Fat chicks can run too, according to size 20 marathon runner from Darlington

Darlington and Stockton Times: Changing perceptions: Charlie Taylor Changing perceptions: Charlie Taylor

FAT chicks can run too, according to a North-East woman hoping to shatter misconceptions as she sets out to undertake a gruelling marathon.

Charlie Taylor cuts a striking figure – at 6ft 2ins and a size 20, she is perhaps not the most likely of fitness enthusiasts.

The 27-year-old - whose motto is Fat Chicks Can Run Too - is challenging stereotypes and raising money by preparing to take part in the Great North Run, her second marathon.

She took up running after deciding to improve her health and fitness and has since shed around four stone.

She said: “I’m not doing it to lose weight and conform, it’s for the health benefits. I just got to a point where I thought if I don’t behave, I’ll end up damaging myself.

“People judged me and said I’d never be able to run, being the size I am but I’m proof it’s possible to be fat and fit.

“I used to walk with my head down and try to hide, I was scared of being tall and fat but now I am proud to say I’m up here, I’m tall, I’m fat and I’m running and if you don’t like it, tough.”

Miss Taylor will run to raise money for the Cockerton Prize Silver Band, based in Darlington.

She said: “I’ve grown up around the band, my mother was their first female member and they do so much in the community.

“They are always playing at events and in supermarkets and people really enjoy them but rarely know who they are.

“They have been going since the 1800s but they struggle for funding and could do with help to buy new instruments.

“If every business in the town donated £1, that could keep them going for a year.”

For more about Miss Taylor’s mission, visit facebook.com/fatchickscanrun.

Comments (64)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:34pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Colcat says...

When I completed it (many years ago now) the Great North Run was only (only! It was still difficult!) a half marathon!
.
"She took up running after deciding to improve her health and fitness and has since shed around four stone."
This rather highlights an irony in the article that rather contradict the headline - if "fat chicks" DO run, they become NOT FAT!
.
(I do wish her the best of luck with her running, and congratulate her on her achievements so far!)
When I completed it (many years ago now) the Great North Run was only (only! It was still difficult!) a half marathon! . "She took up running after deciding to improve her health and fitness and has since shed around four stone." This rather highlights an irony in the article that rather contradict the headline - if "fat chicks" DO run, they become NOT FAT! . (I do wish her the best of luck with her running, and congratulate her on her achievements so far!) Colcat

9:21pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Mike2012 says...

Colcat wrote:
When I completed it (many years ago now) the Great North Run was only (only! It was still difficult!) a half marathon!
.
"She took up running after deciding to improve her health and fitness and has since shed around four stone."
This rather highlights an irony in the article that rather contradict the headline - if "fat chicks" DO run, they become NOT FAT!
.
(I do wish her the best of luck with her running, and congratulate her on her achievements so far!)
Completely agree with you, this article is loaded with irony. It's not about "conforming", it's about KEEPING YOUR HEART & BODY HEALTHY. Too many people out there eating whatever they like because THEY want to, sorry but it's not on.

Moaning about the benefit cheats etc while they're at the docs every week on their cholesterol / blood pressure medication (OK, that's an extreme example, but still), when are people gonna start waking up that they are literally ADDICTED to sugar and fat??

I'm sick of seeing 8-9 year old kids at McDonalds with parents buyin' them whatever they want, it's NOT OK, the key word.....Moderation.


By starting with the children of today, we can at least prevent this "food binge culture" we have infecting society now.

And please don't get me started on the "I'm fat and I'm beautiful/proud" ......Morons.
[quote][p][bold]Colcat[/bold] wrote: When I completed it (many years ago now) the Great North Run was only (only! It was still difficult!) a half marathon! . "She took up running after deciding to improve her health and fitness and has since shed around four stone." This rather highlights an irony in the article that rather contradict the headline - if "fat chicks" DO run, they become NOT FAT! . (I do wish her the best of luck with her running, and congratulate her on her achievements so far!)[/p][/quote]Completely agree with you, this article is loaded with irony. It's not about "conforming", it's about KEEPING YOUR HEART & BODY HEALTHY. Too many people out there eating whatever they like because THEY want to, sorry but it's not on. Moaning about the benefit cheats etc while they're at the docs every week on their cholesterol / blood pressure medication (OK, that's an extreme example, but still), when are people gonna start waking up that they are literally ADDICTED to sugar and fat?? I'm sick of seeing 8-9 year old kids at McDonalds with parents buyin' them whatever they want, it's NOT OK, the key word.....Moderation. By starting with the children of today, we can at least prevent this "food binge culture" we have infecting society now. And please don't get me started on the "I'm fat and I'm beautiful/proud" ......Morons. Mike2012

11:37pm Wed 19 Feb 14

theWorkerScum says...

To both comments. Just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise. This is so ignorant and typical of the comments I'd expect from here.I know people who eat fast food everyday and are thin. I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft. It's called genetics. Same reason why you have a low iq.
To both comments. Just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise. This is so ignorant and typical of the comments I'd expect from here.I know people who eat fast food everyday and are thin. I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft. It's called genetics. Same reason why you have a low iq. theWorkerScum

12:12am Thu 20 Feb 14

Colcat says...

@Mike2012 - Many many years ago I had the dubious "honour" of flipping burgers in a certain Scottish American fast food joint, and on more than one occasion I served women aged around 18-25 wheel babies in their pushchair's up to the counter and order some sort of burger with fries and a coke, I then watched as they took out the baby's bottle and poured some of their coke into it and then stick it into the baby's mouth for him/her to drink! I would bet good money (if I had any) that those children are now adults with mouths filled with fillings (in the remaining teeth they have) and are probably over-weight.
@Mike2012 - Many many years ago I had the dubious "honour" of flipping burgers in a certain Scottish American fast food joint, and on more than one occasion I served women aged around 18-25 wheel babies in their pushchair's up to the counter and order some sort of burger with fries and a coke, I then watched as they took out the baby's bottle and poured some of their coke into it and then stick it into the baby's mouth for him/her to drink! I would bet good money (if I had any) that those children are now adults with mouths filled with fillings (in the remaining teeth they have) and are probably over-weight. Colcat

4:21am Thu 20 Feb 14

SirLance says...

Good luck to the fat chick ! Remember the run's not over till she sings!!

As for 'theWorkerscum' I suggest you are very wrong about what people eat as per their personal body weight! If you remember the 'Holocaust' there were no fat people in the pictures shown of the horror of the camps, why? Because they had nothing to eat! The body's metabolism works in many strange ways! Feeding it pure fat everyday just overwhelms the bodily digestion process and subsequently stores fat as it cannot be broken down or 'burnt off'. The world has more fatter people now than ever and they nearly all live in the Western Northern hemisphere! Now the fast food people are into Asia you can see the effect it has had on those races!
Fattest people I have ever seen were in New Orleans, thinnest in Burma! now why is that?
Good luck to the fat chick ! Remember the run's not over till she sings!! As for 'theWorkerscum' I suggest you are very wrong about what people eat as per their personal body weight! If you remember the 'Holocaust' there were no fat people in the pictures shown of the horror of the camps, why? Because they had nothing to eat! The body's metabolism works in many strange ways! Feeding it pure fat everyday just overwhelms the bodily digestion process and subsequently stores fat as it cannot be broken down or 'burnt off'. The world has more fatter people now than ever and they nearly all live in the Western Northern hemisphere! Now the fast food people are into Asia you can see the effect it has had on those races! Fattest people I have ever seen were in New Orleans, thinnest in Burma! now why is that? SirLance

6:04am Thu 20 Feb 14

greenfinger says...

hahaha good on you girl, i wish i had the motivation to start.

brilliant!
hahaha good on you girl, i wish i had the motivation to start. brilliant! greenfinger

8:12am Thu 20 Feb 14

Mike2012 says...

theWorkerScum wrote:
To both comments. Just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise. This is so ignorant and typical of the comments I'd expect from here.I know people who eat fast food everyday and are thin. I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft. It's called genetics. Same reason why you have a low iq.
Clearly you know very little about METABOLISM, forget genetics, we are'nt talking about height etc, we're talking about people stuffing their faces with whatever pleases them without a thought about what it's doing to their body.

Genetics and metabolism are completely different entities, if you have a high metabolism you can eat more, simple. But if you live a sedentary lifestyle while eating takeaways, you're waistline will soon let you know it's time to start venturing into the fruit and veg aisle at the supermarket.
[quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: To both comments. Just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise. This is so ignorant and typical of the comments I'd expect from here.I know people who eat fast food everyday and are thin. I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft. It's called genetics. Same reason why you have a low iq.[/p][/quote]Clearly you know very little about METABOLISM, forget genetics, we are'nt talking about height etc, we're talking about people stuffing their faces with whatever pleases them without a thought about what it's doing to their body. Genetics and metabolism are completely different entities, if you have a high metabolism you can eat more, simple. But if you live a sedentary lifestyle while eating takeaways, you're waistline will soon let you know it's time to start venturing into the fruit and veg aisle at the supermarket. Mike2012

8:23am Thu 20 Feb 14

charlie7t says...

As the person in this article I would like to say thank you for the negative comments as they just drive me to push further... I was bigger and running brought me focus and enthusiasm.
I do not 'stuff' my face and am trying to change the preconceptions of people who are bigger than what society states is the norm!
I am doing this to get fit and loosing weight is a benefit while raising money for a much loves Brass Band, Darlingtons Only Brass Band.
When I started to run I was laughed at, picked on, mocked and slated and told repeatedly that I could never do it, weight has been a easy point for the 'bullys' to have a go at me.
People are scared to use the word Fat and I am not im a big girl and im proud to be that way.
As the person in this article I would like to say thank you for the negative comments as they just drive me to push further... I was bigger and running brought me focus and enthusiasm. I do not 'stuff' my face and am trying to change the preconceptions of people who are bigger than what society states is the norm! I am doing this to get fit and loosing weight is a benefit while raising money for a much loves Brass Band, Darlingtons Only Brass Band. When I started to run I was laughed at, picked on, mocked and slated and told repeatedly that I could never do it, weight has been a easy point for the 'bullys' to have a go at me. People are scared to use the word Fat and I am not im a big girl and im proud to be that way. charlie7t

9:09am Thu 20 Feb 14

Ally F says...

GNR is a half marathon distance. Good for you Charlie Taylor. Anyone can run.

Running club members come in all shapes and sizes, weights and heights, ages and natural fitness levels. Each has their own comfortable pace. Some might have a mile pace of sub 7 minutes, others twice that, it matters not.

All say the same thing: eating sensibly and exercising regularly is good for you, without exception all regular runners lose weight and are healther. It's a natural result of regular moderate exercise several times a week. As an added bonus there's the personal 'feel good' and 'runner's high' you get after exercise.

My wife is not very tall and was carrying some weight when she started running 7 years ago. It took her nearly 2 years to manage to run 10K. She has now completed a marathon and is training for several marathons this year aiming for a PB of 3:45. Not only has her physical fitness and well-being massively improved, but she also finds running very enjoyable. She can eat what she wants guilt free as she is burning several thousand calories a week in her training programme. A a recent new runner myself I can relate to all that.
GNR is a half marathon distance. Good for you Charlie Taylor. Anyone can run. Running club members come in all shapes and sizes, weights and heights, ages and natural fitness levels. Each has their own comfortable pace. Some might have a mile pace of sub 7 minutes, others twice that, it matters not. All say the same thing: eating sensibly and exercising regularly is good for you, without exception all regular runners lose weight and are healther. It's a natural result of regular moderate exercise several times a week. As an added bonus there's the personal 'feel good' and 'runner's high' you get after exercise. My wife is not very tall and was carrying some weight when she started running 7 years ago. It took her nearly 2 years to manage to run 10K. She has now completed a marathon and is training for several marathons this year aiming for a PB of 3:45. Not only has her physical fitness and well-being massively improved, but she also finds running very enjoyable. She can eat what she wants guilt free as she is burning several thousand calories a week in her training programme. A a recent new runner myself I can relate to all that. Ally F

9:30am Thu 20 Feb 14

asiot66 says...

you can be overweight and perfectly healthy look at top sumo wrestlers or even some of the professional wrestlers they are massively overweight but elite athletes and probably a lot fitter than anyone on here, there is of course a fine balance and heaving a fatty sugary diet is never good but just because someone is overweight doesn't necessarily mean they have a poor diet
you can be overweight and perfectly healthy look at top sumo wrestlers or even some of the professional wrestlers they are massively overweight but elite athletes and probably a lot fitter than anyone on here, there is of course a fine balance and heaving a fatty sugary diet is never good but just because someone is overweight doesn't necessarily mean they have a poor diet asiot66

9:44am Thu 20 Feb 14

Butafly says...

not the only one,i am too doing the gnr this year,although not as heavy i am just over 11stn but still need alot of hard work put into it, now why didnt i contact the paper too lol.
Myself and my fiance are doing this for macmillan,weather we run jog walk and crawl the full 13.1mile
not the only one,i am too doing the gnr this year,although not as heavy i am just over 11stn but still need alot of hard work put into it, now why didnt i contact the paper too lol. Myself and my fiance are doing this for macmillan,weather we run jog walk and crawl the full 13.1mile Butafly

9:47am Thu 20 Feb 14

Butafly says...

also good luck charlie
also good luck charlie Butafly

10:00am Thu 20 Feb 14

charlie7t says...

Butafly wrote:
not the only one,i am too doing the gnr this year,although not as heavy i am just over 11stn but still need alot of hard work put into it, now why didnt i contact the paper too lol.
Myself and my fiance are doing this for macmillan,weather we run jog walk and crawl the full 13.1mile
Good luck to you :) im doing it for Cockerton Brass Band, Darlingtons Only Bras Band, a registered charity and who are local which is why the news coverage.
Cockerton provide the entertainment is places like the South Park, the reindeer parade, commemorative parades, supermarkets you name it and yet there funds are running low.
If the junior band need help or they need new instruments your talking £Thousands and every penny helps (I know the same goes for other charitys as well) I ran last year for ST Teresas Hospice and I really want to help a Local Band and a Tradition that is very North East :)
Our very own Brassed Off :)
I wish you all the luck in the run it really is one of the most life changing things I have done, soooo very hard but soooo very worth it. :)
[quote][p][bold]Butafly[/bold] wrote: not the only one,i am too doing the gnr this year,although not as heavy i am just over 11stn but still need alot of hard work put into it, now why didnt i contact the paper too lol. Myself and my fiance are doing this for macmillan,weather we run jog walk and crawl the full 13.1mile[/p][/quote]Good luck to you :) im doing it for Cockerton Brass Band, Darlingtons Only Bras Band, a registered charity and who are local which is why the news coverage. Cockerton provide the entertainment is places like the South Park, the reindeer parade, commemorative parades, supermarkets you name it and yet there funds are running low. If the junior band need help or they need new instruments your talking £Thousands and every penny helps (I know the same goes for other charitys as well) I ran last year for ST Teresas Hospice and I really want to help a Local Band and a Tradition that is very North East :) Our very own Brassed Off :) I wish you all the luck in the run it really is one of the most life changing things I have done, soooo very hard but soooo very worth it. :) charlie7t

10:04am Thu 20 Feb 14

Yemen says...

theWorkerScum wrote:
To both comments. Just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise. This is so ignorant and typical of the comments I'd expect from here.I know people who eat fast food everyday and are thin. I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft. It's called genetics. Same reason why you have a low iq.
'just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise' sorry to bust your bubble but you are completely and utterly wrong.

go and read about the first law of thermodynamics... you know the main law governing conservation of energy the law that underpins all science....basically this says if you eat more calories than your BMR then you will put on weight..

