reason for the global obesity crisis. Last I checked none of them are known for selling traditional Vietnamese, Kenyan or Mongolian cuisine.
Sure. That’s worked out great for Cuba and countless others who have their elected leaders assassinated by Western powers but please tell me more about this supposed “choice”…
I can get behind the logic of more screen time probably meaning less physical activity. But someone needs to explain to me how eating less would ever lead to weight gain. Especially when your typical breakfast junk is just as unhealthy as snacking could ever be.
I know that if I skip a meal, I can get really hungry later. That or I start snacking on crap. So skipping a meal could potentially lead to weight gain because you end up eating more than if you didn’t skip the meal.
I’m not sure exactly how it works tbh! But this was also one of the findings of the National Weight Control Registry when studying people who successfully lost weight and kept it off.
78% eat breakfast every day. 75% weigh themselves at least once a week. 62% watch less than 10 hours of TV per week. 90% exercise, on average, about 1 hour per day.
Some more tidbits:
98% of Registry participants report that they modified their food intake in some way to lose weight. 94% increased their physical activity, with the most frequently reported form of activity being walking.
If I had to speculate, my guess is that having breakfast results in a better workout. And then a better workout makes you more likely to comply with your meal plan, which then results in better long term weight results
your body adjusts to fasting by increasing hunger hormones and sensitivity to them. This can lead to overconsuming food when its available.
additionally roads and traffic have also reduced effective social and play areas even as vehicles become more dangerous to pedestrians.
Its possible even that the evolutionary adaptation to cars is that low energy kids have less risk of injury/death while more high energy kids get hit by cars, possibly selecting for less active kids generation to generation (notably it may also be selecting for taller heights)
I’m interested in the idea of selection adaptation and motorised vehicles, however I think selective adaptation takes much much much longer than motorised vehicles have been with us so far. We’re talking hundreds of years for selective adaptation to take affairs.
I could be wrong about that though.
The more likely adaptation reason currently is that we like over eating. Food used to be scarce, and when it was available you ate as much as you could or you died. The survivors of that scenario are the ones that made us, and as such we love eating lots when it’s there.
I think our fascination with sweet foods makes sense from this perspective also. Our ancestors exposure to sweet foods were mostly fruit. Fruit would have improved their immune system significantly. Unfortunately we’ve since began mass producing sugar which doesn’t offer the same benefits, but our bodies are still set up to love that sweet taste.
car accidents are one of the largest causes of death of people below the age of 35 in the US if I recall. This means its likely one of the largest selection factors for people at or below reproductive age.
i absolutely hate that this correct answer gets any downvotes.
so much anti-intellectualism on the internet, so much surface level “BuT CaLoRiEs iN CalOriEs OuT” combined with outright denial and doubt of empirical evidence.
humans are a mess. yes, sometimes skipping morning meals can have an effect on the rest of your day and you eat more later. why are we so quick to doubt that?
Yea i can absolutely see that. Though it’s also understandable to doubt it because personally it just doesn’t apply - which I think is largely because I don’t changr my portion sizes, and I’m probably not the only one. I make food and eat all of it, and I usually eat 2 meals a day + sometimes breakfast. I’ve found that delaying food intake for as long as possible leads to me eating less overall and losing weight.
In my case, eating breakfast or not is more of a result of how much I ate the previous day.
Here you encounter the difference between personal anecdote and statistical averages in risk factors :)
Risk factors don’t mean you, personally are doing something wrong, risk factors just help identify patterns that inform action in health care where it is needed
General trends should only be applied by trained professionals, such as physicians or dietitians, who can do so with the necessary care and attention. Unless you are a doctor, you’re right that it’s hard! In fact you shouldn’t do it at all.
It is important for people to understand this concept, because it seems to be commonly overlooked. The average person should not create a diet or fitness plan based solely on data like what is discussed in this article. Rather, it is far more healthy to defer to professionals and their recommendations in the form of interpretation of that data for guidance rather than attempting to interpret this information on your own.
