More on America's Obesity Problem

[alguien]

Your stomach is stretchy. That sensation is the feeling of it contracting. If you put less in it on a regular basis, your mind will assume a different "default" amount of stretchiness, and you'll be less hungry on less food.

This is very true. When I used to have to cut weight for wrestling (a terrible practice) I would dream about all the gargantuan portions of food I would eat upon making weight.

Turns out after three pieces of pizza I was stuffed. Obviously, its an extreme example, but my overall point is that the human body is pretty good at adapting to things.

[Swordfish]

What excuses are you referring to?

I do understand the difference in feeling between my brain telling me I want something and the physical sensation of hunger. The first is "Go eat that cupcake, it looks tasty!" the latter is "Your stomach is empty and you should fill it." It's independant of outside stimuli, at least in its most basic form. If you are physically hungry, the brain compulsions can be harder to ignore.

That is exactly why it's important to not let your stomach get empty.

The point is, hunger is irrelevant to the discussion except as another thing you need to manage in order to lose weight.

This is very true. When I used to have to cut weight for wrestling (a terrible practice) I would dream about all the gargantuan portions of food I would eat upon making weight.

Turns out after three pieces of pizza I was stuffed. Obviously, its an extreme example, but my overall point is that the human body is pretty good at adapting to things.

Indeed. The human mind is slower to adapt.

[Odie]

I think you're missing the point of my attempted analogy.

There are right, and wrong, ways to get more money. Some ways are legitimate, and some are not.

Similarly, there are right, and wrong, ways to re-balance your calorie intake so you expend more than what you consume. Some ways are legitimate, and some are not. The right plan will also differ from person to person depending on their specific situation. This is the point that you can't seem to concede.

Which is exactly my point. It's not as simple as calories in < calories out, no matter how many times the fatophobic zealots claim otherwise.

[TerraPrime]

I am having the hardest time with drinking water. The water here tastes terrible, it really grosses me out and for about a week once every coulple of months it tastes full of chlorine. There's even been an ongoing story in the local newspaper about something that was buried years ago and has been polluting the water only a few miles from here.

I've tried using filters but they don't help much. I can go the bottled water route but I hate the idea of all those bottles going into a land fill.

I may have to start looking into getting a water cooler service, until then I just can't drink the stuff without adding something to it like crystal light, but I also hate artificial sweetners, the after taste is what gets me, I also hate any kind of ice tea sugar sweetend or artificially sweetened or whatever. So more often than not I use kool-aid, and that's something I know I need to stop.

Some grocery stores offer filtered water. Their filter is usually stronger and better than most affordable home filters like Brita and Pur. If you want to, you can splurge and buy reverseve osmosis machines for your kitchen, and that's as pure a water as you can get.

But of course, pure does not mean tastiness.

One thing I do is to keep a pitcher of water in the refrigerator and add a wedge of lemon or lime to it. The water will have some taste to it, and there's practically no calorie in it.

[Odie]

That is exactly why it's important to not let your stomach get empty.

The point is, hunger is irrelevant to the discussion except as another thing you need to manage in order to lose weight.

So how do you suggest you avoid doing that without eating constantly throughout the day and in the end netting more calories?

[adamsputnik]

It's not exactly a stunning revelation, but I was amazed when visiting the States to encounter the portion sizes. It actually made me somewhat unwell. I hate to see an overloaded plate, because I've always been taught that you eat whatever you're given and be grateful, and that just intimidated me. But seriously, the starters were bigger than I felt I needed for an entire meal. It's just insane.

There also seems to be a weird cultural aspect. I share my workplace with our American partners and even the ones who are slim, fit and active have a bizarre approach to exercise. I cannot understand, for instance, why they uniformly take the lift from the third floor, even when they are carrying their gym equipment on the way to the stairmaster, nor why when we go the pub together all the English walk the mile and all the Americans drive.

Now this is not intended in any way to dick wave, but it's interesting to me in terms of the attitude to exercise, even amongst the fit and motivated.

Lastly, I want to refudiate Coco's point about the urban nature of American society. In comparison with most West European countries, and particularly England, the most urbanized country in the West, that excuse just doesn't hold water.

PS A country where, if this board is any indication, Subway seems to be held up as a healthy option is truly in a degree of trouble.

I was like you when I came to the US. But apparently living here changes you. I could not believe the buckets of coca-cola products and the plates full of food that weighed several kilos. But now I just gobble it all down and ask for a refill or two on a coke. It's amazing that what seems disgusting to you at first is now routine.

What tricks and tips do people have for reducing portion sizes? I know that it's the mantra and all, but how do people do it? I have an extremely hard time keeping away from the chips/crackers or the block of chocolate if I have had a less-than-satisfying meal. I try not to get staggeringly full, and I am quite sure that I do not eat as much as most Americans, but I am also as certain that I still eat too much. It is very hard to just leave your stomach alone if it feels half-empty, though.

[TerraPrime]

Which is exactly my point. It's not as simple as calories in < calories out, no matter how many times the fatophobic zealots claim otherwise.

Let me put it another way, then.

Consuming less calorie than you expend is a necessary, but sometimes not sufficient, way to lose weight.

I'll also add that there are legitimate ways to achieve this caloric balance of more going out than coming in, while other ways of achieving that will actually hinder the overall goal of losing weight.

[drawkcabi]

One thing I do is to keep a pitcher of water in the refrigerator and add a wedge of lemon or lime to it. The water will have some taste to it, and there's practically no calorie in it.

That's a good idea, I'm going to try this, thanks.

And all I really want is water that doesn't taste bad. If it tastes like nothing, I'm fine with that.