now... what's all this 'I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft' are you saying beans restrict height ???
[quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: To both comments. Just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise. This is so ignorant and typical of the comments I'd expect from here.I know people who eat fast food everyday and are thin. I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft. It's called genetics. Same reason why you have a low iq.[/p][/quote]'just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise' sorry to bust your bubble but you are completely and utterly wrong. go and read about the first law of thermodynamics... you know the main law governing conservation of energy the law that underpins all science....basically this says if you eat more calories than your BMR then you will put on weight.. now... what's all this 'I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft' are you saying beans restrict height ??? Yemen

10:11am Thu 20 Feb 14

Yemen says...

asiot66 wrote:
you can be overweight and perfectly healthy look at top sumo wrestlers or even some of the professional wrestlers they are massively overweight but elite athletes and probably a lot fitter than anyone on here, there is of course a fine balance and heaving a fatty sugary diet is never good but just because someone is overweight doesn't necessarily mean they have a poor diet
you cannot be perfectly healthy and overweight. comparing a sumo wrestler as an elite athlete is frankly laughable...

now i agree that someone being overweight does not equate to an unhealthy diet but it does equate to consuming more calories than your body requires.

as for the lady in the article, well done to her for doing this to raise money for her band.. ill keep an eye out for her as i'll be running my 4th GNR this year.
[quote][p][bold]asiot66[/bold] wrote: you can be overweight and perfectly healthy look at top sumo wrestlers or even some of the professional wrestlers they are massively overweight but elite athletes and probably a lot fitter than anyone on here, there is of course a fine balance and heaving a fatty sugary diet is never good but just because someone is overweight doesn't necessarily mean they have a poor diet[/p][/quote]you cannot be perfectly healthy and overweight. comparing a sumo wrestler as an elite athlete is frankly laughable... now i agree that someone being overweight does not equate to an unhealthy diet but it does equate to consuming more calories than your body requires. as for the lady in the article, well done to her for doing this to raise money for her band.. ill keep an eye out for her as i'll be running my 4th GNR this year. Yemen

10:15am Thu 20 Feb 14

Butafly says...

all the best charlie and good luck helping the band,own charity chosen close to our own hearts.
I am only 5ft so have a lot to work at on myself too..but...... i am going to do this.
Certain people get doubters but you know what,let them doubt. You are not doing it for them you are doing it for yourself and to help your charity.
Roll on september :-)
all the best charlie and good luck helping the band,own charity chosen close to our own hearts. I am only 5ft so have a lot to work at on myself too..but...... i am going to do this. Certain people get doubters but you know what,let them doubt. You are not doing it for them you are doing it for yourself and to help your charity. Roll on september :-) Butafly

10:18am Thu 20 Feb 14

Butafly says...

and before anyone asks no i dont eat beans lol my height was to do with genetics not heinz haha.

Yemen good look to u too
and before anyone asks no i dont eat beans lol my height was to do with genetics not heinz haha. Yemen good look to u too Butafly

10:24am Thu 20 Feb 14

asiot66 says...

Yemen wrote:
asiot66 wrote:
you can be overweight and perfectly healthy look at top sumo wrestlers or even some of the professional wrestlers they are massively overweight but elite athletes and probably a lot fitter than anyone on here, there is of course a fine balance and heaving a fatty sugary diet is never good but just because someone is overweight doesn't necessarily mean they have a poor diet
you cannot be perfectly healthy and overweight. comparing a sumo wrestler as an elite athlete is frankly laughable...

now i agree that someone being overweight does not equate to an unhealthy diet but it does equate to consuming more calories than your body requires.

as for the lady in the article, well done to her for doing this to raise money for her band.. ill keep an eye out for her as i'll be running my 4th GNR this year.
So by the same measure if you are grossly underweight that would be in healthy too?? I would like to see you tell Mo FarrahFarrah that .. By his bmi he will be hugely underweight
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]asiot66[/bold] wrote: you can be overweight and perfectly healthy look at top sumo wrestlers or even some of the professional wrestlers they are massively overweight but elite athletes and probably a lot fitter than anyone on here, there is of course a fine balance and heaving a fatty sugary diet is never good but just because someone is overweight doesn't necessarily mean they have a poor diet[/p][/quote]you cannot be perfectly healthy and overweight. comparing a sumo wrestler as an elite athlete is frankly laughable... now i agree that someone being overweight does not equate to an unhealthy diet but it does equate to consuming more calories than your body requires. as for the lady in the article, well done to her for doing this to raise money for her band.. ill keep an eye out for her as i'll be running my 4th GNR this year.[/p][/quote]So by the same measure if you are grossly underweight that would be in healthy too?? I would like to see you tell Mo FarrahFarrah that .. By his bmi he will be hugely underweight asiot66

10:36am Thu 20 Feb 14

asiot66 says...

Apologies for my last post my phones auto correct and auto suggestion is a bit nuts
Apologies for my last post my phones auto correct and auto suggestion is a bit nuts asiot66

10:39am Thu 20 Feb 14

Yemen says...

@asiot66 what does 'in healthy' mean ??


also mo's bmi is fine... muscle weighs more than fat.
@asiot66 what does 'in healthy' mean ?? also mo's bmi is fine... muscle weighs more than fat. Yemen

10:52am Thu 20 Feb 14

asiot66 says...

It was during the olympics when they mentioned that Mo's BMI would tell him he was underweight the same as weight lifters etc would be overweight. BMI is a very rough indicator and should only be used as that, it doesn't necessarily say anything about how healthy someone is
It was during the olympics when they mentioned that Mo's BMI would tell him he was underweight the same as weight lifters etc would be overweight. BMI is a very rough indicator and should only be used as that, it doesn't necessarily say anything about how healthy someone is asiot66

11:33am Thu 20 Feb 14

Yemen says...

asiot66 wrote:
It was during the olympics when they mentioned that Mo's BMI would tell him he was underweight the same as weight lifters etc would be overweight. BMI is a very rough indicator and should only be used as that, it doesn't necessarily say anything about how healthy someone is
you are using athletes at the peak of physical perfection as an example here. they are right at the end of the curve and of course they will not fit BMI as BMI is an average taken on the general population. Of course it does not tell you how healthy a person is its a measure of how over/under weight a person is.

not sure how we strayed into BMI though... i referenced BMR earlier and that was not a typo that refers to Base Metabolic Rate.

now... if you are overweight due to excess fat you will be unhealthy and most likely suffer from type 2 diabetes, hypertension,heart disease,strokes,gall
bladder disease, surgical implications etc. Not to mention the massive (pun intended) cost incurred on our struggling NHS that obesity causes.

Now all of this is common public knowledge backed up by centuries of medical data and research... we tackle smoking and drug use with no issues from anyone in the public sphere. But as soon as people start to talk about how the general population is getting fat everyone cries foul ...
[quote][p][bold]asiot66[/bold] wrote: It was during the olympics when they mentioned that Mo's BMI would tell him he was underweight the same as weight lifters etc would be overweight. BMI is a very rough indicator and should only be used as that, it doesn't necessarily say anything about how healthy someone is[/p][/quote]you are using athletes at the peak of physical perfection as an example here. they are right at the end of the curve and of course they will not fit BMI as BMI is an average taken on the general population. Of course it does not tell you how healthy a person is its a measure of how over/under weight a person is. not sure how we strayed into BMI though... i referenced BMR earlier and that was not a typo that refers to Base Metabolic Rate. now... if you are overweight due to excess fat you will be unhealthy and most likely suffer from type 2 diabetes, hypertension,heart disease,strokes,gall bladder disease, surgical implications etc. Not to mention the massive (pun intended) cost incurred on our struggling NHS that obesity causes. Now all of this is common public knowledge backed up by centuries of medical data and research... we tackle smoking and drug use with no issues from anyone in the public sphere. But as soon as people start to talk about how the general population is getting fat everyone cries foul ... Yemen

12:03pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Mike2012 says...

Whoever mentioned about "top sumo wrestlers"..... THANKYOU! Most ridiculous comment I've read for a long time! You might want to look up the average lifespan of a sumo wrestler, very healthy all that FAT hardening your arteries and suffocating your heart.

As for Mo, his BMI probably will show him to be "underweight", but no athlete of any kind will use BMI as any sort of indicator, it becomes useless once you acquire above average muscularity. BMR is something completely different and can be very useful.

And for the record, I do applaud the lady in this article for doing the GNR, there's many out there who can't even be bothered to leave their armchair.

Eat clean, train hard = weightloss & cardiovascular health in abundance!
Whoever mentioned about "top sumo wrestlers"..... THANKYOU! Most ridiculous comment I've read for a long time! You might want to look up the average lifespan of a sumo wrestler, very healthy all that FAT hardening your arteries and suffocating your heart. As for Mo, his BMI probably will show him to be "underweight", but no athlete of any kind will use BMI as any sort of indicator, it becomes useless once you acquire above average muscularity. BMR is something completely different and can be very useful. And for the record, I do applaud the lady in this article for doing the GNR, there's many out there who can't even be bothered to leave their armchair. Eat clean, train hard = weightloss & cardiovascular health in abundance! Mike2012

12:18pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Butafly says...

gawd sake give this lass your best not your worst,,the lass has already labelled herself as "fat" yet she is trying and going to help her chosen charity.
I don't even know her but have respect for her as i too am doing the gnr in sept, and for anyone else who has been successful in the ballot or for a charity then i wish you all good luck
gawd sake give this lass your best not your worst,,the lass has already labelled herself as "fat" yet she is trying and going to help her chosen charity. I don't even know her but have respect for her as i too am doing the gnr in sept, and for anyone else who has been successful in the ballot or for a charity then i wish you all good luck Butafly

12:23pm Thu 20 Feb 14

charlie7t says...

banmeandilljustregis
teragainwithanewuser
name
wrote:
I've seen fatties run in Darlington all the time. They tend to run from Greggs to Subway and then to Taylors and usually end up in McDonalds. And all that just for dinner.
I think your negativity is discusting, you sound just like the Bullys that messed my confidence up in the first place.. this article is supposed to be a positive one and all im getting is negativity... this is the towns only brass band and im trying to do something good never mind my BMI or my Weight ...
[quote][p][bold]banmeandilljustregis teragainwithanewuser name[/bold] wrote: I've seen fatties run in Darlington all the time. They tend to run from Greggs to Subway and then to Taylors and usually end up in McDonalds. And all that just for dinner.[/p][/quote]I think your negativity is discusting, you sound just like the Bullys that messed my confidence up in the first place.. this article is supposed to be a positive one and all im getting is negativity... this is the towns only brass band and im trying to do something good never mind my BMI or my Weight ... charlie7t

12:59pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Yemen says...

charlie7t wrote:
banmeandilljustregis

teragainwithanewuser

name
wrote:
I've seen fatties run in Darlington all the time. They tend to run from Greggs to Subway and then to Taylors and usually end up in McDonalds. And all that just for dinner.
I think your negativity is discusting, you sound just like the Bullys that messed my confidence up in the first place.. this article is supposed to be a positive one and all im getting is negativity... this is the towns only brass band and im trying to do something good never mind my BMI or my Weight ...
you have my wholehearted support and my respect also. 5 years ago i was in a shape (i use the term loosely) that would make you look very skinny in comparison to myself. but i'm no longer like that.

people can laugh and point at overweight people who exercise but they are still lapping everyone on the couch.

I would also point out that none of these 'BMI' comments have been leveled at yourself. And also unless TNE made up your 'fat chicks can run too' motto then the comments were bound to head into obesity,weight and health.

I have just read them through again and cannot see one negative comment about yourself, but i do see many applauding your example.
[quote][p][bold]charlie7t[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]banmeandilljustregis teragainwithanewuser name[/bold] wrote: I've seen fatties run in Darlington all the time. They tend to run from Greggs to Subway and then to Taylors and usually end up in McDonalds. And all that just for dinner.[/p][/quote]I think your negativity is discusting, you sound just like the Bullys that messed my confidence up in the first place.. this article is supposed to be a positive one and all im getting is negativity... this is the towns only brass band and im trying to do something good never mind my BMI or my Weight ...[/p][/quote]you have my wholehearted support and my respect also. 5 years ago i was in a shape (i use the term loosely) that would make you look very skinny in comparison to myself. but i'm no longer like that. people can laugh and point at overweight people who exercise but they are still lapping everyone on the couch. I would also point out that none of these 'BMI' comments have been leveled at yourself. And also unless TNE made up your 'fat chicks can run too' motto then the comments were bound to head into obesity,weight and health. I have just read them through again and cannot see one negative comment about yourself, but i do see many applauding your example. Yemen

1:39pm Thu 20 Feb 14

charlie7t says...

banmeandilljustregis
teragainwithanewuser
name
wrote:
charlie7t wrote:
banmeandilljustregis


teragainwithanewuser


name
wrote:
I've seen fatties run in Darlington all the time. They tend to run from Greggs to Subway and then to Taylors and usually end up in McDonalds. And all that just for dinner.
I think your negativity is discusting, you sound just like the Bullys that messed my confidence up in the first place.. this article is supposed to be a positive one and all im getting is negativity... this is the towns only brass band and im trying to do something good never mind my BMI or my Weight ...
It wasn't the bullies that messed up your confidence. It was you weight and lifestyle choice. In other words you did it yourself. It's about time people started taking responsibility for their actions instead of playing the hard done by victim. This town and country is full of fat unhealthy people who are/will become a huge burden on the NHS and if it requires some mockery ao bullying as you put it to **** their conscience then so be it. It should be no more socially acceptable to be fat than it is to smoke or take drugs.
I was happy with who I was till people pointed and commented, just because im big does not mean I sit and eat rubbish all day and my lifestyle was not a bad one I refused to be a burden on the NHS which is why im doing this to show others you can do it to with a bit of motivation.
[quote][p][bold]banmeandilljustregis teragainwithanewuser name[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charlie7t[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]banmeandilljustregis teragainwithanewuser name[/bold] wrote: I've seen fatties run in Darlington all the time. They tend to run from Greggs to Subway and then to Taylors and usually end up in McDonalds. And all that just for dinner.[/p][/quote]I think your negativity is discusting, you sound just like the Bullys that messed my confidence up in the first place.. this article is supposed to be a positive one and all im getting is negativity... this is the towns only brass band and im trying to do something good never mind my BMI or my Weight ...[/p][/quote]It wasn't the bullies that messed up your confidence. It was you weight and lifestyle choice. In other words you did it yourself. It's about time people started taking responsibility for their actions instead of playing the hard done by victim. This town and country is full of fat unhealthy people who are/will become a huge burden on the NHS and if it requires some mockery ao bullying as you put it to **** their conscience then so be it. It should be no more socially acceptable to be fat than it is to smoke or take drugs.[/p][/quote]I was happy with who I was till people pointed and commented, just because im big does not mean I sit and eat rubbish all day and my lifestyle was not a bad one I refused to be a burden on the NHS which is why im doing this to show others you can do it to with a bit of motivation. charlie7t

4:00pm Thu 20 Feb 14

kristal27 says...

Charlie -if you ate less than you burned then you would lose weight -if you are fat then its because you have in the past eaten more calories than you have burned off -simple! So if you follow a calorie controlled diet, and keep running as you are you will end up slim and fit -you can't be fat and fit. If you keep running and eat the same as you have been then you will remain at your present weight and put a strain on your heart, lungs and joints. This is not a criticism of yourself -its you that is in control of what weight you want to be not bullies or peer pressure -its you that puts fork to mouth. having excess fat around your joints and internal organs will never be healthy.
Charlie -if you ate less than you burned then you would lose weight -if you are fat then its because you have in the past eaten more calories than you have burned off -simple! So if you follow a calorie controlled diet, and keep running as you are you will end up slim and fit -you can't be fat and fit. If you keep running and eat the same as you have been then you will remain at your present weight and put a strain on your heart, lungs and joints. This is not a criticism of yourself -its you that is in control of what weight you want to be not bullies or peer pressure -its you that puts fork to mouth. having excess fat around your joints and internal organs will never be healthy. kristal27

5:14pm Thu 20 Feb 14

Vektor says...