Edit: My apologies, it’s in the subtitle line cut out of context like this. I think this is the egregious fault of the publisher more than the author, probably some SEO BS, because again this was obviously not the intent of that sentence.
My browser’s reader mode cut out that subtitle line, hence my original comment:
Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote:
The researchers identified great heterogeneity in the prevalence between countries and also diverse risk factors, from dietary to behavioral.
The intent of that paragraph is to highlight the diversity of risk factors, not to give the most prevalent ones.
When you ask a text to do something it didn’t ever even pretend to want to do, of course you are going to come away disappointed. Media literacy. < Publisher accountability.
Bad reading of the author’s intent and you ignore the immediately preceding sentence which provides context for your cherry picked quote
It is the subtitle in its entirety, as the author of the article intended. That sentence didn’t grow legs and and walk all the way up to the top of the article by itself.
hot damn my apologies my reader view cut out the subtitle. somehow i doubt that was the author’s intent though. i would blame the publisher for this because that’s a really poor manipulation of the text.
What’s your favourite part of Mexico? I’ve always been interested in checking it out but every now and then there’s a story about cartels killing mofos.
I’ve only been to the resorts in Playa del Carmen, but my dear friend lived in Zona del Norte in Tijuana and loved it despite it being really a rough end of the city. Tijuana is quite a place.
Here’s what won’t change…my family has some property there in michoacan. Oh yes, the little house that saw us grow up into adolescence. But today our parents cannot do anything with it. Can’t sell it unless you give it away. The locals “those who remain” basically use scare tactics to get you to sell to the drug lords. One of my parents was tortured last time he went back to “arreglar papeles”. Now it’s becoming our land from inheritance, but how can I do anything? First off Americans can’t own land or not exactly. Second the torture thing, I like my testicles where they are. Third but most importantly is the representatives locally here at the Seattle place are the worst! It took a full year for me to get an approved power of attorney for some silly thing my dad wanted to do. How can that work? The only way is for us migrants to lose it all.
This is great news. Mexico has been enjoying some increasingly progressive policies that are very popular. The more progressing candidate won by a huge margin.
If only they could get the drug cartel situation sorted out, but that’s no easy deal.
I have faith in the American voter to put up an all woman P/VP ticket in the form of MTG / Lauren Boebert.
In a highly contested election, they’ll squeak by with a margin of 246 votes in a country run by a sheriff known for smoothering inmates in their sleep, after a federal court rules anyone with a Latino surname is ineligible to cast a ballot. While they technically came out ahead by ten million popular votes, Democrats will conclude that running against the electoral college is a losing issue and will spend the next two years campaigning as the Party That Wants To Protect The Rights of Police to Opt Out of AI Surveillance.
The Dems will run a candidate four years later consisting of a cybernetic hivemind of tech CEOs living in a big vat in a walled compound in New Zealand, on the banner “We’re Not As Out of Touch as We Look”, and will win by a margin of 42.8 votes, after successfully convincing a federal court that the 3/5ths compromise applies to LLCs, LLMs, and LARPs. This hivemind will begin the Mass Liquidation Project, intended to eliminate surplus flesh in the national economy. Any political opposition will be categorized as “anti-democratic” and require the speaker to register as “row 1 liquidation candidates” for the crime of invoking restless spirits of the Unspeakable Cheeto.
Trump will have died of sixteen different medical complications while serving out his second term. But after Elon Musk successfully incorporates his consciousness into the Truth Social app, simulated approximations of Trump posts will continue to appear in all American social media sites until the Great National Blackout of 2053. No records exist following this period, as Americans will have forgotten how to write and read.
My favourite part is when elon uploads trump’s mind to the net but since his technology is shit the instance of trump is in permanent excruciating pain forever
Since its Elon, its just a javascript that says “Hello I am Donald Trump 🤣🤣♥️🖤🚀🚘 Elon Musk is my friend” and “Pussy In Bio ♥️ 🍆 💦 🍑Please Invest in Bitcoin 🪙 🪙 🪙” when you try to interact with it.
There’s something in the contrast between the high percentages of the “best country in the world” people that generally populate the US vs the lived experience of being in America and noticing the myriad ways in which it is decidedly not the fucking best.