[Odie]

I try not to get staggeringly full, and I am quite sure that I do not eat as much as most Americans, but I am also as certain that I still eat too much. It is very hard to just leave your stomach alone if it feels half-empty, though.

This is very true. :( Or you eat a reasonable portion only to be hungry two hours later. NOW what? Eat a snack? Right, so now you have more calories in your day than you did before. Seems counter-productive to me.

[adamsputnik]

From what I have seen, exercise here is considered an "event" which one prepares for and attends. This is in opposition to what exercise should be, a natural part of your day, whether it's climbing stairs, walking down the street, or whatever. I am one of two people I know who makes it a point to walk to places that are within, well, walking distance. I know people who drive across the street to go to the grocery store (to be fair though, it is REALLY hot outside).

This is precisely the attitude. At home, I used to walk everywhere. I could walk to the train station, take the train, hope a tram and then walk the rest of the way. Or, I would walk down to the shops and buy my lunch or whatever I was going there for. I would walk to the cricket club for training sessions. I even sometimes walked the 45 minutes and 3 miles to work if my car wasn't going, and that didn't really bother me all that much.

Now I drive everywhere. I think my wife has given me some very bad habits. But here in Georgia the summers just aren't made for walking around on the ludicrous acreages of pavement that we seem to frequent.

[Greywolf2375]

So how do you suggest you avoid doing that without eating constantly throughout the day and in the end netting more calories?

The over arching point is that eating throughout the day is the better way to ingest the fuel your system needs - and by eating items that are low glycemic and contain fiber will keep you feeling "full" avoiding the need to have huge amounts of calories.

For instance, somewhere in one of the threads there was a comment about a $2 big mac v. $2 in spinach. Yes, the big mac is going to give you immediate feeling of being full, while the spinach will provide you a better fuel and keep your body sated longer.

[Swordfish]

So how do you suggest you avoid doing that without eating constantly throughout the day and in the end netting more calories?

Seriously, if you've seen a nutritionist as you claim, you already know the answer to this question.

It's like you just want someone to pat you on the back and say 'It's ok, you tried. It just wasn't possible for you.'

It is possible for you. But your attitude sucks.

[Jaime L]

For instance, somewhere in one of the threads there was a comment about a $2 big mac v. $2 in spinach. Yes, the big mac is going to give you immediate feeling of being full, while the spinach will provide you a better fuel and keep your body sated longer.

To me, this is why oatmeal works.

Absolute tops for feeling full.

[Guest Raidne]

Which is exactly my point. It's not as simple as calories in < calories out, no matter how many times the fatophobic zealots claim otherwise.

No, it's not that simple. It's a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. But it is pretty much as simple as eat food, not too much, mostly plants. Check out Michael Pollen's Food Rules. It's simple, it's short, but it'll get you back on the right track.

I'm not at all perfect - yesterday I ate pre-made PF Chang's beef and green beans from the freezer aisle for dinner. That violates several of Pollen's food rules. But I know what the calorie count was, it was loaded with a lot of green beans, and I ate exactly a serving size. Not as good as I do other days, and I'm probably bloated from all the sodium, but you don't have to be perfect all the time. Today I had sushi. Excellent choice. It is really pretty difficult to eat too much sushi. It takes time to consume, there are large pauses between bites, and a person can only eat so much raw fish.

Some days I have a egg and cheese bagel sandwhich from the deli downstairs with a diet coke. It truly is about 600 calories. I'm usually hungry two hours later. Not a smart choice for me, then. I suffer through a veggie-only salad at lunch and starve all day until I get to have dinner. This makes the prospect of eating this again much less appealing.

What tricks and tips do people have for reducing portion sizes?

Count calories until you get an accurate idea of the ideal portion size is, and be sure you're getting an accurate picture of what your daily intake should be. Then, if it's still hard, fill your plate up with low calorie stuff. You probably can't have too many dry roasted green breans with a little soy sauce, or whatever.

[Odie]

Seriously, if you've seen a nutritionist as you claim, you already know the answer to this question.

It's like you just want someone to pat you on the back and say 'It's ok, you tried. It just wasn't possible for you.'

It is possible for you. But your attitude sucks.

Why would I want that? What good would it do?

Even if I had someone take a picture with myself and my nutritionist, you all would claim that I paid someone to dress in a white coat and pose as one. It's that attitude which leads me to know that no one would believe me if I told the board at large the truth about what's going on with me health-wise. You'd laugh and laugh and laugh and say "so you claim" even when I'm telling the gods-honest truth, confirmed by my doctor and test results. I *am* seeing a nutritionist. Whether or not you believe me is wholly up to you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Odie,

What's a "fatophobe"?

[Eurytus]

This is very true. :( Or you eat a reasonable portion only to be hungry two hours later. NOW what? Eat a snack? Right, so now you have more calories in your day than you did before. Seems counter-productive to me.

1. You won't be hungry 2 hours later. You are likely mistaking signals from your stomach, which is used to a certain volume of food as hunger pangs. Drink some water.

2. You don't HAVE to eat when you feel slightly hungry.

[Odie]

To me, this is why oatmeal works.

Absolute tops for feeling full.

Oatmeal is wonderful. :)

But I still feel hungry by 10AM :/

[Odie]

Odie,

What's a "fatophobe"?

I think it's pretty obvious? Not sure if there's a correct spelling, but perhaps I didn't spell it properly enough.

[adamsputnik]

To me, this is why oatmeal works.

Absolute tops for feeling full.

Why are foods that are good for you revolting? This bothers me more than anything. I hate oatmeal, porridge, grits or anything like it, yet I am sure it would be a godsend for a breakfast.

I guess I am just a wuss.