As charlies friend whom lived with her for the last 4 years i can guarantee she eats very little in the way of unhealthy food in fact me (11st n about the right weight for my size) I ate considerably more and less healthy foods then her and didn't gain fat at all. A lot of People are "over weight" for many reason's from illnesses to genetics and saying its all down to eating the wrong food's etc shows your lack of intellect, education and your gullibility (just because you see it in media that big people are fat by lifestyle choice doesn't make it true morons). you people who are so negative should be ashamed of your selves all your doing is proving me right that the majority f this town is full of moronic idiots who couldnt count past 10 if they didnt have toes to help them.
As charlies friend whom lived with her for the last 4 years i can guarantee she eats very little in the way of unhealthy food in fact me (11st n about the right weight for my size) I ate considerably more and less healthy foods then her and didn't gain fat at all. A lot of People are "over weight" for many reason's from illnesses to genetics and saying its all down to eating the wrong food's etc shows your lack of intellect, education and your gullibility (just because you see it in media that big people are fat by lifestyle choice doesn't make it true morons). you people who are so negative should be ashamed of your selves all your doing is proving me right that the majority f this town is full of moronic idiots who couldnt count past 10 if they didnt have toes to help them. Vektor

6:10pm Thu 20 Feb 14

kristal27 says...

Vektor wrote:
As charlies friend whom lived with her for the last 4 years i can guarantee she eats very little in the way of unhealthy food in fact me (11st n about the right weight for my size) I ate considerably more and less healthy foods then her and didn't gain fat at all. A lot of People are "over weight" for many reason's from illnesses to genetics and saying its all down to eating the wrong food's etc shows your lack of intellect, education and your gullibility (just because you see it in media that big people are fat by lifestyle choice doesn't make it true morons). you people who are so negative should be ashamed of your selves all your doing is proving me right that the majority f this town is full of moronic idiots who couldnt count past 10 if they didnt have toes to help them.
actually Vecktor you can get fat by eating healthy food -too much healthy food - meat, chicken, baked potatoes cheese all good for you in moderation but high in calories. I'm not saying this person is overweight because she eats the wrong things -she eats more calories (however taken) than her body needs so she gets fat - like everyone else in the world. I don't buy into this 'I eat hardly anything and am fat -its an excuse. . And before you start -I've been there - 5' 4'' 12 stone and every excuse under the sun -age, clothes manufactures making smaller garments - guess what ? I ate half as much and got off my backside and did more exercise and now I'm 9 stone., fit and hopefully healthy. Get a grip and stop verbally abusing people just cos they have an opinion. Fat people eat too much -and can't be healthy end of.
[quote][p][bold]Vektor[/bold] wrote: As charlies friend whom lived with her for the last 4 years i can guarantee she eats very little in the way of unhealthy food in fact me (11st n about the right weight for my size) I ate considerably more and less healthy foods then her and didn't gain fat at all. A lot of People are "over weight" for many reason's from illnesses to genetics and saying its all down to eating the wrong food's etc shows your lack of intellect, education and your gullibility (just because you see it in media that big people are fat by lifestyle choice doesn't make it true morons). you people who are so negative should be ashamed of your selves all your doing is proving me right that the majority f this town is full of moronic idiots who couldnt count past 10 if they didnt have toes to help them.[/p][/quote]actually Vecktor you can get fat by eating healthy food -too much healthy food - meat, chicken, baked potatoes cheese all good for you in moderation but high in calories. I'm not saying this person is overweight because she eats the wrong things -she eats more calories (however taken) than her body needs so she gets fat - like everyone else in the world. I don't buy into this 'I eat hardly anything and am fat -its an excuse. . And before you start -I've been there - 5' 4'' 12 stone and every excuse under the sun -age, clothes manufactures making smaller garments - guess what ? I ate half as much and got off my backside and did more exercise and now I'm 9 stone., fit and hopefully healthy. Get a grip and stop verbally abusing people just cos they have an opinion. Fat people eat too much -and can't be healthy end of. kristal27

7:06pm Thu 20 Feb 14

innocent8 says...

I cannot believe what im reading. An innocent article of a young woman who has entered the Great North Run FOR A CHARITY and all you small minded idiots can do is tear her apart for being overweight. I'm not overweight but I have never entered the GNR. Why don't you direct your nasty little comments to me instead. Grow up, Get a Life and Get to F*** all of the nasty little people have had the time to type their comments on her. I bet they've never entered into the GNR....I bet half of them are on benefits!
I cannot believe what im reading. An innocent article of a young woman who has entered the Great North Run FOR A CHARITY and all you small minded idiots can do is tear her apart for being overweight. I'm not overweight but I have never entered the GNR. Why don't you direct your nasty little comments to me instead. Grow up, Get a Life and Get to F*** all of the nasty little people have had the time to type their comments on her. I bet they've never entered into the GNR....I bet half of them are on benefits! innocent8

7:33pm Thu 20 Feb 14

charlie7t says...

Having spoken to many dietary professionals non personal trainers and been advised I'm 6ft 2 n big structured I wud never bet a size 10 I've been advised I actually undereat which is why I'm more likely to put on weight I can guarantee you today I've had less than 1000 calories n been to the gym over a hour... This isn't the point the point is I'm doing something about it n trying to inspire others to get up n active just because UR big don't mean u can't.. While training I've had stuff thrown at me been shouted horid comments been spat at n all sorts I'm trying to make a change n promote a local band I'm sorry I'm no size 10 blonde princess but I've done the half marathon once and I'll do it again faster n better n I will hopefully loose a bit more weight as I go along my journey I thank all the ppl who have supported me and I hope I do you justice those who want to not pick my diet come gladly spend a day with me n then judge I'm not scared of saying I'm fat but I'm proud of who I am n not ashamed to push on regardless of the nastiness I hope I raise money for the band n I hope I inspire other ppl to get up n get active and egnore the haters
Having spoken to many dietary professionals non personal trainers and been advised I'm 6ft 2 n big structured I wud never bet a size 10 I've been advised I actually undereat which is why I'm more likely to put on weight I can guarantee you today I've had less than 1000 calories n been to the gym over a hour... This isn't the point the point is I'm doing something about it n trying to inspire others to get up n active just because UR big don't mean u can't.. While training I've had stuff thrown at me been shouted horid comments been spat at n all sorts I'm trying to make a change n promote a local band I'm sorry I'm no size 10 blonde princess but I've done the half marathon once and I'll do it again faster n better n I will hopefully loose a bit more weight as I go along my journey I thank all the ppl who have supported me and I hope I do you justice those who want to not pick my diet come gladly spend a day with me n then judge I'm not scared of saying I'm fat but I'm proud of who I am n not ashamed to push on regardless of the nastiness I hope I raise money for the band n I hope I inspire other ppl to get up n get active and egnore the haters charlie7t

7:55pm Thu 20 Feb 14

kristal27 says...

well done charlie for what you've achieved so far -but don't confuse concern for your health with nastiness. You opened yourself up for criticism by saying 'fat chicks can run' -think that was a bit condescending in itself and would put a few people off. FWIW I don't think you are particularly fat -a few more kilos turned from fat into muscle and you will look healthy rather than flabby, but please don't buy into the' fat can be healthy' because it just isn't -you should have said 'large ladies can run' -you can have a body that is heavy with solid muscle and a bit on the large side and be healthy, or a smaller lighter weight body with more fat that is unhealthy. Good luck with what you do and carry on the good work!!!
well done charlie for what you've achieved so far -but don't confuse concern for your health with nastiness. You opened yourself up for criticism by saying 'fat chicks can run' -think that was a bit condescending in itself and would put a few people off. FWIW I don't think you are particularly fat -a few more kilos turned from fat into muscle and you will look healthy rather than flabby, but please don't buy into the' fat can be healthy' because it just isn't -you should have said 'large ladies can run' -you can have a body that is heavy with solid muscle and a bit on the large side and be healthy, or a smaller lighter weight body with more fat that is unhealthy. Good luck with what you do and carry on the good work!!! kristal27

10:43pm Thu 20 Feb 14

theWorkerScum says...

SirLance wrote:
Good luck to the fat chick ! Remember the run's not over till she sings!!

As for 'theWorkerscum' I suggest you are very wrong about what people eat as per their personal body weight! If you remember the 'Holocaust' there were no fat people in the pictures shown of the horror of the camps, why? Because they had nothing to eat! The body's metabolism works in many strange ways! Feeding it pure fat everyday just overwhelms the bodily digestion process and subsequently stores fat as it cannot be broken down or 'burnt off'. The world has more fatter people now than ever and they nearly all live in the Western Northern hemisphere! Now the fast food people are into Asia you can see the effect it has had on those races!
Fattest people I have ever seen were in New Orleans, thinnest in Burma! now why is that?
There is a difference between been starved and eating a regular healthy meal. Thanks for proving my point.
[quote][p][bold]SirLance[/bold] wrote: Good luck to the fat chick ! Remember the run's not over till she sings!! As for 'theWorkerscum' I suggest you are very wrong about what people eat as per their personal body weight! If you remember the 'Holocaust' there were no fat people in the pictures shown of the horror of the camps, why? Because they had nothing to eat! The body's metabolism works in many strange ways! Feeding it pure fat everyday just overwhelms the bodily digestion process and subsequently stores fat as it cannot be broken down or 'burnt off'. The world has more fatter people now than ever and they nearly all live in the Western Northern hemisphere! Now the fast food people are into Asia you can see the effect it has had on those races! Fattest people I have ever seen were in New Orleans, thinnest in Burma! now why is that?[/p][/quote]There is a difference between been starved and eating a regular healthy meal. Thanks for proving my point. theWorkerScum

10:51pm Thu 20 Feb 14

theWorkerScum says...

Mike2012 wrote:
theWorkerScum wrote:
To both comments. Just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise. This is so ignorant and typical of the comments I'd expect from here.I know people who eat fast food everyday and are thin. I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft. It's called genetics. Same reason why you have a low iq.
Clearly you know very little about METABOLISM, forget genetics, we are'nt talking about height etc, we're talking about people stuffing their faces with whatever pleases them without a thought about what it's doing to their body.

Genetics and metabolism are completely different entities, if you have a high metabolism you can eat more, simple. But if you live a sedentary lifestyle while eating takeaways, you're waistline will soon let you know it's time to start venturing into the fruit and veg aisle at the supermarket.
What I'm saying is some people can eat less than someone else and be fat. Each person breaks down food differently, some don't burn as much energy. You can't just brand people lazy or greedy because they carry weight, I guess people need their negative connotations, just thought I'd try and help u shed your ignorance.
[quote][p][bold]Mike2012[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: To both comments. Just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise. This is so ignorant and typical of the comments I'd expect from here.I know people who eat fast food everyday and are thin. I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft. It's called genetics. Same reason why you have a low iq.[/p][/quote]Clearly you know very little about METABOLISM, forget genetics, we are'nt talking about height etc, we're talking about people stuffing their faces with whatever pleases them without a thought about what it's doing to their body. Genetics and metabolism are completely different entities, if you have a high metabolism you can eat more, simple. But if you live a sedentary lifestyle while eating takeaways, you're waistline will soon let you know it's time to start venturing into the fruit and veg aisle at the supermarket.[/p][/quote]What I'm saying is some people can eat less than someone else and be fat. Each person breaks down food differently, some don't burn as much energy. You can't just brand people lazy or greedy because they carry weight, I guess people need their negative connotations, just thought I'd try and help u shed your ignorance. theWorkerScum

12:45am Fri 21 Feb 14

tomtopper says...

theWorkerScum wrote:
Mike2012 wrote:
theWorkerScum wrote:
To both comments. Just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise. This is so ignorant and typical of the comments I'd expect from here.I know people who eat fast food everyday and are thin. I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft. It's called genetics. Same reason why you have a low iq.
Clearly you know very little about METABOLISM, forget genetics, we are'nt talking about height etc, we're talking about people stuffing their faces with whatever pleases them without a thought about what it's doing to their body.

Genetics and metabolism are completely different entities, if you have a high metabolism you can eat more, simple. But if you live a sedentary lifestyle while eating takeaways, you're waistline will soon let you know it's time to start venturing into the fruit and veg aisle at the supermarket.
What I'm saying is some people can eat less than someone else and be fat. Each person breaks down food differently, some don't burn as much energy. You can't just brand people lazy or greedy because they carry weight, I guess people need their negative connotations, just thought I'd try and help u shed your ignorance.
You Have a very valid point and mike2012 is somewhat misconceived.. There is a genetic inheritance (endo,meso and ecto) to predisposition of subcutenous bodyfat .. There is also a relation to metabolism, but the whole thing is a very dark art and difficult to pinpoint.. Many people exercise and follow a clean diet consistently yet are not perceptively 'thin' whereas many folk do nothing, eat crap and abuse their bodies yet are very thin, underweight even,, Cellular turnover plays a key role.. and some people look thin yet are very fat viscereally (stored in and around organs) which is more unhealthy than subcu.. Then we have folk who are carb sensitive, liable to hold water more than other folk etc etc.. The list of parameters is endless and those whom look at it in a black and white sense are very naive to say the least..

Breathing rates, fidgeting, stress, hormonal levels, leptin production, rest levels, thermal levels all effect cellular turnover and breakdown.. What we eat and the time we eat do play a role' but it's a little more sophisticated than what people think.. Obesity is one area where people are so clueless and judgemental.... I think branding someone 'fat' is an immature and offensive way to label those overweight folk out there.. I speak from my wife's point of view, who is a clinical nutritional specialist
[quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike2012[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]theWorkerScum[/bold] wrote: To both comments. Just because people are fat doesn't mean they eat too much and don't exercise. This is so ignorant and typical of the comments I'd expect from here.I know people who eat fast food everyday and are thin. I know people who eat beans everyday but they only 5ft. It's called genetics. Same reason why you have a low iq.[/p][/quote]Clearly you know very little about METABOLISM, forget genetics, we are'nt talking about height etc, we're talking about people stuffing their faces with whatever pleases them without a thought about what it's doing to their body. Genetics and metabolism are completely different entities, if you have a high metabolism you can eat more, simple. But if you live a sedentary lifestyle while eating takeaways, you're waistline will soon let you know it's time to start venturing into the fruit and veg aisle at the supermarket.[/p][/quote]What I'm saying is some people can eat less than someone else and be fat. Each person breaks down food differently, some don't burn as much energy. You can't just brand people lazy or greedy because they carry weight, I guess people need their negative connotations, just thought I'd try and help u shed your ignorance.[/p][/quote]You Have a very valid point and mike2012 is somewhat misconceived.. There is a genetic inheritance (endo,meso and ecto) to predisposition of subcutenous bodyfat .. There is also a relation to metabolism, but the whole thing is a very dark art and difficult to pinpoint.. Many people exercise and follow a clean diet consistently yet are not perceptively 'thin' whereas many folk do nothing, eat crap and abuse their bodies yet are very thin, underweight even,, Cellular turnover plays a key role.. and some people look thin yet are very fat viscereally (stored in and around organs) which is more unhealthy than subcu.. Then we have folk who are carb sensitive, liable to hold water more than other folk etc etc.. The list of parameters is endless and those whom look at it in a black and white sense are very naive to say the least.. Breathing rates, fidgeting, stress, hormonal levels, leptin production, rest levels, thermal levels all effect cellular turnover and breakdown.. What we eat and the time we eat do play a role' but it's a little more sophisticated than what people think.. Obesity is one area where people are so clueless and judgemental.... I think branding someone 'fat' is an immature and offensive way to label those overweight folk out there.. I speak from my wife's point of view, who is a clinical nutritional specialist tomtopper

7:50am Fri 21 Feb 14

Yemen says...

tomtopper. somotypes were dismissed as quackery decades ago,

One fact that does not change is.

calories in > calories out = weight gain....