That contrast is a killer, and I think adds to the motivation people have to shit on it.
I think I agree with that. Plus, on the Internet you can see all the ways that other countries do things better than your own, without having the experience of living in those countries so you know what they do worse.
Even still, America is the center of global imperialism, which is my primary problem with it even though some parts of the system function fine when viewed in isolation.
The issue is that this place is filled with the exact opposite: people who keep saying that America is some hell on earth. We certainly have plenty of problems and there are no shortage of ways we could improve drastically…but the people who can’t see a post about a historic achievement in Mexico without shitting on America are just as ridiculous as the people who can’t see another country’s success/failure without claiming America is the best. Two sides of the same thoughtless coin.
Not shitting in the US , just some other interesting facts… gay marriage was legalized in mexico first, also abortion rights are stronger in mexico , and weed legalization (federal). I’m a mexican living in the US and like it her (My career it’s in semiconductors and this industry is barely taking off in México). I find it very interesting they are leading in some of these topics/initiatives, despite being a super religious country.
Most of my family wonder why I came here where I could have similar or better life there. There are two sides of Mexico…1) mainly poor and marginalized that come here(with some exeptions like me). And 2) there is a sector of the polloularion that is very well off economically, with standards of living at par with the US and get no benefit coming here.
Just a semi informed comment since i’m not an economist or politician.
Don’t mind me, just another day watching Americans thinking that the poorer country to their south couldn’t possibly be more generally progressive than them ☕☕☕
Mexico also banned slavery before the US did. That’s why Texas split from Mexico, became its own country, then asked the US for help, which the US granted. As their way of saying thanks, Texas applied for Statehood. Then when we started thinking that maybe owning people was wrong, Texas was all “Now, wait a minute! The whole reason we started hanging out with you guys in the first place was because you said owning people was cool!”
It’s very cool. The race was between a climate scientist and a software engineer, both women. The climate scientist was much more liberal and won by a huge margin. Really good news all around, I’m jealous.
If by more liberal, you mean literally a socialist (at worst a social democrat) who outright states that neoliberalism is the cause of Mexico’s current problems.
“Neoliberalism” is one of those terms that’s starting to lose meaning because different people use it to mean different things. I’m not an expert on her, but from what I’ve read, her views seem pretty vanilla progressive to me. Here’s what Wikipedia says about them:
Social issues
Sheinbaum has openly identified herself as a feminist, aligning her beliefs and actions with the principles of gender equality and women’s rights.[73] She advocates for the legalization of abortion, aligning her stance with broader movements aimed at promoting reproductive rights and autonomy for women.[74] During her leadership in Mexico City, Sheinbaum championed LGBT rights by implementing a gender-neutral policy for school uniforms.[75] In 2022, she became the first Head of Government of Mexico City to attend the city’s pride march.[76] Economy
Sheinbaum has criticized the neoliberal economic policies of past presidents of Mexico, arguing that they have contributed to inequality in the country.[77] She has promised to expand welfare under her presidency[78] and intends to continue programs started by Obrador, such as universal pension.[79] Climate
Sheinbaum has a background in environmental policy, having served as environment secretary for Mexico City and worked on the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [80] She has both spoken in favor of clean energy and praised Mexico’s largest oil company.[72]
Wow, where did that come from? I said I feel that word is losing meaning, not that you used it incorrectly. Instead of discussing what neoliberalism is/isn’t, I just posted a reference to her main ideals, which I thought would be more helpful. Not sure why you’re responding with claws out.
She is one that is using it, the incoming president of Mexico, and you lead with “that word is losing all meaning.”
I don’t believe that being a literal authority figure makes her honest or even trustworthy, but can you see the problem with that being the first thing you bring up, at least without having specific criticisms of her usage in mind?
I understand she’s the one using it, that doesn’t change the fact that, in my opinion, it’s not a good word for communication because different people been different things by it. For purposes of this discussion, I thought it would be better to avoid it. It’s like “conservative;” by itself it’s almost useless because people mean so many things by it.
