Vasquez on 27/7/2009 at 14:26
Quote Posted by DDL
statisically, a fat guy with a decent diet is still more likely to get type 2 diabetes than a thin guy with a shitty diet.
I wasn't talking about diet only. How about a fat guy who exercises compared to thin guy who doesn't? Regular exercise has a direct effect on how insulin works in your body.
Also could be that the "new and interesting" information we get in Finland is either lies or outdated.
the_grip on 27/7/2009 at 14:29
Reminds me of Super Size Me with that skinny dude who eats like two Big Macs every day? Skinny does not always mean healthy. I know quite a few scrawny folks who eat like shit and smoke packs a day... doesn't mean they will outlive the overweight folks.
DDL on 27/7/2009 at 15:00
Quote Posted by Vasquez
I wasn't talking about diet only. How about a fat guy who exercises compared to thin guy who doesn't? Regular exercise has a direct effect on how insulin works in your body.
Also could be that the "new and interesting" information we get in Finland is either lies or outdated.
If the fat guy eats healthily and exercises and is STILL fat, he's still statistically worse off than the thin guy, diabetes-wise: either he's just eating too damn much (no matter how healthy your food is, your body can still turn it into fat and sugar), or something in him just wants him to be fat and diabetic, effectively. Genetics can be cruel.
As noted, he's still better off than a fat guy who eats healthy and doesn't exercise, who is in turn better off than a fat guy who eats badly and doesn't exercise.
Vasquez on 27/7/2009 at 15:16
Quote Posted by DDL
As noted, he's still better off than a fat guy who eats healthy and doesn't exercise, who is in turn better off than a fat guy who eats badly and doesn't exercise.
But a skinny guy who eats crap and doesn't exercise at all is still healthier than all of these?
I remember reading/seeing studies that disagree, and even though I'm too lazy to dig them up, that doesn't seem to fit even into common sense
Inline Image:
http://whitecortex.net/vela/images/smiles/017.gif(Of course, the Finnish and American definitions of "fat" might differ quite a bit..)
DDL on 27/7/2009 at 15:26
Depends largely on your definition of healthy, but less likely to get diabetes, heart disease or hypertension, all of which are linked fairly strongly to obesity.
Simply put, being fat (around the waist especially) is just not good for you.
Vasquez on 27/7/2009 at 15:44
Quote Posted by DDL
Depends largely on your definition of healthy
Yeah, and definition of fat. I stopped to think about it a bit more, and realised that you're probably talking about really obese people, I'm talking about chubby-like fat (and what with the abnormal image of what's "slim" nowadays - starved movie stars and supermodels - it's possible to count many of the normal-weight people to the chubby camp).
Anyways, it's ALWAYS good to exercise ;) And with that, off to biking! ->
thefonz on 28/7/2009 at 11:10
Weights, swimming once (or twice) a week and eat healthily.
Thats all you can really do, yo.
Going to the gym thrice a week to run or whatever is all well and good but if (like me) you dont then eat properly or balanced or whatever then theres no point.
Hence:
Weights - get off the fat
Swimming - because it uses all your muscles and is relaxing
Eat healthy - no crisps or fast food, tubby.
BEAR on 28/7/2009 at 11:48
Quote Posted by Muzman
All this Puddy-esque enthusiasm is great n' all but I must know a dozen or so people who spent a year going to the gym 3 times a week, really trying to rip it up, maximise their digestive power etc. They drove. They ground. They squeezed. They couldn't raise their arms past horizontal the next day.
End result: stronger fat bastard. With bigger shoulders.
Eventually that initial goal of making your life
less of a sisyphean hell is recalled.
Hey, they were probably fitter and less likely to drop dead as a result. But that wasn't quite what they had in mind. All the explanation anyone's got is usually "Yer doin' it wrong", which is probably true. But again that's like saying "You know how you have one tedius job already? Well you actually need another one that takes up most of your spare time and causes you pain, or you're going to look mostly like that forever". Look out, the rock is rolling back.
So, what am I on about exactly? Well I dunno really. Maybe that excercise requires a certain personality and physiology to work. And if you aren't an actor or someone whose 9-5 job is getting in shape, more people than we'd like to admit are going to get no major change from occasional work-outs totalling less than ten hours a week and they're going to need twice that.
I could be terribly wrong about this but it's just an impression. To seriously reduce the apparent fat bastard plague (pretend for a moment that's what this thread is about) I reckon we might have to all actually have two jobs; office 3 days, digging ditches etc the other two. And if you vote for me as Party Secretary I'll make it mandatory right away.
Also thats what makes interval training so badass - you dont have to spend 2 hours a day running, and you feel better (least I do, though a good long run does still feel rather good).
thefonz on 28/7/2009 at 11:58
I am now seriously considering cancelling my gym membership...
Aja on 29/7/2009 at 05:17
Who spends 2 hours a day running? 35 minutes and if it's getting too easy you go FASTER.