One vital thing i would like to point out is how easy (and oft overlooked) it is to drink your calories, alcohol,pop a latte from your fav coffee shop.
tomtopper. somotypes were dismissed as quackery decades ago, One fact that does not change is. calories in > calories out = weight gain.... One vital thing i would like to point out is how easy (and oft overlooked) it is to drink your calories, alcohol,pop a latte from your fav coffee shop. Yemen

9:27am Fri 21 Feb 14

Mike2012 says...

Tomtopper, I'm "somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in > calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons,
You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is!

.... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate!
Tomtopper, I'm "somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in > calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons, You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is! .... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate! Mike2012

9:37am Fri 21 Feb 14

Mike2012 says...

By the way, Charlie7t, If you are having around 1000kcals a day ON TOP of the running you are doing, there's a good chance you are causing yourself "metabolic damage", have a look on YouTube/Google etc, seems VERY low calorie-wise and could be even dangerously low, especially with the stress running puts on our bodies.
By the way, Charlie7t, If you are having around 1000kcals a day ON TOP of the running you are doing, there's a good chance you are causing yourself "metabolic damage", have a look on YouTube/Google etc, seems VERY low calorie-wise and could be even dangerously low, especially with the stress running puts on our bodies. Mike2012

9:38am Fri 21 Feb 14

Jonn says...

charlie7t wrote:
Having spoken to many dietary professionals non personal trainers and been advised I'm 6ft 2 n big structured I wud never bet a size 10 I've been advised I actually undereat which is why I'm more likely to put on weight I can guarantee you today I've had less than 1000 calories n been to the gym over a hour... This isn't the point the point is I'm doing something about it n trying to inspire others to get up n active just because UR big don't mean u can't.. While training I've had stuff thrown at me been shouted horid comments been spat at n all sorts I'm trying to make a change n promote a local band I'm sorry I'm no size 10 blonde princess but I've done the half marathon once and I'll do it again faster n better n I will hopefully loose a bit more weight as I go along my journey I thank all the ppl who have supported me and I hope I do you justice those who want to not pick my diet come gladly spend a day with me n then judge I'm not scared of saying I'm fat but I'm proud of who I am n not ashamed to push on regardless of the nastiness I hope I raise money for the band n I hope I inspire other ppl to get up n get active and egnore the haters
Do not take any notice, at all, of negative commentors on here. They tend to be right wing folk who love nothing better than to put people down. A negativity that will ensure their lives remain miserable.
You have achieved a great deal and can do so much more with your life than those hatefilled people.
Stay happy.
[quote][p][bold]charlie7t[/bold] wrote: Having spoken to many dietary professionals non personal trainers and been advised I'm 6ft 2 n big structured I wud never bet a size 10 I've been advised I actually undereat which is why I'm more likely to put on weight I can guarantee you today I've had less than 1000 calories n been to the gym over a hour... This isn't the point the point is I'm doing something about it n trying to inspire others to get up n active just because UR big don't mean u can't.. While training I've had stuff thrown at me been shouted horid comments been spat at n all sorts I'm trying to make a change n promote a local band I'm sorry I'm no size 10 blonde princess but I've done the half marathon once and I'll do it again faster n better n I will hopefully loose a bit more weight as I go along my journey I thank all the ppl who have supported me and I hope I do you justice those who want to not pick my diet come gladly spend a day with me n then judge I'm not scared of saying I'm fat but I'm proud of who I am n not ashamed to push on regardless of the nastiness I hope I raise money for the band n I hope I inspire other ppl to get up n get active and egnore the haters[/p][/quote]Do not take any notice, at all, of negative commentors on here. They tend to be right wing folk who love nothing better than to put people down. A negativity that will ensure their lives remain miserable. You have achieved a great deal and can do so much more with your life than those hatefilled people. Stay happy. Jonn

4:32pm Fri 21 Feb 14

tomtopper says...

Yemen wrote:
tomtopper. somotypes were dismissed as quackery decades ago,

One fact that does not change is.

calories in > calories out = weight gain....

One vital thing i would like to point out is how easy (and oft overlooked) it is to drink your calories, alcohol,pop a latte from your fav coffee shop.
Rubbish... Somotypes exist but it is more often than not a blend of the three as opposed to a distinctive type... Also the philosphy > calories in < calories out= weight gain is wrong and far too simplistic .. That would only work in the beginning.. When at University, my wife did a thesis on that very thing.. studying professional Bodybuilders preparing for a contest.. Fat loss to a level of 3% was the norm achieved .. (not particularly healthy) Less calories in began to have a detrimental effect on fat loss.. The type of calorie ingested and the timing of that ingested had a profound effect .. Indeed an increase led to more fat loss.. It was the manipulation of the intake that mattered.. small regular and nutrient dense meals, using carbs as an accelerator was generally the key.. Less calories in merely led to muscle catabolism (wastage) and the bodys fat reserves held out to the very end... less calories and you may well reduce in size, due to less water retention and muscle loss with a little fat utilisation.. Fat loss requires more of the right type of food and manipulation of the macro nutruients combined with timing..
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: tomtopper. somotypes were dismissed as quackery decades ago, One fact that does not change is. calories in > calories out = weight gain.... One vital thing i would like to point out is how easy (and oft overlooked) it is to drink your calories, alcohol,pop a latte from your fav coffee shop.[/p][/quote]Rubbish... Somotypes exist but it is more often than not a blend of the three as opposed to a distinctive type... Also the philosphy > calories in < calories out= weight gain is wrong and far too simplistic .. That would only work in the beginning.. When at University, my wife did a thesis on that very thing.. studying professional Bodybuilders preparing for a contest.. Fat loss to a level of 3% was the norm achieved .. (not particularly healthy) Less calories in began to have a detrimental effect on fat loss.. The type of calorie ingested and the timing of that ingested had a profound effect .. Indeed an increase led to more fat loss.. It was the manipulation of the intake that mattered.. small regular and nutrient dense meals, using carbs as an accelerator was generally the key.. Less calories in merely led to muscle catabolism (wastage) and the bodys fat reserves held out to the very end... less calories and you may well reduce in size, due to less water retention and muscle loss with a little fat utilisation.. Fat loss requires more of the right type of food and manipulation of the macro nutruients combined with timing.. tomtopper

4:52pm Fri 21 Feb 14

tomtopper says...

Mike2012 wrote:
Tomtopper, I'm &quot;somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in &gt; calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons,
You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is!

.... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate!
Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option ..

As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks
[quote][p][bold]Mike2012[/bold] wrote: Tomtopper, I'm "somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in > calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons, You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is! .... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate![/p][/quote]Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option .. As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks tomtopper

5:32pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Yemen says...

John... Left wing ,rign or centre political opinins have absolutely ZERO influence on health or the science around it.... Please keep politics out of this.
John... Left wing ,rign or centre political opinins have absolutely ZERO influence on health or the science around it.... Please keep politics out of this. Yemen

5:43pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Yemen says...

tomtopper wrote:
Mike2012 wrote:
Tomtopper, I'm &quot;somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in &gt; calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons,
You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is!

.... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate!
Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option ..

As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks
Is this 'thesis' published ? I think not as i doubt your wife works in the field at all....if she did she would have schooled you correctly on genetics and you would not have cooked up your single generation eugenics theory there.

There is a reason its little known.... Its complete rubbish... What you state is akin to having a nose job so your children do not inherit your large nose.

Calories in > calories out = weight loss .... Thats 100% correct and universally recognised across the entire medical profession. Most people choose to eat a healthier diet and cut out the rubbish resulting in healthy weight loss improved mobility and a longer life... Ofc if you cut down to 1500 calories of mcdonalds a day this will not work out well.

I agree not all large people are pigging out but they are eating more than they should and more of the rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike2012[/bold] wrote: Tomtopper, I'm "somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in > calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons, You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is! .... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate![/p][/quote]Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option .. As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks[/p][/quote]Is this 'thesis' published ? I think not as i doubt your wife works in the field at all....if she did she would have schooled you correctly on genetics and you would not have cooked up your single generation eugenics theory there. There is a reason its little known.... Its complete rubbish... What you state is akin to having a nose job so your children do not inherit your large nose. Calories in > calories out = weight loss .... Thats 100% correct and universally recognised across the entire medical profession. Most people choose to eat a healthier diet and cut out the rubbish resulting in healthy weight loss improved mobility and a longer life... Ofc if you cut down to 1500 calories of mcdonalds a day this will not work out well. I agree not all large people are pigging out but they are eating more than they should and more of the rubbish. Yemen

9:18pm Fri 21 Feb 14

behonest says...

I've visited the facebook page but couldn't see how to sponsor/donate.

Am I missing something, or does someone have a link to a sponsorship page?

I think it's brilliant that Charlie is doing this, and I love the self-deprecating title of the facebook page. And I'd much rather support a 6ft 2in, 20 stone woman than upset her!
I've visited the facebook page but couldn't see how to sponsor/donate. Am I missing something, or does someone have a link to a sponsorship page? I think it's brilliant that Charlie is doing this, and I love the self-deprecating title of the facebook page. And I'd much rather support a 6ft 2in, 20 stone woman than upset her! behonest

9:27pm Fri 21 Feb 14

behonest says...

charlie7t wrote:
Jonn wrote:
banmeandilljustregis


teragainwithanewuser


name
wrote:
Jonn wrote:
charlie7t wrote:
Having spoken to many dietary professionals non personal trainers and been advised I'm 6ft 2 n big structured I wud never bet a size 10 I've been advised I actually undereat which is why I'm more likely to put on weight I can guarantee you today I've had less than 1000 calories n been to the gym over a hour... This isn't the point the point is I'm doing something about it n trying to inspire others to get up n active just because UR big don't mean u can't.. While training I've had stuff thrown at me been shouted horid comments been spat at n all sorts I'm trying to make a change n promote a local band I'm sorry I'm no size 10 blonde princess but I've done the half marathon once and I'll do it again faster n better n I will hopefully loose a bit more weight as I go along my journey I thank all the ppl who have supported me and I hope I do you justice those who want to not pick my diet come gladly spend a day with me n then judge I'm not scared of saying I'm fat but I'm proud of who I am n not ashamed to push on regardless of the nastiness I hope I raise money for the band n I hope I inspire other ppl to get up n get active and egnore the hatersDo not take any notice, at all, of negative commentors on here. They tend to be right wing folk who love nothing better than to put people down. A negativity that will ensure their lives remain miserable.
You have achieved a great deal and can do so much more with your life than those hatefilled people.
Stay happy.'Stay happy'

Fat people are not happy - even if they claim to be.You are not happy, even if you claim to be.Fat people are not happy - even if they claim to be.You are not happy, even if you claim to be.---

you personally do not know me and I am perfectly happy weight/fat/size/shap

e does not = happiness gosh John you must be the epitome of the Male species &amp; therefore such a happy chappy (thus feeling the need to put others down) to make such comments - oh dear me #FatChicksCanRun :)You misread this one, Charlie. Jonn was actually admiring you for what you're doing. As are most of us.
[quote][p][bold]charlie7t[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]banmeandilljustregis teragainwithanewuser name[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charlie7t[/bold] wrote: Having spoken to many dietary professionals non personal trainers and been advised I'm 6ft 2 n big structured I wud never bet a size 10 I've been advised I actually undereat which is why I'm more likely to put on weight I can guarantee you today I've had less than 1000 calories n been to the gym over a hour... This isn't the point the point is I'm doing something about it n trying to inspire others to get up n active just because UR big don't mean u can't.. While training I've had stuff thrown at me been shouted horid comments been spat at n all sorts I'm trying to make a change n promote a local band I'm sorry I'm no size 10 blonde princess but I've done the half marathon once and I'll do it again faster n better n I will hopefully loose a bit more weight as I go along my journey I thank all the ppl who have supported me and I hope I do you justice those who want to not pick my diet come gladly spend a day with me n then judge I'm not scared of saying I'm fat but I'm proud of who I am n not ashamed to push on regardless of the nastiness I hope I raise money for the band n I hope I inspire other ppl to get up n get active and egnore the haters[/p][/quote]Do not take any notice, at all, of negative commentors on here. They tend to be right wing folk who love nothing better than to put people down. A negativity that will ensure their lives remain miserable. You have achieved a great deal and can do so much more with your life than those hatefilled people. Stay happy.[/p][/quote]'Stay happy' Fat people are not happy - even if they claim to be.[/p][/quote]You are not happy, even if you claim to be.[/p][/quote]Fat people are not happy - even if they claim to be.[/p][/quote]You are not happy, even if you claim to be.--- you personally do not know me and I am perfectly happy weight/fat/size/shap e does not = happiness gosh John you must be the epitome of the Male species & therefore such a happy chappy (thus feeling the need to put others down) to make such comments - oh dear me #FatChicksCanRun :)[/p][/quote]You misread this one, Charlie. Jonn was actually admiring you for what you're doing. As are most of us. behonest

11:10pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Happy Hippo says...

An interesting debate about body type, diet, exercise and nutrition, and I'm sure that many of these comments were not deliberately directed at Charlie (obviously there are some deliberately facetious ones, but these just demonstrate the ignorance of the commentator, so let's just forget about those!).

Personally, I'm a believer in 'different strokes for different folks' - I've ran for a few years now, and most of my running friends have different diets to one another, different training routines to one another, etc. what works for one, may not work for another. If we were elite athletes we might think differently, but we're not. We enjoy ourselves whilst continuing to run to a decent standard.

I want to wish Charlie all the best - I remember my first GNR and the atmosphere was amazing! If you ever want to run with a group of runners who won't judge you on appearance or time, register on the parkrun website, and come down to the South Park for 9am every Saturday morning for a freely organised 5K run. A great atmosphere with a great crowd of people - nearly 200 runners most weeks now! You'd be guaranteed a warm welcome!
An interesting debate about body type, diet, exercise and nutrition, and I'm sure that many of these comments were not deliberately directed at Charlie (obviously there are some deliberately facetious ones, but these just demonstrate the ignorance of the commentator, so let's just forget about those!). Personally, I'm a believer in 'different strokes for different folks' - I've ran for a few years now, and most of my running friends have different diets to one another, different training routines to one another, etc. what works for one, may not work for another. If we were elite athletes we might think differently, but we're not. We enjoy ourselves whilst continuing to run to a decent standard. I want to wish Charlie all the best - I remember my first GNR and the atmosphere was amazing! If you ever want to run with a group of runners who won't judge you on appearance or time, register on the parkrun website, and come down to the South Park for 9am every Saturday morning for a freely organised 5K run. A great atmosphere with a great crowd of people - nearly 200 runners most weeks now! You'd be guaranteed a warm welcome! Happy Hippo

12:34am Sat 22 Feb 14

tomtopper says...

Yemen wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
Mike2012 wrote:
Tomtopper, I'm &quot;somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in &gt; calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons,
You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is!

.... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate!
Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option ..

As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks
Is this 'thesis' published ? I think not as i doubt your wife works in the field at all....if she did she would have schooled you correctly on genetics and you would not have cooked up your single generation eugenics theory there.

There is a reason its little known.... Its complete rubbish... What you state is akin to having a nose job so your children do not inherit your large nose.

Calories in &gt; calories out = weight loss .... Thats 100% correct and universally recognised across the entire medical profession. Most people choose to eat a healthier diet and cut out the rubbish resulting in healthy weight loss improved mobility and a longer life... Ofc if you cut down to 1500 calories of mcdonalds a day this will not work out well.

I agree not all large people are pigging out but they are eating more than they should and more of the rubbish.
My wife has been in the field for well over 20 years thank you very much... Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant to me as you're simply a poster whom cannot even attach his real name to any posts..