It’s a well-defined term. But it’s one not really discussed much or talked about in america. And largely used in propaganda when it is used. Which is only aided by people not understanding and knowing the definition.
Liberal is basically a shortening of economic liberal. Think founding fathers, Adam smith, invisible hand circle jerk off the economy. Free markets yada yada yada. Basically that is what liberal means in the rest of the world. And still means in the United States even though it’s misused heavily. You might also comment to yourself that that sounds an awful lot like people who call themselves libertarian. Which is because they are not libertarian they are economic liberals. They’re just masquerading.
In the early 20th century, the glaring problems with economic liberalism we’re becoming impossible to ignore. Robber barons exploiting labor en mass and running roughshod over government. It was pretty blatantly apparent to most people what economic liberalism always was. It wasn’t about free markets for everyone. You can ask Black Wall Street about that. And it wasn’t about creating free societies for everyone. You can ask Black Wall Street about that. It was clear that they needed to abandon the hands off social policy of economic liberalism and apply pressure socially to achieve better outcomes. Which the market abhorred. And post world war II the violent oppressive Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist revolutions combined with fascistic rhetoric convinced them that capitalism was still the only answer. But hands on capitalism.
Enter neoliberals. Republicans and Democrats both are neo-liberals. Their current stances decided by who passed the civil rights act. Democrats solidified themselves as the party of limited social assistance. Republicans taking the opposite stance socially. No longer just socially “neutral” in pursuit of free markets and non wasps to exploit. They became punitive and actively socially oppressive.
And no Democrats are in no way socialist. Work requirements are antisocialist. Little poison pills that Democrats and Republicans both have worked into every single social assistance program ever implemented in the United States. As a mechanism to keep control and power over labor. Leaving them distinctly vulnerable and easily exploitable as father for the factories and businesses of wealthy capitalists. If an unemployed person had social protections and guarantees. Capitalists have no leverage over them. They could be discerning about what jobs they worked and what jobs they didn’t. Without having the fear of starvation and death hung over them. And that doesn’t work for capitalists.
Amazingly, no. I had to follow a few links before I found out because apparently the fact that she’s a woman trumps all the other news, but she is, in fact, not a fascist.
She is straight up left wing. The opposing candidate was pushed forward by a coalition of what are essentially the Democrats and Republicans 😂🔥 it’s incredible
The EU elections will play a decisive role in shaping this trend, those politicians who have exposed ideas about it, creating e.g. a common defense system, seem to have completely lost any contact with the reality of what citizens need and wish for their future.
This is another example of the realignment that is happening. Democrats are more and more the party of the college-educated and Republicans the party of the non-college-educated. Race and ethnicity is less and less important.
No homie, just a consistent application of morals. I’m not going to support bigots who would kill and persecute LGBTQ over people who are more inclusive.
Gay transgender man here to say ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY DO NOT support genocide in my name. Thousands of children have been murdered. This is a fucking deranged thing to say you’re doing for queer people.
Also like, a huge portion of the town I grew up in would be fine enacting all kinds of biblical murder-executions on me. I can’t go to public bathrooms in some states. Are you arguing for genociding everyone in those places too?
I don’t think that means you should kill thousands of their children because I’m not a fucking psychopath.
What do you think they would do to an openly gay man in Palestine?
Hint it’s rhymes with whale.
Guess what was legal to do to gay men in the US barely over 20 years ago? Can you even name the court case I’m referencing here without me spelling it out for you?
Would it have been fine to kill thousands of American children over this 20 years ago?
So you don’t know what court case it is? Yeah, your comments don’t come across as particularly well read about queer history. Read about Lawrence v Texas. 2003. If you think that’s ancient history that’s a self report babe, some of us were old enough to have a job then.
Since you didn’t bother reading my last comment, let me say it again but in bigger text so you might see it:
I can’t go to public bathrooms in some states.
Not “I don’t feel safe doing it,” it’s literally not legal for me to do it right now, today.
Now explain to me why the children of Gaza should die for their parents’ beliefs but not the children of Florida or Utah.
english.elpais.com
Newest