I'm not sure if you get the crux of my points... Nothing in nature is absolute, thus we work off likelihoods and majorities ... Two 'large' parents whom give birth to a baby usually have a heavier baby than others and the vast majority turn out to be large themselves.. they're not necessarily overfed ... They have a propensity to 'store' nutrients, both in muscle mass and as adipose tissue... Between certain ages of growth the body determines its fat cells.. Diet plays a part in this , but so does the genetic propensity... as people get 'fatter' in later life it is through the expansion of these cells not necessarily by further addition of more cells..

calories in versus calories out does result in weight loss, but not necessarily fat loss.. Fat loss is a different animal.. The weight loss you refer to is primarily water and muscle loss with a bit fat thrown in... This is where most people go wrong... 2800 calories of pure protein is completely different from 2000 calories of sucrose and the latter will increase your bodyfat wheras the former will have the opposite effect.. Obviously there are other factors involved too..

Your simplistic view would suggest that a person who did and ate everything that peter andre did over say, a year, would look exactly the same as him.. It would also seem to suggest that Peter andre would have the same bodyfat percentage at 60 as he did at 20 if he ate what he eat at 20...

Reducing calories works to those who eat far too many.. But there are quite a few large people who don't eat far too many and eat pretty much the same as their thinner counterparts who are blessed with a much greater cellular turnover... One wears the Jammie dodger whilst the other doesn't, although both have a set point...
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike2012[/bold] wrote: Tomtopper, I'm "somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in > calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons, You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is! .... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate![/p][/quote]Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option .. As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks[/p][/quote]Is this 'thesis' published ? I think not as i doubt your wife works in the field at all....if she did she would have schooled you correctly on genetics and you would not have cooked up your single generation eugenics theory there. There is a reason its little known.... Its complete rubbish... What you state is akin to having a nose job so your children do not inherit your large nose. Calories in > calories out = weight loss .... Thats 100% correct and universally recognised across the entire medical profession. Most people choose to eat a healthier diet and cut out the rubbish resulting in healthy weight loss improved mobility and a longer life... Ofc if you cut down to 1500 calories of mcdonalds a day this will not work out well. I agree not all large people are pigging out but they are eating more than they should and more of the rubbish.[/p][/quote]My wife has been in the field for well over 20 years thank you very much... Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant to me as you're simply a poster whom cannot even attach his real name to any posts.. I'm not sure if you get the crux of my points... Nothing in nature is absolute, thus we work off likelihoods and majorities ... Two 'large' parents whom give birth to a baby usually have a heavier baby than others and the vast majority turn out to be large themselves.. they're not necessarily overfed ... They have a propensity to 'store' nutrients, both in muscle mass and as adipose tissue... Between certain ages of growth the body determines its fat cells.. Diet plays a part in this , but so does the genetic propensity... as people get 'fatter' in later life it is through the expansion of these cells not necessarily by further addition of more cells.. calories in versus calories out does result in weight loss, but not necessarily fat loss.. Fat loss is a different animal.. The weight loss you refer to is primarily water and muscle loss with a bit fat thrown in... This is where most people go wrong... 2800 calories of pure protein is completely different from 2000 calories of sucrose and the latter will increase your bodyfat wheras the former will have the opposite effect.. Obviously there are other factors involved too.. Your simplistic view would suggest that a person who did and ate everything that peter andre did over say, a year, would look exactly the same as him.. It would also seem to suggest that Peter andre would have the same bodyfat percentage at 60 as he did at 20 if he ate what he eat at 20... Reducing calories works to those who eat far too many.. But there are quite a few large people who don't eat far too many and eat pretty much the same as their thinner counterparts who are blessed with a much greater cellular turnover... One wears the Jammie dodger whilst the other doesn't, although both have a set point... tomtopper

1:52pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Mike2012 says...

Good post and some good points, Tom, you obviously know what your talking about, good to have these sorts of debates! :-)
Good post and some good points, Tom, you obviously know what your talking about, good to have these sorts of debates! :-) Mike2012

2:42pm Sat 22 Feb 14

spragger says...

The sooner folk work out that combination of too much food in & too little exercise out means you will get fat, the better
Why do lefties defy natural laws & how the human body works.
If you are fat 99.9% of the time its your own fault, no one else.
NotMcDonalds, Not the NHs, not the taxpayer but . .
YOU!
The sooner folk work out that combination of too much food in & too little exercise out means you will get fat, the better Why do lefties defy natural laws & how the human body works. If you are fat 99.9% of the time its your own fault, no one else. NotMcDonalds, Not the NHs, not the taxpayer but . . YOU! spragger

6:42pm Sat 22 Feb 14

tomtopper says...

Mike2012 wrote:
Good post and some good points, Tom, you obviously know what your talking about, good to have these sorts of debates! :-)
Cheers Mike.. And apologies for labelling you as 'misconceived' Just part of heating a debate up I guess.. I hate to think that I come across as pretentious, but after fifteen odd years of getting this type of stuff in the right ear from the other half it began to sink in, and the logic behind it all seems to make sense.. And I agree, it's good to engage in some strong debate (without resorting to any personal insults).. Cheers..
[quote][p][bold]Mike2012[/bold] wrote: Good post and some good points, Tom, you obviously know what your talking about, good to have these sorts of debates! :-)[/p][/quote]Cheers Mike.. And apologies for labelling you as 'misconceived' Just part of heating a debate up I guess.. I hate to think that I come across as pretentious, but after fifteen odd years of getting this type of stuff in the right ear from the other half it began to sink in, and the logic behind it all seems to make sense.. And I agree, it's good to engage in some strong debate (without resorting to any personal insults).. Cheers.. tomtopper

7:11pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Yemen says...

tomtopper wrote:
Yemen wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
Mike2012 wrote:
Tomtopper, I'm &quot;somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in &gt; calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons,
You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is!

.... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate!
Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option ..

As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks
Is this 'thesis' published ? I think not as i doubt your wife works in the field at all....if she did she would have schooled you correctly on genetics and you would not have cooked up your single generation eugenics theory there.

There is a reason its little known.... Its complete rubbish... What you state is akin to having a nose job so your children do not inherit your large nose.

Calories in &gt; calories out = weight loss .... Thats 100% correct and universally recognised across the entire medical profession. Most people choose to eat a healthier diet and cut out the rubbish resulting in healthy weight loss improved mobility and a longer life... Ofc if you cut down to 1500 calories of mcdonalds a day this will not work out well.

I agree not all large people are pigging out but they are eating more than they should and more of the rubbish.
My wife has been in the field for well over 20 years thank you very much... Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant to me as you're simply a poster whom cannot even attach his real name to any posts..

I'm not sure if you get the crux of my points... Nothing in nature is absolute, thus we work off likelihoods and majorities ... Two 'large' parents whom give birth to a baby usually have a heavier baby than others and the vast majority turn out to be large themselves.. they're not necessarily overfed ... They have a propensity to 'store' nutrients, both in muscle mass and as adipose tissue... Between certain ages of growth the body determines its fat cells.. Diet plays a part in this , but so does the genetic propensity... as people get 'fatter' in later life it is through the expansion of these cells not necessarily by further addition of more cells..

calories in versus calories out does result in weight loss, but not necessarily fat loss.. Fat loss is a different animal.. The weight loss you refer to is primarily water and muscle loss with a bit fat thrown in... This is where most people go wrong... 2800 calories of pure protein is completely different from 2000 calories of sucrose and the latter will increase your bodyfat wheras the former will have the opposite effect.. Obviously there are other factors involved too..

Your simplistic view would suggest that a person who did and ate everything that peter andre did over say, a year, would look exactly the same as him.. It would also seem to suggest that Peter andre would have the same bodyfat percentage at 60 as he did at 20 if he ate what he eat at 20...

Reducing calories works to those who eat far too many.. But there are quite a few large people who don't eat far too many and eat pretty much the same as their thinner counterparts who are blessed with a much greater cellular turnover... One wears the Jammie dodger whilst the other doesn't, although both have a set point...
And you are somone who has cooked up a wife in a convienient profession who posts at gone midnight. Either way i think we share a mutual disdain for the others opinions.

However, my opinion is based in science not fiction.

Fat people do not give birth to fat babys.. Fact ! ... Fat people are more prone to premature birth and low birth weight as a result ...

Now i will agree that fat parents by and large have fat kids... Not as a result of your interpritation of genetics but because the parents impose their unhealthy eating habits on the poor children.... You idea that fat kids are not overfed is dangerously misinformed. Childhood obesity is on the rise and tantamount to abuse !

The idea that you loose muscle water and 'some fat' is also demonstribly wrong... Muscle is the last thing to be metabolised...

On too the spurious peter andre ... You could indeed use him as an experiment to discover what diet did what to him, but you would have to do this concurrently ... You can of course as has been done many times use identical twins.. And guess what... Weight is directly linked to diet.

As to the 2800 v 2000 did you mean to compare the same quantity ? Anyway just ot illustrate how hard it is for people to understand and correctly calculate their calotific intake. Ill use 1000.. Or a double whopper with cheese and coffee as its otherwise known... Thats equivilent to 1.3 lb of chicken breast. Lack of basic nutritional education makes it very easy for people to miscalculate their calorific intake and indeed completely mess up their macros.

As for cellular turnover you will have to be more specifit as to the orgar to which you are reffering as the range accross the human body is massive.

One thing remains true though... You get fat ... You die young... Get too fat and bits will fall of you through type 2 diabetes before you die.

Calories in < calories out = weight gain.
[quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike2012[/bold] wrote: Tomtopper, I'm "somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in > calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons, You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is! .... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate![/p][/quote]Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option .. As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks[/p][/quote]Is this 'thesis' published ? I think not as i doubt your wife works in the field at all....if she did she would have schooled you correctly on genetics and you would not have cooked up your single generation eugenics theory there. There is a reason its little known.... Its complete rubbish... What you state is akin to having a nose job so your children do not inherit your large nose. Calories in > calories out = weight loss .... Thats 100% correct and universally recognised across the entire medical profession. Most people choose to eat a healthier diet and cut out the rubbish resulting in healthy weight loss improved mobility and a longer life... Ofc if you cut down to 1500 calories of mcdonalds a day this will not work out well. I agree not all large people are pigging out but they are eating more than they should and more of the rubbish.[/p][/quote]My wife has been in the field for well over 20 years thank you very much... Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant to me as you're simply a poster whom cannot even attach his real name to any posts.. I'm not sure if you get the crux of my points... Nothing in nature is absolute, thus we work off likelihoods and majorities ... Two 'large' parents whom give birth to a baby usually have a heavier baby than others and the vast majority turn out to be large themselves.. they're not necessarily overfed ... They have a propensity to 'store' nutrients, both in muscle mass and as adipose tissue... Between certain ages of growth the body determines its fat cells.. Diet plays a part in this , but so does the genetic propensity... as people get 'fatter' in later life it is through the expansion of these cells not necessarily by further addition of more cells.. calories in versus calories out does result in weight loss, but not necessarily fat loss.. Fat loss is a different animal.. The weight loss you refer to is primarily water and muscle loss with a bit fat thrown in... This is where most people go wrong... 2800 calories of pure protein is completely different from 2000 calories of sucrose and the latter will increase your bodyfat wheras the former will have the opposite effect.. Obviously there are other factors involved too.. Your simplistic view would suggest that a person who did and ate everything that peter andre did over say, a year, would look exactly the same as him.. It would also seem to suggest that Peter andre would have the same bodyfat percentage at 60 as he did at 20 if he ate what he eat at 20... Reducing calories works to those who eat far too many.. But there are quite a few large people who don't eat far too many and eat pretty much the same as their thinner counterparts who are blessed with a much greater cellular turnover... One wears the Jammie dodger whilst the other doesn't, although both have a set point...[/p][/quote]And you are somone who has cooked up a wife in a convienient profession who posts at gone midnight. Either way i think we share a mutual disdain for the others opinions. However, my opinion is based in science not fiction. Fat people do not give birth to fat babys.. Fact ! ... Fat people are more prone to premature birth and low birth weight as a result ... Now i will agree that fat parents by and large have fat kids... Not as a result of your interpritation of genetics but because the parents impose their unhealthy eating habits on the poor children.... You idea that fat kids are not overfed is dangerously misinformed. Childhood obesity is on the rise and tantamount to abuse ! The idea that you loose muscle water and 'some fat' is also demonstribly wrong... Muscle is the last thing to be metabolised... On too the spurious peter andre ... You could indeed use him as an experiment to discover what diet did what to him, but you would have to do this concurrently ... You can of course as has been done many times use identical twins.. And guess what... Weight is directly linked to diet. As to the 2800 v 2000 did you mean to compare the same quantity ? Anyway just ot illustrate how hard it is for people to understand and correctly calculate their calotific intake. Ill use 1000.. Or a double whopper with cheese and coffee as its otherwise known... Thats equivilent to 1.3 lb of chicken breast. Lack of basic nutritional education makes it very easy for people to miscalculate their calorific intake and indeed completely mess up their macros. As for cellular turnover you will have to be more specifit as to the orgar to which you are reffering as the range accross the human body is massive. One thing remains true though... You get fat ... You die young... Get too fat and bits will fall of you through type 2 diabetes before you die. Calories in < calories out = weight gain. Yemen

9:44pm Sat 22 Feb 14

tomtopper says...

Yemen wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
Yemen wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
Mike2012 wrote:
Tomtopper, I'm &quot;somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in &gt; calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons,
You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is!

.... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate!
Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option ..

As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks
Is this 'thesis' published ? I think not as i doubt your wife works in the field at all....if she did she would have schooled you correctly on genetics and you would not have cooked up your single generation eugenics theory there.

There is a reason its little known.... Its complete rubbish... What you state is akin to having a nose job so your children do not inherit your large nose.

Calories in &gt; calories out = weight loss .... Thats 100% correct and universally recognised across the entire medical profession. Most people choose to eat a healthier diet and cut out the rubbish resulting in healthy weight loss improved mobility and a longer life... Ofc if you cut down to 1500 calories of mcdonalds a day this will not work out well.

I agree not all large people are pigging out but they are eating more than they should and more of the rubbish.
My wife has been in the field for well over 20 years thank you very much... Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant to me as you're simply a poster whom cannot even attach his real name to any posts..

I'm not sure if you get the crux of my points... Nothing in nature is absolute, thus we work off likelihoods and majorities ... Two 'large' parents whom give birth to a baby usually have a heavier baby than others and the vast majority turn out to be large themselves.. they're not necessarily overfed ... They have a propensity to 'store' nutrients, both in muscle mass and as adipose tissue... Between certain ages of growth the body determines its fat cells.. Diet plays a part in this , but so does the genetic propensity... as people get 'fatter' in later life it is through the expansion of these cells not necessarily by further addition of more cells..

calories in versus calories out does result in weight loss, but not necessarily fat loss.. Fat loss is a different animal.. The weight loss you refer to is primarily water and muscle loss with a bit fat thrown in... This is where most people go wrong... 2800 calories of pure protein is completely different from 2000 calories of sucrose and the latter will increase your bodyfat wheras the former will have the opposite effect.. Obviously there are other factors involved too..

Your simplistic view would suggest that a person who did and ate everything that peter andre did over say, a year, would look exactly the same as him.. It would also seem to suggest that Peter andre would have the same bodyfat percentage at 60 as he did at 20 if he ate what he eat at 20...

Reducing calories works to those who eat far too many.. But there are quite a few large people who don't eat far too many and eat pretty much the same as their thinner counterparts who are blessed with a much greater cellular turnover... One wears the Jammie dodger whilst the other doesn't, although both have a set point...
And you are somone who has cooked up a wife in a convienient profession who posts at gone midnight. Either way i think we share a mutual disdain for the others opinions.

However, my opinion is based in science not fiction.

Fat people do not give birth to fat babys.. Fact ! ... Fat people are more prone to premature birth and low birth weight as a result ...

Now i will agree that fat parents by and large have fat kids... Not as a result of your interpritation of genetics but because the parents impose their unhealthy eating habits on the poor children.... You idea that fat kids are not overfed is dangerously misinformed. Childhood obesity is on the rise and tantamount to abuse !

The idea that you loose muscle water and 'some fat' is also demonstribly wrong... Muscle is the last thing to be metabolised...

On too the spurious peter andre ... You could indeed use him as an experiment to discover what diet did what to him, but you would have to do this concurrently ... You can of course as has been done many times use identical twins.. And guess what... Weight is directly linked to diet.

As to the 2800 v 2000 did you mean to compare the same quantity ? Anyway just ot illustrate how hard it is for people to understand and correctly calculate their calotific intake. Ill use 1000.. Or a double whopper with cheese and coffee as its otherwise known... Thats equivilent to 1.3 lb of chicken breast. Lack of basic nutritional education makes it very easy for people to miscalculate their calorific intake and indeed completely mess up their macros.

As for cellular turnover you will have to be more specifit as to the orgar to which you are reffering as the range accross the human body is massive.

One thing remains true though... You get fat ... You die young... Get too fat and bits will fall of you through type 2 diabetes before you die.

Calories in &lt; calories out = weight gain.
Actually you're right.. less cals in does result in weight loss.. weight being the operative word .. Fat loss on its own is somewhat a different animal.. For you to wholly disagree with this fact simply shows your lack of understanding irrespective of any scientific twaddle you come out with.. period!

The fact was my original point was that two random people following the same diet and expending the same energy will NOT have the same bodyfat percentage.. You keep referring to simplistic calories in calories out.. making the point as if it's some kind of revelation (duh)..

There are many studies/tests going on all the time in regard to why this is, as there are many factors involved, such as endocrine health etc.. Of course weight is lost if calories are reduced.. Again,weight being the operative word .. Retained water is the first to go, then after stored glycogen is depleted muscle is slowly broken down with a small amount of fat, unless more protein is consumed and stress is put on the muscular system through weight training.. this slows breakdown considerably, and as muscle is metabolically active as opposed to adipose tissue which is generally inert, a higher calorie intake is required..

To lose bodyfat body composition has to be changed, and that body composes of muscle water and (fat visceral and subcutenous).. the body is a survival mechanism and will first minimise musculature before resorting to it's final and highest energy reserve.. Fat.. Moreso if no fat is being ingested all the while... Bodyfat loss requires manipulation through diet and exercise.. Usually by stressing the muscular system to a degree where the body minimise its catabolism, then manipulating diet with fat and protein.. Carbs are usually the baddie and they are what's used to dip in and out of ketosis and because the body has a triglyceride intake and has muscle related stress through micro trauma (weight training) it will then utilise bodyfat reserves.. but adjustments to the type of macro/micro nutrients are required every 4 weeks as the body 'plateaus'.. This is why a competitive bodybuilder can get down to 3% bodyfat, whilst still registering as overweight on the scales.. But even them rules aren't totally set in stone as the body is such a complex blend.. Some bodybuilders for example can get 'shredded' on a shaky diet whereas others whom are mathematically applying every known facet in a bolt rigid fashion fail to get anywhere near... This shows that Fat loss is different in each individual..

I know what you're trying to say, laymans advice to the average joe who needs to lose a few pounds as anything deeper would go over his head, however you're wrong by further saying that all large people are eating more than their counterparts, as that's not always the case by a long shot..

And I once heard the best way to tell is by looking at their hands, the puffy hands being the over-eaters and lean hands not (how true that is I don't know!)
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike2012[/bold] wrote: Tomtopper, I'm "somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in > calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons, You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is! .... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate![/p][/quote]Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option .. As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks[/p][/quote]Is this 'thesis' published ? I think not as i doubt your wife works in the field at all....if she did she would have schooled you correctly on genetics and you would not have cooked up your single generation eugenics theory there. There is a reason its little known.... Its complete rubbish... What you state is akin to having a nose job so your children do not inherit your large nose. Calories in > calories out = weight loss .... Thats 100% correct and universally recognised across the entire medical profession. Most people choose to eat a healthier diet and cut out the rubbish resulting in healthy weight loss improved mobility and a longer life... Ofc if you cut down to 1500 calories of mcdonalds a day this will not work out well. I agree not all large people are pigging out but they are eating more than they should and more of the rubbish.[/p][/quote]My wife has been in the field for well over 20 years thank you very much... Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant to me as you're simply a poster whom cannot even attach his real name to any posts.. I'm not sure if you get the crux of my points... Nothing in nature is absolute, thus we work off likelihoods and majorities ... Two 'large' parents whom give birth to a baby usually have a heavier baby than others and the vast majority turn out to be large themselves.. they're not necessarily overfed ... They have a propensity to 'store' nutrients, both in muscle mass and as adipose tissue... Between certain ages of growth the body determines its fat cells.. Diet plays a part in this , but so does the genetic propensity... as people get 'fatter' in later life it is through the expansion of these cells not necessarily by further addition of more cells.. calories in versus calories out does result in weight loss, but not necessarily fat loss.. Fat loss is a different animal.. The weight loss you refer to is primarily water and muscle loss with a bit fat thrown in... This is where most people go wrong... 2800 calories of pure protein is completely different from 2000 calories of sucrose and the latter will increase your bodyfat wheras the former will have the opposite effect.. Obviously there are other factors involved too.. Your simplistic view would suggest that a person who did and ate everything that peter andre did over say, a year, would look exactly the same as him.. It would also seem to suggest that Peter andre would have the same bodyfat percentage at 60 as he did at 20 if he ate what he eat at 20... Reducing calories works to those who eat far too many.. But there are quite a few large people who don't eat far too many and eat pretty much the same as their thinner counterparts who are blessed with a much greater cellular turnover... One wears the Jammie dodger whilst the other doesn't, although both have a set point...[/p][/quote]And you are somone who has cooked up a wife in a convienient profession who posts at gone midnight. Either way i think we share a mutual disdain for the others opinions. However, my opinion is based in science not fiction. Fat people do not give birth to fat babys.. Fact ! ... Fat people are more prone to premature birth and low birth weight as a result ... Now i will agree that fat parents by and large have fat kids... Not as a result of your interpritation of genetics but because the parents impose their unhealthy eating habits on the poor children.... You idea that fat kids are not overfed is dangerously misinformed. Childhood obesity is on the rise and tantamount to abuse ! The idea that you loose muscle water and 'some fat' is also demonstribly wrong... Muscle is the last thing to be metabolised... On too the spurious peter andre ... You could indeed use him as an experiment to discover what diet did what to him, but you would have to do this concurrently ... You can of course as has been done many times use identical twins.. And guess what... Weight is directly linked to diet. As to the 2800 v 2000 did you mean to compare the same quantity ? Anyway just ot illustrate how hard it is for people to understand and correctly calculate their calotific intake. Ill use 1000.. Or a double whopper with cheese and coffee as its otherwise known... Thats equivilent to 1.3 lb of chicken breast. Lack of basic nutritional education makes it very easy for people to miscalculate their calorific intake and indeed completely mess up their macros. As for cellular turnover you will have to be more specifit as to the orgar to which you are reffering as the range accross the human body is massive. One thing remains true though... You get fat ... You die young... Get too fat and bits will fall of you through type 2 diabetes before you die. Calories in < calories out = weight gain.[/p][/quote]Actually you're right.. less cals in does result in weight loss.. weight being the operative word .. Fat loss on its own is somewhat a different animal.. For you to wholly disagree with this fact simply shows your lack of understanding irrespective of any scientific twaddle you come out with.. period! The fact was my original point was that two random people following the same diet and expending the same energy will NOT have the same bodyfat percentage.. You keep referring to simplistic calories in calories out.. making the point as if it's some kind of revelation (duh).. There are many studies/tests going on all the time in regard to why this is, as there are many factors involved, such as endocrine health etc.. Of course weight is lost if calories are reduced.. Again,weight being the operative word .. Retained water is the first to go, then after stored glycogen is depleted muscle is slowly broken down with a small amount of fat, unless more protein is consumed and stress is put on the muscular system through weight training.. this slows breakdown considerably, and as muscle is metabolically active as opposed to adipose tissue which is generally inert, a higher calorie intake is required.. To lose bodyfat body composition has to be changed, and that body composes of muscle water and (fat visceral and subcutenous).. the body is a survival mechanism and will first minimise musculature before resorting to it's final and highest energy reserve.. Fat.. Moreso if no fat is being ingested all the while... Bodyfat loss requires manipulation through diet and exercise.. Usually by stressing the muscular system to a degree where the body minimise its catabolism, then manipulating diet with fat and protein.. Carbs are usually the baddie and they are what's used to dip in and out of ketosis and because the body has a triglyceride intake and has muscle related stress through micro trauma (weight training) it will then utilise bodyfat reserves.. but adjustments to the type of macro/micro nutrients are required every 4 weeks as the body 'plateaus'.. This is why a competitive bodybuilder can get down to 3% bodyfat, whilst still registering as overweight on the scales.. But even them rules aren't totally set in stone as the body is such a complex blend.. Some bodybuilders for example can get 'shredded' on a shaky diet whereas others whom are mathematically applying every known facet in a bolt rigid fashion fail to get anywhere near... This shows that Fat loss is different in each individual.. I know what you're trying to say, laymans advice to the average joe who needs to lose a few pounds as anything deeper would go over his head, however you're wrong by further saying that all large people are eating more than their counterparts, as that's not always the case by a long shot.. And I once heard the best way to tell is by looking at their hands, the puffy hands being the over-eaters and lean hands not (how true that is I don't know!) tomtopper

8:51am Sun 23 Feb 14

Yemen says...

Scientic twaddle ??

Want scientific twaddle ? How about your statement that the body burns muscle BEFORE fat.... But that bonkers assumption. A person deprived of food in the wild would metabolise all their means of movement and end up lyingmin their cave unable to hunt or harvest.....

This is of course wrong and demonstrates you lack of understanding of any kind of biology at all.

Now also... Ending you first paragraph with 'period' and also incliding 'average joe' demonstrates you are not in fact a uk resident... The only place i have observed this level of metabolic ignorance is the USA which would also explain your unusual posting times... America has an obesity epidemic and many of the obese over there are full of self forgiving rubbish to justify their size.

On to my so called scientific twaddle then.

The first fuel that your body breaks down for energy is carbohydrates. After a meal, your body is in the "fed" state and preferentially breaks down carbohydrates since they are easily accessible and turned into energy. After your body has used up the carbohydrates from a meal or snack, your cells begin to break down glucose stored in your muscles and liver known as glycogen. Glycogen stores vary in each person, but are typically depleted within 24 hours, meaning your body has to begin breaking down other compounds for energy When glucose and glycogen are not available, your body preferentially breaks down fatty compounds known as triacylglycerols which are present in adipose or fat tissue. Because fat is a high-energy source with nine calories per gram, fat provides an efficient fuel source. Additionally, your body metabolically prefers to preserve lean body mass and, when possible, breaks down fat stores for fuel as much as possible. Only when your fat stores are extremely low or depleted does your body have to then break down protein.


Prove me wrong .... Ill wait
Scientic twaddle ?? Want scientific twaddle ? How about your statement that the body burns muscle BEFORE fat.... But that bonkers assumption. A person deprived of food in the wild would metabolise all their means of movement and end up lyingmin their cave unable to hunt or harvest..... This is of course wrong and demonstrates you lack of understanding of any kind of biology at all. Now also... Ending you first paragraph with 'period' and also incliding 'average joe' demonstrates you are not in fact a uk resident... The only place i have observed this level of metabolic ignorance is the USA which would also explain your unusual posting times... America has an obesity epidemic and many of the obese over there are full of self forgiving rubbish to justify their size. On to my so called scientific twaddle then. The first fuel that your body breaks down for energy is carbohydrates. After a meal, your body is in the "fed" state and preferentially breaks down carbohydrates since they are easily accessible and turned into energy. After your body has used up the carbohydrates from a meal or snack, your cells begin to break down glucose stored in your muscles and liver known as glycogen. Glycogen stores vary in each person, but are typically depleted within 24 hours, meaning your body has to begin breaking down other compounds for energy When glucose and glycogen are not available, your body preferentially breaks down fatty compounds known as triacylglycerols which are present in adipose or fat tissue. Because fat is a high-energy source with nine calories per gram, fat provides an efficient fuel source. Additionally, your body metabolically prefers to preserve lean body mass and, when possible, breaks down fat stores for fuel as much as possible. Only when your fat stores are extremely low or depleted does your body have to then break down protein. Prove me wrong .... Ill wait Yemen

9:08am Sun 23 Feb 14

Yemen says...

Also if you look back i refer to BMR ... Which would nomalise your two people example.

Again. Prove me wrong, link some articles proving me wrong... Again ill wait.

And dont try and offer up any kind of HAES dogma as fact either.
Also if you look back i refer to BMR ... Which would nomalise your two people example. Again. Prove me wrong, link some articles proving me wrong... Again ill wait. And dont try and offer up any kind of HAES dogma as fact either. Yemen

10:31am Sun 23 Feb 14

tomtopper says...

Yemen wrote:
Scientic twaddle ??

Want scientific twaddle ? How about your statement that the body burns muscle BEFORE fat.... But that bonkers assumption. A person deprived of food in the wild would metabolise all their means of movement and end up lyingmin their cave unable to hunt or harvest.....

This is of course wrong and demonstrates you lack of understanding of any kind of biology at all.

Now also... Ending you first paragraph with 'period' and also incliding 'average joe' demonstrates you are not in fact a uk resident... The only place i have observed this level of metabolic ignorance is the USA which would also explain your unusual posting times... America has an obesity epidemic and many of the obese over there are full of self forgiving rubbish to justify their size.

On to my so called scientific twaddle then.

The first fuel that your body breaks down for energy is carbohydrates. After a meal, your body is in the &quot;fed" state and preferentially breaks down carbohydrates since they are easily accessible and turned into energy. After your body has used up the carbohydrates from a meal or snack, your cells begin to break down glucose stored in your muscles and liver known as glycogen. Glycogen stores vary in each person, but are typically depleted within 24 hours, meaning your body has to begin breaking down other compounds for energy When glucose and glycogen are not available, your body preferentially breaks down fatty compounds known as triacylglycerols which are present in adipose or fat tissue. Because fat is a high-energy source with nine calories per gram, fat provides an efficient fuel source. Additionally, your body metabolically prefers to preserve lean body mass and, when possible, breaks down fat stores for fuel as much as possible. Only when your fat stores are extremely low or depleted does your body have to then break down protein.


Prove me wrong .... Ill wait
Obviously you've had to resort to google to carry on your petty argument... And, yes, it is petty with your references to times i post, my wife and where I'm from (Durham city, actually) and the fact you're now trying to oh so boringly reference material of the net, rather than debating what you think, straight from your head, which is what I do.. Thus I'm not sad enough to trawl through a range of websites to provide any links.. I'm not getting paid to do this..

This really is my wifes argument as she's the professional and has done a lot of work with the bodybuilding community.... Advanced Driving is my specialist area and indeed I'm even an author of my said area.. Maybe that's something else you can snipe at, being anonymous and all..

So, in brief, Yes, stored glycogen is utilised as ive previously stated.. Then both muscle and fat will be broken down, the degree dependent on the stress placed on the muscular system.. Obviously muscle wastage will only occur to the degree of what the body needs.. Fat loss ultimately requires manipulation to eliminate plateaus and metabolic slowdown and preserve lean mass and is ultimately final prior to life threatening muscle wastage.. But as i keep saying, nothing's set in stone... People who adopt what you say lose a little of all... water muscle and fat.. that's why there bodies look the more or less the same naked (apart fro those at the extreme), just smaller but Using your methods, the aforementoned pro bodybuilder would simply get ripped after bulking up off season by simply reducing his calories and doing nothing else... Why Why not pop in a gym and ask one and get laughed out of the place...
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: Scientic twaddle ?? Want scientific twaddle ? How about your statement that the body burns muscle BEFORE fat.... But that bonkers assumption. A person deprived of food in the wild would metabolise all their means of movement and end up lyingmin their cave unable to hunt or harvest..... This is of course wrong and demonstrates you lack of understanding of any kind of biology at all. Now also... Ending you first paragraph with 'period' and also incliding 'average joe' demonstrates you are not in fact a uk resident... The only place i have observed this level of metabolic ignorance is the USA which would also explain your unusual posting times... America has an obesity epidemic and many of the obese over there are full of self forgiving rubbish to justify their size. On to my so called scientific twaddle then. The first fuel that your body breaks down for energy is carbohydrates. After a meal, your body is in the "fed" state and preferentially breaks down carbohydrates since they are easily accessible and turned into energy. After your body has used up the carbohydrates from a meal or snack, your cells begin to break down glucose stored in your muscles and liver known as glycogen. Glycogen stores vary in each person, but are typically depleted within 24 hours, meaning your body has to begin breaking down other compounds for energy When glucose and glycogen are not available, your body preferentially breaks down fatty compounds known as triacylglycerols which are present in adipose or fat tissue. Because fat is a high-energy source with nine calories per gram, fat provides an efficient fuel source. Additionally, your body metabolically prefers to preserve lean body mass and, when possible, breaks down fat stores for fuel as much as possible. Only when your fat stores are extremely low or depleted does your body have to then break down protein. Prove me wrong .... Ill wait[/p][/quote]Obviously you've had to resort to google to carry on your petty argument... And, yes, it is petty with your references to times i post, my wife and where I'm from (Durham city, actually) and the fact you're now trying to oh so boringly reference material of the net, rather than debating what you think, straight from your head, which is what I do.. Thus I'm not sad enough to trawl through a range of websites to provide any links.. I'm not getting paid to do this.. This really is my wifes argument as she's the professional and has done a lot of work with the bodybuilding community.... Advanced Driving is my specialist area and indeed I'm even an author of my said area.. Maybe that's something else you can snipe at, being anonymous and all.. So, in brief, Yes, stored glycogen is utilised as ive previously stated.. Then both muscle and fat will be broken down, the degree dependent on the stress placed on the muscular system.. Obviously muscle wastage will only occur to the degree of what the body needs.. Fat loss ultimately requires manipulation to eliminate plateaus and metabolic slowdown and preserve lean mass and is ultimately final prior to life threatening muscle wastage.. But as i keep saying, nothing's set in stone... People who adopt what you say lose a little of all... water muscle and fat.. that's why there bodies look the more or less the same naked (apart fro those at the extreme), just smaller but Using your methods, the aforementoned pro bodybuilder would simply get ripped after bulking up off season by simply reducing his calories and doing nothing else... Why Why not pop in a gym and ask one and get laughed out of the place... tomtopper

2:03pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Yemen says...

Thank you for proving yourself entirely wrong... I did indeed 'resort' to google not for you benefit but for the benefit of anyone else buying into your rubbish. The concept that water then fat then muscle is metabolised in that order is so wrong on every level.... Im pretty sure you are in fact a troll.
Thank you for proving yourself entirely wrong... I did indeed 'resort' to google not for you benefit but for the benefit of anyone else buying into your rubbish. The concept that water then fat then muscle is metabolised in that order is so wrong on every level.... Im pretty sure you are in fact a troll. Yemen

2:14pm Sun 23 Feb 14

Yemen says...

Hang on a sec did you just attempt to tell me off for using facts in a discussion....hohoho
ho
Hang on a sec did you just attempt to tell me off for using facts in a discussion....hohoho ho Yemen

5:31pm Sun 23 Feb 14

tomtopper says...

Yemen wrote:
Thank you for proving yourself entirely wrong... I did indeed 'resort' to google not for you benefit but for the benefit of anyone else buying into your rubbish. The concept that water then fat then muscle is metabolised in that order is so wrong on every level.... Im pretty sure you are in fact a troll.
I don't recall saying water, fat then muscle is metabolised??

The people who buy into your rubbish would end up anorexic (skinny/fat)

Compare an anorexic to a bodybuilder.. One uses the less calories in more calories out theory and the other engineers his/her calories, taking in a greater proportion of calories at key stages through his diet, yet is clearly leaner in BODYFAT terms by comparison..

If muscle is not getting the nutrients required to maintain its structure then it will break it down conserving the majority of fat ... But as I keep stating , one overlaps the other with varying degrees, so there initiallly will be a loss of fat AND muscle until the body plateaus the the tendency will be more to muscle breakdown.. Each person has different tendencies.. This one fits all theory is nonsense.. The trick is to keep the metabolism working.. And this is done by manipulation.. Not all calories are equal..

If you want to unsuccessfully diet and end up a yo yo dieter folks then follow yemens advice, that's all I'm saying... I mean these bodybuilders my wife work with are obviously way off, stupid and grossly obese at skinfold readings of 3% subcuteanous fat.. Yemen and his search engine know far more than any of those people
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: Thank you for proving yourself entirely wrong... I did indeed 'resort' to google not for you benefit but for the benefit of anyone else buying into your rubbish. The concept that water then fat then muscle is metabolised in that order is so wrong on every level.... Im pretty sure you are in fact a troll.[/p][/quote]I don't recall saying water, fat then muscle is metabolised?? The people who buy into your rubbish would end up anorexic (skinny/fat) Compare an anorexic to a bodybuilder.. One uses the less calories in more calories out theory and the other engineers his/her calories, taking in a greater proportion of calories at key stages through his diet, yet is clearly leaner in BODYFAT terms by comparison.. If muscle is not getting the nutrients required to maintain its structure then it will break it down conserving the majority of fat ... But as I keep stating , one overlaps the other with varying degrees, so there initiallly will be a loss of fat AND muscle until the body plateaus the the tendency will be more to muscle breakdown.. Each person has different tendencies.. This one fits all theory is nonsense.. The trick is to keep the metabolism working.. And this is done by manipulation.. Not all calories are equal.. If you want to unsuccessfully diet and end up a yo yo dieter folks then follow yemens advice, that's all I'm saying... I mean these bodybuilders my wife work with are obviously way off, stupid and grossly obese at skinfold readings of 3% subcuteanous fat.. Yemen and his search engine know far more than any of those people tomtopper

8:29am Mon 24 Feb 14

Yemen says...

indeed that was a typo on my part and you did not say that because its the correct way round fat first that is.

what you did say was.

> the body is a survival mechanism and will first minimise musculature before resorting to it's final and highest energy reserve.. Fat..

which is completely wrong.

compare an anorexic to a body builder ?? are you insane ?? compare some poor soul with a horrible debilitating mental illness to a bodybuilder .. are you so low that you need to use the mentally ill in your arguments now. that's disgusting.

not all calories are equal ? um yes they are... a calorie is a measurement equivalent of the energy required to raise on KG of water by one degree.. why not use a search engine to verify this and other facts !

>The people who buy into your rubbish would end up anorexic (skinny/fat)

that makes zero sense. i'm not advocating a diet. i'm stating the simple fact that if you eat less and do more you will loose weight....

Why not use a search engine to find out the facts ? whats wrong with facts and why are you so afraid of them tomtopper.

now finally at the end you present one of the most absurd things i have ever read in my life... namely....

> I mean these bodybuilders my wife work with are obviously way off, stupid and grossly obese at skinfold readings of 3% subcuteanous fat..

grossly obese with 3% bodyfat ?? .... go on tom google that and find out how stupid that statement really is...

once again i'm offering no advice here i merely state.

calories in < calories out = weight gain. or even more simply put 'eat less do more'


do these if you want to loose weight and you indeed will, adopt a healthy lifestyle and live longer ! do what the lady in the article has and get out and run... she is a marvelous example for everyone, and i look forward to seeing her in the GNR.
indeed that was a typo on my part and you did not say that because its the correct way round fat first that is. what you did say was. > the body is a survival mechanism and will first minimise musculature before resorting to it's final and highest energy reserve.. Fat.. which is completely wrong. compare an anorexic to a body builder ?? are you insane ?? compare some poor soul with a horrible debilitating mental illness to a bodybuilder .. are you so low that you need to use the mentally ill in your arguments now. that's disgusting. not all calories are equal ? um yes they are... a calorie is a measurement equivalent of the energy required to raise on KG of water by one degree.. why not use a search engine to verify this and other facts ! >The people who buy into your rubbish would end up anorexic (skinny/fat) that makes zero sense. i'm not advocating a diet. i'm stating the simple fact that if you eat less and do more you will loose weight.... Why not use a search engine to find out the facts ? whats wrong with facts and why are you so afraid of them tomtopper. now finally at the end you present one of the most absurd things i have ever read in my life... namely.... > I mean these bodybuilders my wife work with are obviously way off, stupid and grossly obese at skinfold readings of 3% subcuteanous fat.. grossly obese with 3% bodyfat ?? .... go on tom google that and find out how stupid that statement really is... once again i'm offering no advice here i merely state. calories in < calories out = weight gain. or even more simply put 'eat less do more' do these if you want to loose weight and you indeed will, adopt a healthy lifestyle and live longer ! do what the lady in the article has and get out and run... she is a marvelous example for everyone, and i look forward to seeing her in the GNR. Yemen

3:53pm Mon 24 Feb 14

settheworldonfire says...

charlie7t wrote:
As the person in this article I would like to say thank you for the negative comments as they just drive me to push further... I was bigger and running brought me focus and enthusiasm.
I do not 'stuff' my face and am trying to change the preconceptions of people who are bigger than what society states is the norm!
I am doing this to get fit and loosing weight is a benefit while raising money for a much loves Brass Band, Darlingtons Only Brass Band.
When I started to run I was laughed at, picked on, mocked and slated and told repeatedly that I could never do it, weight has been a easy point for the 'bullys' to have a go at me.
People are scared to use the word Fat and I am not im a big girl and im proud to be that way.
Well said.....I am a 46 year old and 17 stone..Start diet and exercise on 1st march.....Wish i did it years ago....Ignore the ignorant ones on here they are the usual trolls...Live life and prosper...In the words of a famous alien...
[quote][p][bold]charlie7t[/bold] wrote: As the person in this article I would like to say thank you for the negative comments as they just drive me to push further... I was bigger and running brought me focus and enthusiasm. I do not 'stuff' my face and am trying to change the preconceptions of people who are bigger than what society states is the norm! I am doing this to get fit and loosing weight is a benefit while raising money for a much loves Brass Band, Darlingtons Only Brass Band. When I started to run I was laughed at, picked on, mocked and slated and told repeatedly that I could never do it, weight has been a easy point for the 'bullys' to have a go at me. People are scared to use the word Fat and I am not im a big girl and im proud to be that way.[/p][/quote]Well said.....I am a 46 year old and 17 stone..Start diet and exercise on 1st march.....Wish i did it years ago....Ignore the ignorant ones on here they are the usual trolls...Live life and prosper...In the words of a famous alien... settheworldonfire

7:08pm Mon 24 Feb 14

charlie7t says...

JUST THOUGHT ID ADD AS ONLY JUST GONE LIVE:
you can now text to donate, simply text CPSB01 to 70070 to donate any amount to Cockerton Prize Silver Band and help my cause after all thats what this is really about :)
feel free to visit and like my Facebook page https://www.facebook
.com/FatChicksCanRun to keep up to date with all my training and progress.
I am taking donations and raffle prizes for a forthcoming concert i aim to hold with some amazing prizes already donated from a number of local companies.
Just Pre-Recorded my interview on Star Radio and i am overwhelmed with the mass off inboxes from all ranges of people feeling inspired to get up and 'do the local motion'

all the best :) Charlie
JUST THOUGHT ID ADD AS ONLY JUST GONE LIVE: you can now text to donate, simply text CPSB01 to 70070 to donate any amount to Cockerton Prize Silver Band and help my cause after all thats what this is really about :) feel free to visit and like my Facebook page https://www.facebook .com/FatChicksCanRun to keep up to date with all my training and progress. I am taking donations and raffle prizes for a forthcoming concert i aim to hold with some amazing prizes already donated from a number of local companies. Just Pre-Recorded my interview on Star Radio and i am overwhelmed with the mass off inboxes from all ranges of people feeling inspired to get up and 'do the local motion' all the best :) Charlie charlie7t

11:47pm Mon 24 Feb 14

tomtopper says...

Yemen wrote:
indeed that was a typo on my part and you did not say that because its the correct way round fat first that is.

what you did say was.

&gt; the body is a survival mechanism and will first minimise musculature before resorting to it's final and highest energy reserve.. Fat..

which is completely wrong.

compare an anorexic to a body builder ?? are you insane ?? compare some poor soul with a horrible debilitating mental illness to a bodybuilder .. are you so low that you need to use the mentally ill in your arguments now. that's disgusting.

not all calories are equal ? um yes they are... a calorie is a measurement equivalent of the energy required to raise on KG of water by one degree.. why not use a search engine to verify this and other facts !

&gt;The people who buy into your rubbish would end up anorexic (skinny/fat)

that makes zero sense. i'm not advocating a diet. i'm stating the simple fact that if you eat less and do more you will loose weight....

Why not use a search engine to find out the facts ? whats wrong with facts and why are you so afraid of them tomtopper.

now finally at the end you present one of the most absurd things i have ever read in my life... namely....

&gt; I mean these bodybuilders my wife work with are obviously way off, stupid and grossly obese at skinfold readings of 3% subcuteanous fat..

grossly obese with 3% bodyfat ?? .... go on tom google that and find out how stupid that statement really is...

once again i'm offering no advice here i merely state.

calories in &lt; calories out = weight gain. or even more simply put 'eat less do more'


do these if you want to loose weight and you indeed will, adopt a healthy lifestyle and live longer ! do what the lady in the article has and get out and run... she is a marvelous example for everyone, and i look forward to seeing her in the GNR.
Duh.. The 3% reference was in sarcasm..

The anorexic/bodybuilder analogy was to highlight simple calorie reduction as opposed to smart nutrition using the extreme ends of the scale, but you still fail to grasp any of what I'm saying.. That a lot of large people are not greedy. lazy pigs as you have been suggesting all along..

Calories are different, depending on what source they're from .. I'm sure there'll be stuff on google about that.. Like I said before 2800 calories from protein effect the body somewhat differently than 2000 calories of sucrose..

But there is always an underlying judgementalism in your posts, what with references to me being a lowlife, my wife, my nationality etc..Thus it doesn't surprise me, that you are equally simplistic and judgemental in your view of large people, that is, they're all people whom overeat and do little else.. Very condescending to the lady in this article, Whom you praise but obviously you think she's been a serial overeater to be large in the first place.. I think she probably eats roughly the same as her smaller counterparts, but has not got the same endocrine capability,( ie sugar utilisation, metabolic turnover, thyronine levels etc) therefore she has to work a lot harder, engineer her nutrition and generally work to a program to achieve what comes easy to her friends/peers.. Some would say its almost genetic .. Obviously you just think she's simply a fat lazy person as you have so vehemently argued in this thread..
[quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: indeed that was a typo on my part and you did not say that because its the correct way round fat first that is. what you did say was. > the body is a survival mechanism and will first minimise musculature before resorting to it's final and highest energy reserve.. Fat.. which is completely wrong. compare an anorexic to a body builder ?? are you insane ?? compare some poor soul with a horrible debilitating mental illness to a bodybuilder .. are you so low that you need to use the mentally ill in your arguments now. that's disgusting. not all calories are equal ? um yes they are... a calorie is a measurement equivalent of the energy required to raise on KG of water by one degree.. why not use a search engine to verify this and other facts ! >The people who buy into your rubbish would end up anorexic (skinny/fat) that makes zero sense. i'm not advocating a diet. i'm stating the simple fact that if you eat less and do more you will loose weight.... Why not use a search engine to find out the facts ? whats wrong with facts and why are you so afraid of them tomtopper. now finally at the end you present one of the most absurd things i have ever read in my life... namely.... > I mean these bodybuilders my wife work with are obviously way off, stupid and grossly obese at skinfold readings of 3% subcuteanous fat.. grossly obese with 3% bodyfat ?? .... go on tom google that and find out how stupid that statement really is... once again i'm offering no advice here i merely state. calories in < calories out = weight gain. or even more simply put 'eat less do more' do these if you want to loose weight and you indeed will, adopt a healthy lifestyle and live longer ! do what the lady in the article has and get out and run... she is a marvelous example for everyone, and i look forward to seeing her in the GNR.[/p][/quote]Duh.. The 3% reference was in sarcasm.. The anorexic/bodybuilder analogy was to highlight simple calorie reduction as opposed to smart nutrition using the extreme ends of the scale, but you still fail to grasp any of what I'm saying.. That a lot of large people are not greedy. lazy pigs as you have been suggesting all along.. Calories are different, depending on what source they're from .. I'm sure there'll be stuff on google about that.. Like I said before 2800 calories from protein effect the body somewhat differently than 2000 calories of sucrose.. But there is always an underlying judgementalism in your posts, what with references to me being a lowlife, my wife, my nationality etc..Thus it doesn't surprise me, that you are equally simplistic and judgemental in your view of large people, that is, they're all people whom overeat and do little else.. Very condescending to the lady in this article, Whom you praise but obviously you think she's been a serial overeater to be large in the first place.. I think she probably eats roughly the same as her smaller counterparts, but has not got the same endocrine capability,( ie sugar utilisation, metabolic turnover, thyronine levels etc) therefore she has to work a lot harder, engineer her nutrition and generally work to a program to achieve what comes easy to her friends/peers.. Some would say its almost genetic .. Obviously you just think she's simply a fat lazy person as you have so vehemently argued in this thread.. tomtopper

6:57am Tue 25 Feb 14

drainman says...

tomtopper wrote:
Yemen wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
Yemen wrote:
tomtopper wrote:
Mike2012 wrote:
Tomtopper, I'm &quot;somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in &gt; calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons,
You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is!

.... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate!
Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option ..

As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks
Is this 'thesis' published ? I think not as i doubt your wife works in the field at all....if she did she would have schooled you correctly on genetics and you would not have cooked up your single generation eugenics theory there.

There is a reason its little known.... Its complete rubbish... What you state is akin to having a nose job so your children do not inherit your large nose.

Calories in &gt; calories out = weight loss .... Thats 100% correct and universally recognised across the entire medical profession. Most people choose to eat a healthier diet and cut out the rubbish resulting in healthy weight loss improved mobility and a longer life... Ofc if you cut down to 1500 calories of mcdonalds a day this will not work out well.

I agree not all large people are pigging out but they are eating more than they should and more of the rubbish.
My wife has been in the field for well over 20 years thank you very much... Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant to me as you're simply a poster whom cannot even attach his real name to any posts..

I'm not sure if you get the crux of my points... Nothing in nature is absolute, thus we work off likelihoods and majorities ... Two 'large' parents whom give birth to a baby usually have a heavier baby than others and the vast majority turn out to be large themselves.. they're not necessarily overfed ... They have a propensity to 'store' nutrients, both in muscle mass and as adipose tissue... Between certain ages of growth the body determines its fat cells.. Diet plays a part in this , but so does the genetic propensity... as people get 'fatter' in later life it is through the expansion of these cells not necessarily by further addition of more cells..

calories in versus calories out does result in weight loss, but not necessarily fat loss.. Fat loss is a different animal.. The weight loss you refer to is primarily water and muscle loss with a bit fat thrown in... This is where most people go wrong... 2800 calories of pure protein is completely different from 2000 calories of sucrose and the latter will increase your bodyfat wheras the former will have the opposite effect.. Obviously there are other factors involved too..

Your simplistic view would suggest that a person who did and ate everything that peter andre did over say, a year, would look exactly the same as him.. It would also seem to suggest that Peter andre would have the same bodyfat percentage at 60 as he did at 20 if he ate what he eat at 20...

Reducing calories works to those who eat far too many.. But there are quite a few large people who don't eat far too many and eat pretty much the same as their thinner counterparts who are blessed with a much greater cellular turnover... One wears the Jammie dodger whilst the other doesn't, although both have a set point...
And you are somone who has cooked up a wife in a convienient profession who posts at gone midnight. Either way i think we share a mutual disdain for the others opinions.

However, my opinion is based in science not fiction.

Fat people do not give birth to fat babys.. Fact ! ... Fat people are more prone to premature birth and low birth weight as a result ...

Now i will agree that fat parents by and large have fat kids... Not as a result of your interpritation of genetics but because the parents impose their unhealthy eating habits on the poor children.... You idea that fat kids are not overfed is dangerously misinformed. Childhood obesity is on the rise and tantamount to abuse !

The idea that you loose muscle water and 'some fat' is also demonstribly wrong... Muscle is the last thing to be metabolised...

On too the spurious peter andre ... You could indeed use him as an experiment to discover what diet did what to him, but you would have to do this concurrently ... You can of course as has been done many times use identical twins.. And guess what... Weight is directly linked to diet.

As to the 2800 v 2000 did you mean to compare the same quantity ? Anyway just ot illustrate how hard it is for people to understand and correctly calculate their calotific intake. Ill use 1000.. Or a double whopper with cheese and coffee as its otherwise known... Thats equivilent to 1.3 lb of chicken breast. Lack of basic nutritional education makes it very easy for people to miscalculate their calorific intake and indeed completely mess up their macros.

As for cellular turnover you will have to be more specifit as to the orgar to which you are reffering as the range accross the human body is massive.

One thing remains true though... You get fat ... You die young... Get too fat and bits will fall of you through type 2 diabetes before you die.

Calories in &lt; calories out = weight gain.
Actually you're right.. less cals in does result in weight loss.. weight being the operative word .. Fat loss on its own is somewhat a different animal.. For you to wholly disagree with this fact simply shows your lack of understanding irrespective of any scientific twaddle you come out with.. period!

The fact was my original point was that two random people following the same diet and expending the same energy will NOT have the same bodyfat percentage.. You keep referring to simplistic calories in calories out.. making the point as if it's some kind of revelation (duh)..

There are many studies/tests going on all the time in regard to why this is, as there are many factors involved, such as endocrine health etc.. Of course weight is lost if calories are reduced.. Again,weight being the operative word .. Retained water is the first to go, then after stored glycogen is depleted muscle is slowly broken down with a small amount of fat, unless more protein is consumed and stress is put on the muscular system through weight training.. this slows breakdown considerably, and as muscle is metabolically active as opposed to adipose tissue which is generally inert, a higher calorie intake is required..

To lose bodyfat body composition has to be changed, and that body composes of muscle water and (fat visceral and subcutenous).. the body is a survival mechanism and will first minimise musculature before resorting to it's final and highest energy reserve.. Fat.. Moreso if no fat is being ingested all the while... Bodyfat loss requires manipulation through diet and exercise.. Usually by stressing the muscular system to a degree where the body minimise its catabolism, then manipulating diet with fat and protein.. Carbs are usually the baddie and they are what's used to dip in and out of ketosis and because the body has a triglyceride intake and has muscle related stress through micro trauma (weight training) it will then utilise bodyfat reserves.. but adjustments to the type of macro/micro nutrients are required every 4 weeks as the body 'plateaus'.. This is why a competitive bodybuilder can get down to 3% bodyfat, whilst still registering as overweight on the scales.. But even them rules aren't totally set in stone as the body is such a complex blend.. Some bodybuilders for example can get 'shredded' on a shaky diet whereas others whom are mathematically applying every known facet in a bolt rigid fashion fail to get anywhere near... This shows that Fat loss is different in each individual..

I know what you're trying to say, laymans advice to the average joe who needs to lose a few pounds as anything deeper would go over his head, however you're wrong by further saying that all large people are eating more than their counterparts, as that's not always the case by a long shot..

And I once heard the best way to tell is by looking at their hands, the puffy hands being the over-eaters and lean hands not (how true that is I don't know!)
Just read this incredible long & boring comment.............
......and i nearly fell asleep, luckily the dog barked and prevented me from waking up eight hours later. Incredible tedious. More to the point, very well done Charlie keep it up. Go for it.
[quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yemen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tomtopper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike2012[/bold] wrote: Tomtopper, I'm "somewhat misconceived" about what exactly? What is there to really "misconceive" about this? The fact that (as said in Yemen's post above) calories in > calories out = weight gain, I realise you went into ecto/meso/endomorph bodytypes, but DON'T overlook the most basic FACT about calories in vs calories out, people nowadays are ALWAYS looking for other reasons, You don't see "large people" in the Third world, when was the last time you watched Comic Relief and saw a weightwatchers meeting in Africa? I'll bet my mortgage they don't even know what a Endomorph is! .... This thread is a little like why all the uncontrollable kids nowadays suddenly have "ADHD"?! But that's a whole other debate![/p][/quote]Correct , you don't see 'large' people in the third world.. Primarily, but not always, this is due to a little known phenomenon regarding the nutrient intake of children between the ages of around 5 to 11.. The determination of genetic fat cell predisposition is altered drastically for life if there is a constant energy deficit throughout this period... This is the only way, really to make the next generation lean, but not a healthy option .. As mentioned in my above post, the calorie thing is a crude way to lose 'size' (not fat) There are many other factors at play.. For example, how effectively one's body stores glygogen (carbs).. Obviously, if one stuffs his face constantly , one's weight will increase.. But not all large people are pigging out left right and centre.. This is one argument that really annoys my wife, along with 'personal trainers' .. As people do try and simplify the whole thing and I myself was of the same attitude until taking an interest in my wifes work.. It's different strokes for different folks[/p][/quote]Is this 'thesis' published ? I think not as i doubt your wife works in the field at all....if she did she would have schooled you correctly on genetics and you would not have cooked up your single generation eugenics theory there. There is a reason its little known.... Its complete rubbish... What you state is akin to having a nose job so your children do not inherit your large nose. Calories in > calories out = weight loss .... Thats 100% correct and universally recognised across the entire medical profession. Most people choose to eat a healthier diet and cut out the rubbish resulting in healthy weight loss improved mobility and a longer life... Ofc if you cut down to 1500 calories of mcdonalds a day this will not work out well. I agree not all large people are pigging out but they are eating more than they should and more of the rubbish.[/p][/quote]My wife has been in the field for well over 20 years thank you very much... Whether you believe that or not is irrelevant to me as you're simply a poster whom cannot even attach his real name to any posts.. I'm not sure if you get the crux of my points... Nothing in nature is absolute, thus we work off likelihoods and majorities ... Two 'large' parents whom give birth to a baby usually have a heavier baby than others and the vast majority turn out to be large themselves.. they're not necessarily overfed ... They have a propensity to 'store' nutrients, both in muscle mass and as adipose tissue... Between certain ages of growth the body determines its fat cells.. Diet plays a part in this , but so does the genetic propensity... as people get 'fatter' in later life it is through the expansion of these cells not necessarily by further addition of more cells.. calories in versus calories out does result in weight loss, but not necessarily fat loss.. Fat loss is a different animal.. The weight loss you refer to is primarily water and muscle loss with a bit fat thrown in... This is where most people go wrong... 2800 calories of pure protein is completely different from 2000 calories of sucrose and the latter will increase your bodyfat wheras the former will have the opposite effect.. Obviously there are other factors involved too.. Your simplistic view would suggest that a person who did and ate everything that peter andre did over say, a year, would look exactly the same as him.. It would also seem to suggest that Peter andre would have the same bodyfat percentage at 60 as he did at 20 if he ate what he eat at 20... Reducing calories works to those who eat far too many.. But there are quite a few large people who don't eat far too many and eat pretty much the same as their thinner counterparts who are blessed with a much greater cellular turnover... One wears the Jammie dodger whilst the other doesn't, although both have a set point...[/p][/quote]And you are somone who has cooked up a wife in a convienient profession who posts at gone midnight. Either way i think we share a mutual disdain for the others opinions. However, my opinion is based in science not fiction. Fat people do not give birth to fat babys.. Fact ! ... Fat people are more prone to premature birth and low birth weight as a result ... Now i will agree that fat parents by and large have fat kids... Not as a result of your interpritation of genetics but because the parents impose their unhealthy eating habits on the poor children.... You idea that fat kids are not overfed is dangerously misinformed. Childhood obesity is on the rise and tantamount to abuse ! The idea that you loose muscle water and 'some fat' is also demonstribly wrong... Muscle is the last thing to be metabolised... On too the spurious peter andre ... You could indeed use him as an experiment to discover what diet did what to him, but you would have to do this concurrently ... You can of course as has been done many times use identical twins.. And guess what... Weight is directly linked to diet. As to the 2800 v 2000 did you mean to compare the same quantity ? Anyway just ot illustrate how hard it is for people to understand and correctly calculate their calotific intake. Ill use 1000.. Or a double whopper with cheese and coffee as its otherwise known... Thats equivilent to 1.3 lb of chicken breast. Lack of basic nutritional education makes it very easy for people to miscalculate their calorific intake and indeed completely mess up their macros. As for cellular turnover you will have to be more specifit as to the orgar to which you are reffering as the range accross the human body is massive. One thing remains true though... You get fat ... You die young... Get too fat and bits will fall of you through type 2 diabetes before you die. Calories in < calories out = weight gain.[/p][/quote]Actually you're right.. less cals in does result in weight loss.. weight being the operative word .. Fat loss on its own is somewhat a different animal.. For you to wholly disagree with this fact simply shows your lack of understanding irrespective of any scientific twaddle you come out with.. period! The fact was my original point was that two random people following the same diet and expending the same energy will NOT have the same bodyfat percentage.. You keep referring to simplistic calories in calories out.. making the point as if it's some kind of revelation (duh).. There are many studies/tests going on all the time in regard to why this is, as there are many factors involved, such as endocrine health etc.. Of course weight is lost if calories are reduced.. Again,weight being the operative word .. Retained water is the first to go, then after stored glycogen is depleted muscle is slowly broken down with a small amount of fat, unless more protein is consumed and stress is put on the muscular system through weight training.. this slows breakdown considerably, and as muscle is metabolically active as opposed to adipose tissue which is generally inert, a higher calorie intake is required.. To lose bodyfat body composition has to be changed, and that body composes of muscle water and (fat visceral and subcutenous).. the body is a survival mechanism and will first minimise musculature before resorting to it's final and highest energy reserve.. Fat.. Moreso if no fat is being ingested all the while... Bodyfat loss requires manipulation through diet and exercise.. Usually by stressing the muscular system to a degree where the body minimise its catabolism, then manipulating diet with fat and protein.. Carbs are usually the baddie and they are what's used to dip in and out of ketosis and because the body has a triglyceride intake and has muscle related stress through micro trauma (weight training) it will then utilise bodyfat reserves.. but adjustments to the type of macro/micro nutrients are required every 4 weeks as the body 'plateaus'.. This is why a competitive bodybuilder can get down to 3% bodyfat, whilst still registering as overweight on the scales.. But even them rules aren't totally set in stone as the body is such a complex blend.. Some bodybuilders for example can get 'shredded' on a shaky diet whereas others whom are mathematically applying every known facet in a bolt rigid fashion fail to get anywhere near... This shows that Fat loss is different in each individual.. I know what you're trying to say, laymans advice to the average joe who needs to lose a few pounds as anything deeper would go over his head, however you're wrong by further saying that all large people are eating more than their counterparts, as that's not always the case by a long shot.. And I once heard the best way to tell is by looking at their hands, the puffy hands being the over-eaters and lean hands not (how true that is I don't know!)[/p][/quote]Just read this incredible long & boring comment............. ......and i nearly fell asleep, luckily the dog barked and prevented me from waking up eight hours later. Incredible tedious. More to the point, very well done Charlie keep it up. Go for it. drainman

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree