| Author | Post |
|---|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 13 Jul 2011 01:36 am |
|
There have been many studies showing that the fat and obese have low IQ scores and impaired functioning. This is one of many.
Sure, being fat is not very smart but being fat actually makes you brain smaller.
There are a myriad of ramifications to this but now that you know you have no excuse you now have even more motivation to stop poisoning yourself with calories.
A new study finds obese people have 8 percent less brain tissue than normal-weight individuals. Their brains look 16 years older than the brains of lean individuals, researchers said today.
Those classified as overweight have 4 percent less brain tissue and their brains appear to have aged prematurely by 8 years.
The results, based on brain scans of 94 people in their 70s, represent ?óÔé¼?ôsevere brain degeneration,?óÔé¼?Ø said Paul Thompson, senior author of the study and a UCLA professor of neurology.
?óÔé¼?ôThat?óÔé¼Ôäós a big loss of tissue and it depletes your cognitive reserves, putting you at much greater risk of Alzheimer?óÔé¼Ôäós and other diseases that attack the brain,?óÔé¼?Ø said Thompson. ?óÔé¼?ôBut you can greatly reduce your risk for Alzheimer?óÔé¼Ôäós, if you can eat healthily and keep your weight under control.?óÔé¼?Ø
The findings are detailed in the online edition of the journal Human Brain Mapping.
Obesity packs many negative health effects, including increased risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and some cancers. It?óÔé¼Ôäós also been shown to reduce sexual activity.
More than 300 million worldwide are now classified as obese, according to the World Health Organization. Another billion are overweight. The main cause, experts say: bad diet, including an increased reliance on highly processed foods.
Obese people had lost brain tissue in the frontal and temporal lobes, areas of the brain critical for planning and memory, and in the anterior cingulate gyrus (attention and executive functions), hippocampus (long-term memory) and basal ganglia (movement), the researchers said in a statement today. Overweight people showed brain loss in the basal ganglia, the corona radiata, white matter comprised of axons, and the parietal lobe (sensory lobe).
?óÔé¼?ôThe brains of obese people looked 16 years older than the brains of those who were lean, and in overweight people looked 8 years older,?óÔé¼?Ø Thompson said.
Obesity is measured by body mass index (BMI), defined as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters. A BMI over 25 is defined as overweight, and a BMI of over 30 as obese.
The research was funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Center for Research Resources, and the American Heart Association.
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2011 12:28 am |
|
I didn't bother to read all of that, but whether it be true or not, I actually found that when I was fat, I was smarter. I wouldn't be as active, so my leisure time was spent doing things that required little movement, but developed keen intellectual skills beyond my age. I was also able to quickly and easily analyze and understand things most people could not at that point in time. I also even managed to graduate at the top of my class with honors. Not to promote obesity, or being fat at all, but I just found these research results laughable considering my own experiences.
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2011 12:51 am |
|
TheVonSays wrote: I didn't bother to read all of that, but whether it be true or not, I actually found that when I was fat, I was smarter. I wouldn't be as active, so my leisure time was spent doing things that required little movement, but developed keen intellectual skills beyond my age. I was also able to quickly and easily analyze and understand things most people could not at that point in time. I also even managed to graduate at the top of my class with honors. Not to promote obesity, or being fat at all, but I just found these research results laughable considering my own experiences.
Anecdotal experience of one person trumps hard science every time. What do scientists know?
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2011 12:57 am |
|
I know right? It's definitely an epidemic. Makes you really open your eyes. -_-
You seem to be the argumentative type. I love that type. Especially the ones with dormant issues. I find them to be particularly fun.
Last edited on 14 Jul 2011 12:59 am by TheVonSays
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2011 01:20 am |
|
TheVonSays wrote: I know right? It's definitely an epidemic. Makes you really open your eyes. -_-
You seem to be the argumentative type. I love that type. Especially the ones with dormant issues. I find them to be particularly fun.
Me to but when it come to issues of weight most people are snacks.
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2011 01:24 am |
|
I'd just attribute it to lack of exercise and poor choice of eating altogether. A snack doesn't make you obese, several contributing factors does. Question, How long have you been, or were you fat?
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2011 03:08 am |
|
TheVonSays wrote: I'd just attribute it to lack of exercise and poor choice of eating altogether. A snack doesn't make you obese, several contributing factors does. Question, How long have you been, or were you fat?
I am not fat. Never will be fat.
We know the physical causes but what makes them stay fat. I mean the go from a size 6 to an 8 to a 10 to a 12 and eventually a size 46. Why won't they put on the brakes sooner? What do you think?
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2011 04:19 am |
|
100% anecdotal but still scary and motivating:
Ran into my best friend from high school at the grocery store a couple of weeks ago. It's been 10+ years so of course I was enthusiastic to see her.
It was like her lights had gone out.  She's morbidly obese and has been since I met her back in HS. She seemed almost catatonic. Could this be what's going on?
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 14 Jul 2011 11:31 am |
|
The physical causes are the answers in it of themselves. Whatever you did to get you fat will keep you fat if you maintain all of those habits. Some people albeit in a lot of cases detrimental to health, continue the lifestyle because regardless of these health risks, they find that their lives would not be enjoyable otherwise. So, they tend to have that "we're all going to die anyway, why not enjoy it?" thinking. Same thing happens with smokers, alcoholics in some cases, and others. Having experienced and seen it, I can understand living recklessly. It's all the craze and for people who don't have an overbearing conscience on what the world thinks of them, it's even easier to embrace.
As for the fat question, I asked you this due to your seemingly obsessive compulsive patterns in terms of making fat topics, fat posts, and fat bashing. If you unconsciously do it, I'd assume you were just projecting, otherwise it's likely just the former term.Last edited on 14 Jul 2011 11:32 am by TheVonSays
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2011 02:59 am |
|
TheVonSays wrote: The physical causes are the answers in it of themselves. Whatever you did to get you fat will keep you fat if you maintain all of those habits. Some people albeit in a lot of cases detrimental to health, continue the lifestyle because regardless of these health risks, they find that their lives would not be enjoyable otherwise. So, they tend to have that "we're all going to die anyway, why not enjoy it?" thinking. Same thing happens with smokers, alcoholics in some cases, and others. Having experienced and seen it, I can understand living recklessly. It's all the craze and for people who don't have an overbearing conscience on what the world thinks of them, it's even easier to embrace.
As for the fat question, I asked you this due to your seemingly obsessive compulsive patterns in terms of making fat topics, fat posts, and fat bashing. If you unconsciously do it, I'd assume you were just projecting, otherwise it's likely just the former term.
This is a fat loss forum so people will post about fat and fatness.
I have not ridiculed fatlings. I have ridiculed their behavior and fattitudes.
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2011 12:23 pm |
|
| Correction, this is a "diet and weight loss" forum, not "Fat Loss". Weight to be lost is not always characterized by "fat". That is just yet another generalization by you because that's all you see, think of, or as I stated previously obsess over. More to the point, notice every topic posted here is not about "fat people" or scientific studies on why their fat. Well, the ones you post are at least. Which is a further credit to my point. Saying things like, "he or she only has this opinion because they're fat" is basically ridiculing them. Especially when the argument has nothing to do with actuality. You are for all intents and purposes a "fat troll". Your poor choice of insulting words, even those you create yourself, such as fattitude, are also reflections of your blatant bias and intention to offend. That is assuming your sedulous argumentative habits don't already. To your credit, some of your methods are with good purpose, but are clearly projections, ocd, or cacomorphobia. Last edited on 15 Jul 2011 12:25 pm by TheVonSays
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2011 01:40 pm |
|
TheVonSays wrote: Correction, this is a "diet and weight loss" forum, not "Fat Loss". Weight to be lost is not always characterized by "fat". That is just yet another generalization by you because that's all you see, think of, or as I stated previously obsess over. More to the point, notice every topic posted here is not about "fat people" or scientific studies on why their fat. Well, the ones you post are at least. Which is a further credit to my point. Saying things like, "he or she only has this opinion because they're fat" is basically ridiculing them. Especially when the argument has nothing to do with actuality. You are for all intents and purposes a "fat troll". Your poor choice of insulting words, even those you create yourself, such as fattitude, are also reflections of your blatant bias and intention to offend. That is assuming your sedulous argumentative habits don't already. To your credit, some of your methods are with good purpose, but are clearly projections, ocd, or cacomorphobia.
So you mean people also want to lose muscle and bone and water? Sorry pal, people here have an excess of adipose tissue aka FAT and they are here to lose it. Your assertion that people are here to shed something other than excessive fat that they have accumulated through years of irresponsible dietary habits is about as crazy as it gets. People are not here to lose anything but fat.
Have you ever heard of a paragraph?
Basically ridiculing them?
Here is some reality. 400,000+ Americans will die this year because of their eating habits. Some people would call that a holocaust. What you in your dishonest characterization of my position are calling an obsession is a deep concern. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for people who willfully and chronically eat with reckless abandon with little or no regard to the consequences to themselves and others.
I did not create the word fattiude. It is in the Urban Dictionary. Here is how they define it.
Fattitude: A combination of "Fat" and "Attitude"; the loud, boisterous, obnoxious arrogance often displayed by large and/or obese women. This is very common; many large women often try to overshadow their physical enormity with a similarly large and over-exaggerated large-and-in-charge attitude.
"Dude, that blubbery fat chick needs to shut up already. She's got a major case of fattitude.
Here is a more clinical definition of fattitude: Fattitude is a complex personality disorder that afflicts fat people. It manifests itself in many ways. Fattitude is a disorder that allows people to get fat, stay fat and get fatter. The question people ask is, what comes first, the fattitude or the fat? If you were to compare fattitude to the alcoholism model, you would probably be of the school of thought that says the alcoholic is/was an alcoholic long before he or she took his or her first drink. It could be looked at as one of those chicken or the egg things but I believe, as do others that alcoholism is in part inherited and multi-factorial in origin. The same is probably true for fattitude.
The clinical definition of fattitude: Fattitude is a pervasive pattern of arrogance, laziness, envy, egocentric behavior, poor impulse control, immaturity, rigid thinking, denial, gluttony and sloth.
Individuals with fattitude often display sense of entitlement while portraying themselves as tragic victims.
They are preoccupied with their own creature comforts with the major creature comfort being junk food. Food becomes more important to them than anything else and soon most of their social activities involve sitting and consuming food. They exhibit extreme hedonism as part of their daily routines. With these behaviors becoming more and common fattitude is becoming harder to recognize.
The Truth Offends
True? or False?
Most fat people did it to themselves?
Obesity is the result of chronic over eating?
Reduction of calories will reduce fat?
People who don't lose weight don't reduce calories?
People who get fat and stay fat eat too much?
People are not exempt from the laws of physics?
The foods people eat is a conscious choice?
Fat people can choose healthy foods but they?
An honest person would answer true to all the questions. The 7th question is key. Eating is indeed a conscious behavior. Fat people can choose healthy foods but they don't.
The truth is not ridicule and the truth is the truth. I simply don't mince words.
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2011 05:44 pm |
|
A story full of ignorance with a distracting picture to make it look better, hmm? People come here for all kinds of reasons. Being overweight does not always indicate you have an excess amount of fat. Someone could come here and ask a question regarding why they may feel heavy and the weight loss could be attributed to water weight, that is correct.
Your assertion that it's not a possibility solely due to the fact that you have an obsession or fear of everything that's fat is incorrect. The random "fact" about what's going to happen to thousands of people (which in no way strengthens the argument against your issues, but once again shows your obsession with the matter)was unnecessarily placed. Not to to mention, your once again overgeneralized "statistics" on the horrors of fat people in the world in no way aides a defense against your obvious dispositions.
For everyone who lacks the actual sense and would honestly attempt to use this in a defense, for future reference, ->URBAN DICTIONARY IS NOT A REAL DICTIONARY<- That's like going to someones university and citing wikipedia on a term paper, a big F is in your future. Open a standardized dictionary, if you find the word fattitude in it, I will gladly drop that as a case of your obvious bashing of these people and sheer ignorance.
I'm a psych major. I've been in it for a few years. Are you familiar with the DSM? I'll assume not. The DSM is basically a giant book and in some cases, a giant Database published by The American Psychiatric Association. In it you will find everything that has to do with neurological functions, terms, etc. In this database, which I have, you will not find fattitude, period. It wont even be listed under personality disorders. Why? Fattitude, no matter how you want to use it in your defense is not a word, or term that refers to any real standardized or clinically accepted term for disorder(s). So, whatever link on google you got that from, you might want to also reconsider that in the future.
Next and finally, fat people are fat because of many reasons. They could stem from personal neglect, they could also stem from sickness, or even problems from a wide array of medical and neurological functioning. I'm not even going to spend a story each explaining them all. However, I will once again say, your issues lie in the things I've already stated.
Also, your previous post, for any outside party that may be reading this, is a prime example of why you should not believe everything someone tells you. Even if they attempt to appear to be intellectuals. If you chose to embrace this mans entire post as actuality even with the "big picture" to spice up his post, then his ignorance and or lack of knowledge on all the things he addressed would become your ignorance. Seek the real answers, don't let googled answers seek them for you. That is all for today's lesson, sir.
P.S. You know, if this scientific study had any real weighing on the mental capacity of obese people, you'd likely be the biggest person here. Last edited on 15 Jul 2011 06:09 pm by TheVonSays
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2011 06:56 pm |
|
TheVonSays wrote: A story full of ignorance with a distracting picture to make it look better, hmm? People come here for all kinds of reasons. Being overweight does not always indicate you have an excess amount of fat. Someone could come here and ask a question regarding why they may feel heavy and the weight loss could be attributed to water weight, that is correct.
Being overweight often does indicate you have an excess amount of fat. People who retain water generally don't retain more than a few pounds. If they do the doctor will usually treat them for it. Nice try but its still not very honest.
Your assertion that it's not a possibility solely due to the fact that you have an obsession or fear of everything that's fat is incorrect. The random "fact" about what's going to happen to thousands of people (which in no way strengthens the argument against your issues, but once again shows your obsession with the matter)was unnecessarily placed. Not to to mention, your once again overgeneralized "statistics" on the horrors of fat people in the world in no way aides a defense against your obvious dispositions.
You should be a lawyer or write speeches for political hacks because this is some prime double talk.
One cannot over generalize statistics. They simply are what they are. Facts are facts. BTW, I see that English is not your first language. Why don't you write in your native tongue and I will translate.
As to the data on fat people. It is what it is. The costs of obesity are staggering and harming society. Childhood obesity is unacceptable. Over 400,000 Americans die form obesity and one in 50 die form gastric bypass surgery.
For everyone who lacks the actual sense and would honestly attempt to use this in a defense, for future reference, ->URBAN DICTIONARY IS NOT A REAL DICTIONARY<- That's like going to someones university and citing wikipedia on a term paper, a big F is in your future. Open a standardized dictionary, if you find the word fattitude in it, I will gladly drop that as a case of your obvious bashing of these people and sheer ignorance.
No duh Sherlock but it does make a point. Google fattitude. A lot of people have a lot to say about it. It is becoming a word. New words are added to dictionaries all the time. Obesogenic is now a word.
Behavior causes obesity. Attitudes dictate behaviors. Fat people have fattitude.
I'm a psych major. I've been in it for a few years. Are you familiar with the DSM? I'll assume not. The DSM is basically a giant book and in some cases, a giant Database published by The American Psychiatric Association. In it you will find everything that has to do with neurological functions, terms, etc. In this database, which I have, you will not find fattitude, period. It wont even be listed under personality disorders. Why? Fattitude, no matter how you want to use it in your defense is not a word, or term that refers to any real standardized or clinically accepted term for disorder(s). So, whatever link on google you got that from, you might want to also reconsider that in the future.
Fattitude should be in the DSM. IMO the DSM has gotten a lot wrong. The DSM contains diagnostic codes used for billing. It is written by shrinks for shrinks. It is very self-serving.
For a psych major you don't know much. The DSM does not have much about neurology. psychologists are not experts in neurology.
Next and finally, fat people are fat because of many reasons. They could stem from personal neglect, they could also stem from sickness, or even problems from a wide array of medical and neurological functioning. I'm not even going to spend a story each explaining them all. However, I will once again say, your issues lie in the things
You are BSing again. 100% of obesity is caused by eating too much and doing it all the time. You can't explain any of them because they are myths and excuses that I can shoot down.
I've already stated.
Also, your previous post, for any outside party that may be reading this, is a prime example of why you should not believe everything someone tells you. Even if they attempt to appear to be intellectuals. If you chose to embrace this mans entire post as actuality even with the "big picture" to spice up his post, then his ignorance and or lack of knowledge on all the things he addressed would become your ignorance. Seek the real answers, don't let googled answers seek them for you. That is all for today's lesson, sir.
P.S. You know, if this scientific study had any real weighing on the mental capacity of obese people, you'd likely be the biggest person here.
The fact is there have been many scientific studies on obesity.
ANSWERS???? Who has the answer? Not Atkins and the diet industry. Not the psychological industry and not the medical industry and neither do you. All you seem to have are excuses and double talk. I hope you choose another field other than mental health because if the verbal diarrhea that you posted here is any indication of the #%@&! you will be telling your patients all I can say is God help them. Send one of you professors here to debate me. You are woefully out of your league. I minored in psychology and have since studied the subject of human behavior in depth over the years.
My methods work and I can prove it on this forum. Bring the most intractable over eater here and I will knock out their fattitude right here for the world to see. I can even knock out your fattitude. Would you like a demonstration?
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2011 07:47 pm |
|
You have one given, that's the general reference for being overweight. It still does not discredit the various reasons people come here, nice try though.
That's actually an ironic comeback. Because I've always been so good at arguing with morons who tend to try and tell the world they know more than they do, I actually considered becoming a lawyer prior to declaring my major of psychology.
Your statistics are basically taken to the extreme based on the basic consensus for the study. That is an over-generalization. I like how you try to insult my English as a means of making your half-assed responses seem drastically more sensible. You do play the role of a typical internet moron very well. For that, I applaud the humor in your insolence.
The only point made in that previous story, coupled with a picture, is that you're an idiot. The entire basis for your argument came from misinterpreted, googled, words and expressions that hold no credible meaning. However, you tried to pass it off as such.
Fattitude is not in the DSM. In your opinion, fattitude is a word. For an idiot who knows little, you continue to prove my point valiantly. Neurological functions for all intents and purposes have to do with the brain. There are a vast amount of fields in the profession known as psychology. One of which, particularly focuses on neurological functions that each field may not in depth. Therefore, if you google your words some more, you may happen to realize that neurology in it of itself is nothing but categorizing, diagnosing, and the treating of things that have to do with the brain.
Contrary to your failed, 2-minute, googled research on the DSM, it contains a #%@&! of a lot more than codes used for billings. On top of that fact, the DSM is not only a reference for mental health and among mental health professionals, but it branches out to those who practice health in general.
100%? Really? This is of course solely the opinion of a fool who has no actual degree to his name. The guy who assures people that everything he says is fact based on the few seconds he spent googling and failing to spell check his entire arguments just to complete them with a monologue and a nice little picture? I expected silence after that last attempt, but the more you try, the more I'm sure I'm talking to a child. -_- Which is why I refuse to 1. heavily acknowledge your attempt to draw in a battle of words over the English language (typical) and 2. write a completely opposite story on diseases that can lead to massive weight gain.
Answers, in that context, refers to things that actually have to do with actuality. Not things, or words you create to suit your argument. I honestly don't have to send a mental health care professional to speak with an overbearing, pompous, mildly retarded, child who is in denial not only about the things he honestly comes up with, but the life he lives altogether.
You're easily angered by anyone who dares oppose your stupidity and I will credit that failed attempt at one-upping me to the fact that you don't have a leveled head. However, should you come up with a poorly put together, degrading story on why you're all-knowing, experienced and right, please, I beg of you, make it interesting or at the very least, factual.
#%@&! son, I'll even allow you to draw a picture. You like those, don't you? They really help you express yourself. Nothing sad though. The boredom you bring to this discussion with your idiocy is sad enough.
P.S. Honestly, I would like you to humor me. I wasn't aware being able to google search constitutes you to declare a major and receive a degree. How exactly did you manage that one, kid? Last edited on 15 Jul 2011 08:08 pm by TheVonSays
|
ItsOnlyMe
Member
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2011 09:20 pm |
|
I love the topic description of this thread:
Big bellies = Small brians
I know it's just a typo, and anyone of us could have done it, but it's still funny!
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 15 Jul 2011 09:25 pm |
|
Lol, don't point out the boys flaws. For all we know, Urban dictionary and the English language changed Brian from a name to the word brain. After all, "it's possible!"  Last edited on 15 Jul 2011 09:27 pm by TheVonSays
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 12:35 am |
|
@ TheVonSays,
It is a scientific fact that the obese have smaller brains and that is what this thread is about.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531487/The-greater-your-weight-the-lower-your-IQ-say-scientists.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060901164136.htm
http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/12/obesity-and-intelligence.html
You want to make this thread about me and deflect attention away from the fact that obesity makes people less intelligent and or less intelligent people become obese.
Here is some visual proof that low IQ and obesity go hand in hand.
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 12:51 am |
|
Ha, no I didn't. I actually spoke on several occasions in regards to it. At one point, (the first post I made) giving an example from my own experience. I even elaborated on it in other posts. I simply added an observation, from the outside looking in. I don't high-jack topics as a means to argue with someone, or troll someone who disagrees with me. That would be your m.o. Which is a common case with you and the other person you have such "meaningful" squabbles with in this section.
You have however surprised me in one instance. That would be not keeping up that sedulous manner. Realizing how hopeless the situation was to try and force your ignorance on me and changing your attempt, albeit futile, is a wise choice. Because it intrigues me, I'll pacify you and read up on this groundbreaking study, then give an opinion after reading it.
Edit: First link may have something. However, there are questions that need to be answered about the participants in order to draw any further conclusions. The second link starts with the "this an assumption" angle. Meaning, they'll likely speculate through the article and write some facts. Therefore, I did not read it. The third one, is opinionated with a couple of "facts" in regards to the subject matter.
I still see no concrete evidence. This could possibly be due to the fact that when I was fat, I had experiences that contradict these studies. So, my mind is already tainted, closed, and biased towards it. Or it could simply be that I'm not easily susceptible to everything I see or read about. I'm leaning toward the former.
SN: Ha, we're labeled 104. Also, the IQ chart and your links aren't even related. Unless, and I somehow doubt it, you pulled that link from a chart that shows where every obese person is in the US as opposed to where they are not. This then becomes a topic solely on IQs, without the obesity angle. (I was just poking fun at your blatant distraction pictures, you didn't have to post another, btw.)Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 01:25 am by TheVonSays
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 01:24 am |
|
TheVonSays wrote: Ha, no I didn't. I actually spoke on several occasions in regards to it. At one point, (the first post I made) giving an example from my own experience. I even elaborated on it in other posts. I simply added an observation, from the outside looking in. I don't high-jack topics as a means to argue with someone, or troll someone who disagrees with me. That would be your m.o. Which is a common case with you and the other person you have such "meaningful" squabbles with in this section.
You have however surprised me in one instance. That would be not keeping up that sedulous manner. Realizing how hopeless the situation was to try and force your ignorance on me and changing your attempt, albeit futile, is a wise choice. Because it intrigues me, I'll pacify you and read up on this groundbreaking study, then give an opinion after reading it.
Where do you come up with this inane canned drivel? You have 29 posts and most of them are directed at me. Why are you really here?
This topic is about obesity and brain atrophy -- one of the many downsides of gluttony. For instance, fat men are far more like to have erectile dysfunction. Here is another for instance. Fat women are far more likely to get yeast infections.
There are many studies that show that obese people have low IQs so it probably is caused by the extreme brain atrophy from which they suffer.
What makes you think I am trying to force anything on you? Don't flatter yourself. I am posting up factual data and you don't like it.
Again, why are you really here?
Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 01:25 am by JSABD
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 01:40 am |
|
I'm merely the can opener. You bring the drivel. The first step in walking away from your denial is admitting it. Now, my post count is in question. Oh me, oh my! Majority of them? Enough on the English, who's teaching you math, son? 
Just so I'm clear, this "fact" would be brought to us by all the fat men you've seen attempt to get erect? Yikes! I do not envy your sex life. Kidding!
It's not really a thought. When you post paragraph after paragraph of googled nonsense and try to pass it off as fact, then you're attempting to force your own stupidity on people. And just by glancing, I know that probably works on half the people you spark arguments with who don't even look into your #%@&! for themselves, or know better.
You actually just posted a 2 speculating links and one link where they did some studies on unspecified fat people. You're about as close to factual as you are to that google degree you went on about.
Contrary to the other lies told by fools, I've been here posting topics and responding to people who actually have come to embrace what their problems are and need help with them. If it took me 10 posts (this being the tenth) to "argue" with you, then I can "only imagine" what the other 118 came from.Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 01:41 am by TheVonSays
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 02:22 am |
|
TheVonSays wrote: I'm merely the can opener. You bring the drivel. The first step in walking away from your denial is admitting it. Now, my post count is in question. Oh me, oh my! Majority of them? Enough on the English, who's teaching you math, son?
Just so I'm clear, this "fact" would be brought to us by all the fat men you've seen attempt to get erect? Yikes! I do not envy your sex life. Kidding!
It's not really a thought. When you post paragraph after paragraph of googled nonsense and try to pass it off as fact, then you're attempting to force your own stupidity on people. And just by glancing, I know that probably works on half the people you spark arguments with who don't even look into your #%@&! for themselves, or know better.
You actually just posted a 2 speculating links and one link where they did some studies on unspecified fat people. You're about as close to factual as you are to that google degree you went on about.
Contrary to the other lies told by fools, I've been here posting topics and responding to people who actually have come to embrace what their problems are and need help with them. If it took me 10 posts (this being the tenth) to "argue" with you, then I can "only imagine" what the other 118 came from.
I bring the facts and the studies and you bring the spin and the BS. You have brought nothing that refutes anything I linked to other than spin.
1/3 of your posts have been directed at me.
You lie a lot. I posted more than two links to scientific university studies that show that obese people have smaller brains and lower IQs than normal people.
Here is a link to web MD http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20060831/extreme-obesity-in-tots-tied-to-low-iq
Here is a French study http://www.personalpowertraining.net/Articles/can_obesity_lower_your_iq.htm
Here is one to the NIH http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16520812
Here is one to Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218999,00.html
Here is a study that links low IQ to fat mothers http://nutrition-news.blogspot.com/2011/06/obesity-overweight-fat-pregnancy-risks.html
Here is one by the British Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/diet/articles/2011/02/08/health-buzz-junk-food-diet-may-lower-iq
Here is one form the University of Florida. http://news.ufl.edu/2006/08/30/morbid-obesity/
Here is one from the International Journal of Obesity http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v30/n9/full/0803279a.html
You know that these studies exist so your dishonest attacks on me show that not only are you intellectually dishonest but you are intellectually lazy.
How about you show one study that says fat people are smarter and have larger brains than normal people? You can't and you know it so all you can do is try to make it about the messenger and not the message. That is very pathetic and transparent. Grow up!
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 02:46 am |
|
| (Stopped at I bring the facts, realizing how redundant and purposely stupid that response would be)Yeah, yeah, cry all you want, kid. I've proven your obvious stupidity enough today. You posted some links and got a response aside from your failed attempts to argue your issues. Lazy? That's a possibility. Try again with another pair of googled links that it takes you hours to put together in the morning. Not really one to keep saying the same things over and over again. Here's the thing, everything I've said in regards to you, is true. The only thing that honestly disputes the claims of the topic itself that I have stated are the lack of evidence in the three previous links and my own personal experiences. Anything else that you create as a filler for your simple-minded responses, is clearly a lie in that regard and useless words. Wise men talk because they have something to say, fools talk because they always have to say something. Your diligence is admirable, but when it's backed by blind incompetence, it's nothing more than a wasted commodity. Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 02:47 am by TheVonSays
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 02:47 am |
|
TVS: some background on JSABD/Chris Brady: forum19/7657-2.html . See my last two posts in that thread.
I've argued with him here and on another board. But now I'm mostly done with that. He thrives on the attention and arguing with him is ultimately pointless. Even I've accepted that.
I like your username, btw.
Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 02:57 am by PuffsPlus
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 02:52 am |
|
ItsOnlyMe wrote: I love the topic description of this thread:
Big bellies = Small brians
I know it's just a typo, and anyone of us could have done it, but it's still funny!
IOM: and how especially ironic when this topic is about the allegedly higher intelligence of thin folks like the topic starter compared to us allegedly morally and intellectually inferior fatter folk.
What the topic title makes me think of: Anyone remember the 1988 Winter Olympics? Brian Boitano of the US and Brian Orser of Canada went skate-to-skate in the Men's Figure Skating event. Brian Boitano won gold and Orser won silver.
Anyhoo, NBC I think was carrying the Olympics. They ran an ad as a subtitle that night after their nightly news that was supposed to read, "Battle of the Brians on Ice Tonight!"
But someone typoed and it read, "Battle of the Brains on Ice Tonight!".
My late father (bless him) found that hilarious.
PS: Some background on that 1988 men's final: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=383RoLN-j9E
Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 03:25 am by PuffsPlus
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 02:58 am |
|
@puffs
Thank You,
I actually realized he was a troll the moment I saw his multiple posts. More to the point, I truly had no intention of further amusing myself with his ignorance. That would be why I'm currently going to sleep, lol. Once again, thanks for the background though. People like that truly are sad. Worst thing about it is, I sincerely tried to help him. Well, I'm off.
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 03:06 am |
|
TheVonSays wrote: @puffs
Thank You,
I actually realized he was a troll the moment I saw his multiple posts. More to the point, I truly had no intention of further amusing myself with his ignorance. That would be why I'm currently going to sleep, lol. Once again, thanks for the background though. People like that truly are sad. Worst thing about it is, I sincerely tried to help him. Well, I'm off.
You got buried by the facts and science and now you are cutting and running and trying to declare victory.
You know what's really sad? Liars and cowards who refuse to discuss the facts.
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 04:24 am |
|
LOl Somehow when I saw Big Bellies, Small Brians, the first mental Image that came up was Family Guy. There's gotta be something better on than Adult Swim this late at night 
|
ItsOnlyMe
Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 10:21 am |
|
A genuine question:
If it's true that our brains are smaller, and they age quicker (and I'm not taking sides on this one -I don't know if it's true or not), would it be reversed when one loses the weight? Or would it be too late? Even if it's too late, at least the brain wouldn't deteriorate any further I suppose.
Do you think it has anything to do with the type of food we eat. Some fish are called brain-food. If we eat a lot of junk food, it probably doesn't feed the brain what it needs, and that could be responsible for the brain's decline, rather than solely being the direct result of being fat. I don't know.
But healthy eating is the best option whether or not there are links to the brain's demise. I think most people on this forum are trying to eat healthily. We all have different nutrient ratios, etc., but at least we're eating healthily. That in itself makes this forum worth its space.
Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 10:22 am by ItsOnlyMe
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 01:53 pm |
|
TheVonSays wrote: (Stopped at I bring the facts, realizing how redundant and purposely stupid that response would be)Yeah, yeah, cry all you want, kid. I've proven your obvious stupidity enough today. You posted some links and got a response aside from your failed attempts to argue your issues. Lazy? That's a possibility. Try again with another pair of googled links that it takes you hours to put together in the morning. Not really one to keep saying the same things over and over again. Here's the thing, everything I've said in regards to you, is true. The only thing that honestly disputes the claims of the topic itself that I have stated are the lack of evidence in the three previous links and my own personal experiences. Anything else that you create as a filler for your simple-minded responses, is clearly a lie in that regard and useless words. Wise men talk because they have something to say, fools talk because they always have to say something. Your diligence is admirable, but when it's backed by blind incompetence, it's nothing more than a wasted commodity.
Of course you stopped at I bring the facts because facts are stubborn things and they put all your personal attacks to bed.
Like a typical liar who has lost the argument because you can't defeat the truth of the message you resort to attacking the messenger. You make typical Fox News style baseless accusations and tell outright lies and everyone here sees it except for you.
BTW, I thought you were done with me??? It would seem that you lack the self-control to move on. When I asked you to post a link to one study that shows fat people have larger brains and higher IQs and you can't. The science says that fat people have smaller brains and lower IQs and judging by the responses of you and Puffs, I tend to believe those many scientific studies. All the evidence points to the fact that fat and obese people have smaller brains, shorter lifespans and lower IQs. You cannot refute that so you make personal attacks that are pathetic and desperate.
Why can't you stick with the topic and the facts? I'll tell you why. You can;t because the facts and the science don't support your twisted fat acceptance sophistries so why don't you return to the death cult that is the Fatosphere and preach to the choir of lemmings and slip further into hatred and denial?
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 02:22 pm |
|
Why so much anger, child? You honestly went back into the topic to respond to something that was noticeably said prior to the post you made last night as if it were something new (and I'm the one trying to take away from the topic by talking about you, hmm?). Why? As history would show, you're a troll and a hypocrite. Your purpose here is to incite arguments on fat topics and insult people (A failed attempt, might I add).
You've said nothing to honestly refute the claims I've made in regards to your personal character. Instead, you've posted links in regards to the topic in an attempt to overshadow a proven point. To make it worse, even though I acknowledge(d) the topic discussion on countless occasions, whether it be that you're illiterate or for the sake of continuing the argument, you make claims that the topic is not being addressed at all.
If fat people have low IQs, then you're clearly long overdue for a personal aide. You've managed to get right below the recognized borderline of retardation. Everyone can see that? You're now projecting your thoughts onto the worlds views again. You cannot speak for people, you can only speak for yourself. Also, I haven't been considered fat in years. So, the fact you continue with that angle makes your current status questionable.
Here's what I think, you make topics to bash fat people because you in turn are fat. Whether they did something to upset you, or you have difficulty living with yourself, your perpetuated hate for them is clearly at this point, a reflection of who you are as a person.
You don't go to forum after forum to troll and get banned, telling people about your failed books and medical problems; You come to troll because it's a place for you to vent about your own problems. That's understandable, however don't sit here and waste peoples time with the same old boring stories about why your worlds so depressing. We get it already, kid. People both acknowledge and pity your existence. You've gained at least that much.
Now, what you're doing is trying to play on some type of pride and draw me further into this hopeless squabble of this is what I think. Luckily for you, it's the weekend. My schedule is clear. So, between resting and relaxing, I'll once again pacify your childish, obvious, antics and gain a bit of amusement in the process. Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 02:24 pm by TheVonSays
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 02:48 pm |
|
TheVonSays wrote: Why so much anger, child? You honestly went back into the topic to respond to something that was noticeably said prior to the post you made last night as if it were something new (and I'm the one trying to take away from the topic by talking about you, hmm?). Why? As history would show, you're a troll and a hypocrite. Your purpose here is to incite arguments on fat topics and insult people (A failed attempt, might I add).
You've said nothing to honestly refute the claims I've made in regards to your personal character. Instead, you've posted links in regards to the topic in an attempt to overshadow a proven point. To make it worse, even though I acknowledge(d) the topic discussion on countless occasions, whether it be that you're illiterate or for the sake of continuing the argument, you make claims that the topic is not being addressed at all.
If fat people have low IQs, then you're clearly long overdue for a personal aide. You've managed to get right below the recognized borderline of retardation. Everyone can see that? You're now projecting your thoughts onto the worlds views again. You cannot speak for people, you can only speak for yourself. Also, I haven't been considered fat in years. So, the fact you continue with that angle makes your current status questionable.
Here's what I think, you make topics to bash fat people because you in turn are fat. Whether they did something to upset you, or you have difficulty living with yourself, your perpetuated hate for them is clearly at this point, a reflection of who you are as a person.
You don't go to forum after forum to troll and get banned, telling people about your failed books and medical problems; You come to troll because it's a place for you to vent about your own problems. That's understandable, however don't sit here and waste peoples time with the same old boring stories about why your worlds so depressing. We get it already, kid. People both acknowledge and pity your existence. You've gained at least that much.
Now, what you're doing is trying to play on some type of pride and draw me further into this hopeless squabble of this is what I think. Luckily for you, it's the weekend. My schedule is clear. So, between resting and relaxing, I'll once again pacify your childish, obvious, antics and gain a bit of amusement in the process.
This thread is not about me liar it is about the fact that people like you and Puffs ie fat people have smaller brains and lower IQs and so far you cannot refute the science.
Keep posting because you keep proving my point.
You are not amused. You are humiliated and that's a start. You need some humility.
I did not conduct the many many studies that prove fat people have lower IQs and smaller brains and if stating a fact is fat bashing then so be it. I think stating a fact is merely stating a fact and since you hate facts and are immune to the truth you are going to have a dishonest and childish reaction.
ONCE AGAIN LIAR Post a link to one study that refutes the data in the links I posted. You can't and you know it so you resort to lies and personal attacks. That is about all you fat acceptance girls can do besides eat junk food and then lie about that.
Fat and fit! This is a NAAFA girl.
Here is a prime example of HAES Health At Every Size. These girls only eat healthy foods but because of years of dieting their metabolic set points have dropped that if they eat even one calories the will gain 10 pounds. Now just breathing makes them gain weight. The are breatharians.
If only farmers could figure out how to get live stock to live only on air or miniscule amounts of feed like these sexy sows.
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 02:55 pm |
|
Dipping in here to make a relevant point:
It is wholly incorrect to assert that scientific studies "prove" something. The word "proof" is really only applicable to the realm of mathematics.
What scientific studies do is provide evidence in support of a hypothesis. But that is not the same thing as proof. Empirical evidence is the best means we have of supporting a given conclusion, but the results of studies can be influenced by so many things, including the study methods used, how big the sample sizes are, the confounding variables.
Also, scientists are extremely careful when discussing the causality of something. For example, even if there is evidence that overweight and obese people may have smaller brains, this doesn't mean that being fat destroys your brain. The arrow of causality may go the other way, or there could be one causal factor behind both. Or, the correlation could be mere coincidence with no relation at all.
It is also important to remember that statistical generalities are just that--generalities. While obese people may tend to have evidence of neurological impairment in one study, that doesn't mean all of them do. You can't draw a conclusion about any single individual based on a statistical generality.
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 02:59 pm |
|
| Back to the pictures, I see? There isn't much in terms of interest when it comes to your repetitive posts. So, the pictures are yet again a visual distraction from that. I didn't say the thread was about you. I'm starting to think you are illiterate. I stated that I addressed the topic and you. I also stated, you're offended because you are fat. Which is likely the case due to your obsession with the matter. That didn't even require much thought. Try harder, kid. And next time, stop using my references to you as a defense for yourself against me. I know you lack the competence needed to generate an argument that isn't created from your own #%@&! or someone else's, but really?
|
ItsOnlyMe
Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 04:00 pm |
|
JSABD wrote:
if they eat even one calorie they will gain 10 pounds. Now just breathing makes them gain weight. They are breatharians.
If only farmers could figure out how to get live stock to live only on air or miniscule amounts of feed like these sexy sows.
That's actually quite funny! Made me laugh! Love the pics!Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 05:24 pm by ItsOnlyMe
|
ItsOnlyMe
Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 05:27 pm |
|
JSABD wrote:
people like you . . . ie fat people have smaller brains and lower IQs and so far you cannot refute the science.
TheVonSays is not fat anymore! Re-read the post!Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 05:28 pm by ItsOnlyMe
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 07:01 pm |
|
PuffsPlus wrote: Dipping in here to make a relevant point:
It is wholly incorrect to assert that scientific studies "prove" something. The word "proof" is really only applicable to the realm of mathematics.
What scientific studies do is provide evidence in support of a hypothesis. But that is not the same thing as proof. Empirical evidence is the best means we have of supporting a given conclusion, but the results of studies can be influenced by so many things, including the study methods used, how big the sample sizes are, the confounding variables.
Also, scientists are extremely careful when discussing the causality of something. For example, even if there is evidence that overweight and obese people may have smaller brains, this doesn't mean that being fat destroys your brain. The arrow of causality may go the other way, or there could be one causal factor behind both. Or, the correlation could be mere coincidence with no relation at all.
It is also important to remember that statistical generalities are just that--generalities. While obese people may tend to have evidence of neurological impairment in one study, that doesn't mean all of them do. You can't draw a conclusion about any single individual based on a statistical generality.
Evidence furnishes proof.
The scientific method states a hypothesis and then attempts to disprove it or it uses observation. Many scientific studies have demonstrated that fat people on average have smaller brains and lower IQs. The evidence is overwhelming.
This is not a coincidence. It is reality. Prove that birds have wings. Using your definition of proof seeing creatures called birds flapping their wings and flying is not proof that birds have wings.
Puffs, the proof is there. Birds have wings and fat people eat too much and they have smaller brains and lower IQs. To deny that is to deny that birds have wings.
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 07:04 pm |
|
ItsOnlyMe wrote: JSABD wrote:
people like you . . . ie fat people have smaller brains and lower IQs and so far you cannot refute the science.
TheVonSays is not fat anymore! Re-read the post!
What someone says and what they truth is may be two different things.
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 07:15 pm |
|
TheVonSays wrote: Back to the pictures, I see? There isn't much in terms of interest when it comes to your repetitive posts. So, the pictures are yet again a visual distraction from that. I didn't say the thread was about you. I'm starting to think you are illiterate. I stated that I addressed the topic and you. I also stated, you're offended because you are fat. Which is likely the case due to your obsession with the matter. That didn't even require much thought. Try harder, kid. And next time, stop using my references to you as a defense for yourself against me. I know you lack the competence needed to generate an argument that isn't created from your own #%@&! or someone else's, but really?
You are the one on the defense.
Illiterate? il?é?Àlit?é?Àer?é?Àate ( -lt  r-t)adj. Unable to read and write.
You cited ZERO references.
Maybe you should try writing without using vulgarity. How uncouth!
So Von what do you have to say about the fact that many many studies show that fat people have smaller brains and lower IQs than normal one?
Do you think that Chris Brady is behind all those studies. What do you think Puffs? Is Chris Brady behind those many studies?
|
ItsOnlyMe
Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 07:20 pm |
|
JSABD wrote:
Prove that birds have wings. Using your definition of proof seeing creatures called birds flapping their wings and flying is not proof that birds have wings.
Puffs, the proof is there. Birds have wings and fat people eat too much and they have smaller brains and lower IQs. To deny that is to deny that birds have wings.
Stop talking about birds and wings! You're making everybody feel hungry!!  Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 07:21 pm by ItsOnlyMe
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 07:20 pm |
|
IOM,
Psychiatrist Daniel Amen, MD would say that a combination of diet, exercise, supplements, and brain exercises would help minimize or reverse the damage. There's controversy on both sides but it's interesting.Fortunately there's no harm done by those things, so there's really nothing to lose.
|
ItsOnlyMe
Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 07:26 pm |
|
Tankgirl wrote:
IOM,
Psychiatrist Daniel Amen, MD would say that a combination of diet, exercise, supplements, and brain exercises would help minimize or reverse the damage. There's controversy on both sides but it's interesting.Fortunately there's no harm done by those things, so there's really nothing to lose.
That's true,
No matter what the truth is about fatness and IQ, eating right and exercising can only have good results. That's a good point about exercising the brain. I suppose a crossword or a sudoku a day helps. I think our brains probably get plenty of exercise reading the posts on this forum!!
|
TheVonSays
New Member
| Joined: | 13 May 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 40 |
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 07:28 pm |
|
Case and point, your denial over being fat. "You're the one on the defense" <-- That's the best you can do? What's next? I know you are but what am I? -_-
I'm glad myself and google have helped to expand your understanding of vocabulary words. It really does warm the heart . The fact you keep asking the same questions for answers that are in front of your eyes would indicate your relation to the term.
Lets break down the word reference(s) in the given context to aide the stupid. We must first start with the word, "refer". What does it mean to refer? I'm sure google can help you out. Now, make that refer into reference. Afterward, you take the statement "making reference(s) to you" and what do you have? A butt load of common sense!
|
Tankgirl
Distinguished Member
| Joined: | 1 Jul 2011 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 538 |
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 07:31 pm |
|
| The great thing about Dr. Amen is he states that different diets work better for different people - certainly looks like what goes on in this forum :D
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 10:07 pm |
|
Tankgirl wrote: IOM,
Psychiatrist Daniel Amen, MD would say that a combination of diet, exercise, supplements, and brain exercises would help minimize or reverse the damage. There's controversy on both sides but it's interesting.Fortunately there's no harm done by those things, so there's really nothing to lose.
I am familiar with Amen's work with brain mapping. How the brain functions can be changed but dead cells be they glial or neurons once they are gone they are gone.
Good nutrition will prevent cell loss and improve synaptic action and balance neurotransmitters.
What happens with fat people is that the frontal lobe atrophies and that is part of the brain that controls impulse and is responsible for planning. Impulse control is essential for staying on a diet and avoiding temptation. Being that many fat people have a diminished capacity for impulse control. That will kill a weight loss attempt.
Another problem they face is that the constantly reward themselves with what would be treats for normal people so they develop a pattern of unwarranted rewards. That cause a sense of entitlement. I call that fattitude.
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 10:22 pm |
|
JSABD wrote:
Another problem they face is that the constantly reward themselves with what would be treats for normal people so they develop a pattern of unwarranted rewards. That cause a sense of entitlement. I call that fattitude.
What scientific evidence can you point to in order to support this conclusion? You make this assertion everywhere you go, but you have never (that I have seen) cited anything to support it.
Your assertion is that people who often reward themselves with something pleasurable (in this case, food) develop a sense of entitlement and high self-esteem.
But that's not a logical conclusion. If that were true, teenage boys who masturbate several times a day would have a tremendous sense of entitlement and extremely high self esteem from rewarding themselves with frequent orgasms. Yet I have never seen any data that supports this; in fact, teenage boys are frequently noted for having low self-esteem, not high self-esteem.
Also, why should this sense of entitlement be limited to fat people? Any type of addict or anyone who rewards himself or herself with frequent pleasurable stimuli such as orgasms, expensive shopping sprees, cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol should also display this alleged strong sense of entitlement as well. That doesn't square with what I've seen and experienced in real life. Some addicts act entitled. Some don't.
It's more likely that in the relationship between entitlement and self-reward, the arrow of causation points the other way. People with a sense of entitlement leads them to frequently self-reward.
But with tasty food or other primal stimulation like orgasms, it's more logical that people simply choose them because they taste or feel good. No sense of entitlement required. Use Occam's Razor: choose the simplest explanation that makes sense.
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 10:26 pm |
|
JSABD wrote:
What happens with fat people is that the frontal lobe atrophies and that is part of the brain that controls impulse and is responsible for planning. Impulse control is essential for staying on a diet and avoiding temptation. Being that many fat people have a diminished capacity for impulse control. That will kill a weight loss attempt.
Again, the causality here could be going the other way. People with naturally diminished abilities in the frontal lobe and thus who experience more natural difficulty with impulse control could simply be more likely to develop obesity.
The fact that obesity actually causes brain diminishment is not established solidly by one single study. Remember, determining causation is MUCH harder than correlation.
Last edited on 16 Jul 2011 10:31 pm by PuffsPlus
|
JSABD
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 16 Jul 2011 11:55 pm |
|
PuffsPlus wrote: JSABD wrote:
Another problem they face is that the constantly reward themselves with what would be treats for normal people so they develop a pattern of unwarranted rewards. That cause a sense of entitlement. I call that fattitude.
What scientific evidence can you point to in order to support this conclusion? You make this assertion everywhere you go, but you have never (that I have seen) cited anything to support it.
Your assertion is that people who often reward themselves with something pleasurable (in this case, food) develop a sense of entitlement and high self-esteem.
But that's not a logical conclusion. If that were true, teenage boys who masturbate several times a day would have a tremendous sense of entitlement and extremely high self esteem from rewarding themselves with frequent orgasms. Yet I have never seen any data that supports this; in fact, teenage boys are frequently noted for having low self-esteem, not high self-esteem.
Also, why should this sense of entitlement be limited to fat people? Any type of addict or anyone who rewards himself or herself with frequent pleasurable stimuli such as orgasms, expensive shopping sprees, cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol should also display this alleged strong sense of entitlement as well. That doesn't square with what I've seen and experienced in real life. Some addicts act entitled. Some don't.
It's more likely that in the relationship between entitlement and self-reward, the arrow of causation points the other way. People with a sense of entitlement leads them to frequently self-reward.
But with tasty food or other primal stimulation like orgasms, it's more logical that people simply choose them because they taste or feel good. No sense of entitlement required. Use Occam's Razor: choose the simplest explanation that makes sense.
The evidence in the brain scans are clear. They have smaller frontal lobes and less dendrites. That is the neurological mechanism of self control and in the brains of the fat and obese that function is deficient.
As humans we are driven to eat a variety of foods. Some very clever food companies have know this for years. They know how to stimulate appetite and impulse. The have it down to a science. Have you ever heard of a blue plate special? Restaurants offered that for years because blue plates dull appetites. There is a reason for that. It is deep in our brains. It is evolution. Most blue things are not palatable. Seeing blue turns off appetite.
Processed food stimulates other parts of the brain more than natural foods. What happens is powerful pleasures stimulate the production of serotonin and dopamine. Eventually the cells create more receptor sites so more stimulation is needed. People call it head hunger.
Some people resist it and others don't. Hunger is a powerful drive but it is an animal drive.
I have not read any studies that I can post a link to but I can tell you with some confidence that usually by six months of abstaining from junk food the cells return to normal. Behavior is another story. If the impulse control is compromised that needs to be worked on and the approach is multidisciplinary.
Calorie reduction must be done is a way that is minimally disruptive. That means gradually with frequent meals. The food has to be clean and wholesome, nutritionally dense and bulky.
There is a difference between the brain of fat people and lean ones and it will show up on scans. We lean people think differently. You don't catch us saying stuff like, "I'm starving" We place nutrition first. Most of us don't watch the Food Network. (Porn for fat people)
Puffs, if you are serious about losing weight and I hope you are it is something you probably can do successfully if you had the tools. One tool is a good nutritional plan. Iy is a plan that you need to design on your own but it must adhere to some simple basic guidelines.
Guidelines: .5 grams of protein per pound of body weight. A lot of raw food. No processed food. Eat at your BMR and no less. Eat 6 or 7 times a day whether you want to or not.
Drop your defense and and tell me any and all valid reason for why you cannot adhere to those eating guidelines? I don't want to here any theories about furnaces and some other other stuff in your head. Just focus on that question.
I promise you that if you are civil to me I will be civil to you. In this thread. If you want to throw stones and talk at each other let's do it in another thread. We have plenty of time to talk trash to each other.
If you are serious about losing weight I really can appreciate how disheartening it is when you fail. The fact that you failed did show one thing. You tried.
People fail for several reasons.
1. A bad nutritional and eating plan
2. Unwillingness to comply
3. Wrong mindset
4. Wrong motivations
5. Not controlling hunger
6. A belief that it can't be done
All of the above
Think about these reasons and search your brain for a solution. Think about why you failed and how to prevent those stumbling blocks from tripping you up this time.
If you have any sincere questions ask them.
|
PuffsPlus
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 12:18 am |
|
I'm not debating that there are studies demonstrating diminished frontal lobes in the obese, Chris. What I'm arguing is that the evidence that being fat *causes* diminished frontal lobes is certainly not conclusive. It's a premise that needs further study. Establishing causality requires far more evidence *and* a plausible mechanism for how the proposed cause A results in the effect B.
And once again, you are overgeneralizing when you claim "fat people have low IQs". Brain scans of the obese *tend* to show some diminished brain tissue in the obese, but that doesn't mean every obese's person brain shows this.
JSABD wrote: We lean people think differently. You don't catch us saying stuff like, "I'm starving" We place nutrition first.
Demonstrably false. I know plenty of lean people who have said something like, "I'm starving". You go without food too long, your blood sugar goes too low....you feel very strong hunger pangs. You say something like, "I could eat a horse." or "I'm starving."
As for putting nutrition first: Also demonstrably false. My former coworker was lean and ate junk food every single day of the two years I worked with him. He always ate a Snickers bar for breakfast and Burger King for lunch. His overall caloric intake was just low enough that he stayed lean. I'm sure being very tall helped him too.
There's a guy famous for eating two Big Macs per day EVERY DAY for the past 20+ years. He's lean too. I think that's because the two Big Macs are all he eats every day.
Most people, fat or lean, do not place nutrition first. Much like most people having sex in Western countries are doing so for reasons other than reproduction.
Most of us don't watch the Food Network. (Porn for fat people)
I would argue that "porn for fat people" constitutes the barrage of fast food ads you see during regular TV programming. One of the significant reasons behind the rising obesity in the US is the vastly increased amount of already-prepared food eaten outside the home.
The Food Network heavily features instructions on food preparation, i.e. cooking. If more fat people watched the Food Network and started cooking at home from scratch because of it, it would probably cause them to lose weight, not gain it.
Guidelines: .5 grams of protein per pound of body weight. A lot of raw food. No processed food. Eat at your BMR and no less. Eat 6 or 7 times a day whether you want to or not.
I actually think that might be a tad too much protein for me at this point. Would be very difficult to adhere to this guideline without using a protein powder and while only eating 1400-1600 cals per day. I'm trying to stick with natural foods at the moment.
The guideline to eat lot of raw food doesn't work for me either. I don't really like raw food except for raw fruit. To stay on a diet, I have to eat food I like. Raw tomatoes, raw spinach, raw green beans, raw bell peppers: yuck. Steam them, boil them, roast them, sautee them: yum.
I generally eat 5 times a day: three meals, two snacks. That's what my nutritionist recommended. Again, it works for me.
Drop your defense and and tell me any and all valid reason for why you cannot adhere to those eating guidelines? I don't want to here any theories about furnaces and some other other stuff in your head. Just focus on that question.
But asking me this is pointless, because you've made it clear over and over again that you believe there is no valid reason for saying, "No". You also believe that all fat people should lose weight by adhering to your one-size-fits-all dietary approach. You have claimed that fat people adhere to "rigid thinking", yet you prescribe one single dietary plan for weight loss.
As for asking you "sincere questions": why would I? You're a designer of heating and cooling systems by trade, an engineer. You do not have a medical degree like Yoni Freedhoff or Walter Willett or a degree in nutrition like Marion Nestle, PhD. You're not a professional scientific researcher or statistician. Nor are you a physiologist. You are an armchair diet coach who can't get his diet book published. In short, you're not any type of professional authority on the science of losing weight.
I would rather ask "sincere questions" of someone who has the professional scientific and/or medical background to give informed answers. Such as my nutritionist, for instance.
Last edited on 17 Jul 2011 09:01 am by PuffsPlus
|
suenos
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 17 Jul 2011 12:45 am |
|
Funny thing about studies and statistics. I've always been a junkie for reading any thing research related. Since this thread has a lot studies being cited back and forth I like to share, without sounding (I hope) super preachy, a couple of thoughts about studies found on the Internet (which are generally abstracts, exacts and articles abot, but not the full studies themselves, complete with raw data used).
Full disclosure. I'm not a statistician, a scientist, a researcher. I don't have a graduate degree and have no plans (shudder) to ever go to grad school or take another college course. In fact I am an event planner and spend my working life helping people with too much money spend that money in some fairly silly ways. BUT once upon a time I majored in Psychology, dropped out (cause I'm a slacker like that) and a couple years ago went back and complete a degree in Sports Nutrition...between these two majors I had a bunch of classes related in one way or another to research and statistics.
Three that come to mind are: 1) Statistics (boring, boring...and um, boring), 2) a class where we actually had to form a simple theory and then design/run a study to test the theory (fun) and 3) a class where we had to write the world's longest paper based on "The effiacy of ABC treatment on XYZ condition" based on a review of as many studies and peer reviews available the subject (by the time I turned in that paper I had a burning hatred of fine print and footnotes).
And...what's the point? Well, based on my admittedly limited formal education on the subject, my opinion is that the saying "numbers don't lie" is a lie when it comes to statistics and taking any study at face value. IMO the primary problems are:
1) Depending on a large number of factors (including the very words you chose) information based on "statistics" can be highly misleading....sometimes deliberately so. Not to be all "consiracy theory" but even a modest research project is expensive, and large scale, long term, double-blind studies are very, very expensive - it's always a good idea to question both who funded the particular study and what was financially at stake in reaching certain conclusions.
2) The smaller and/or more specialized the study sample, the less useful the study for the general population. A good example of this are the early studies on daily aspirin therapy - the subjects were primarily men, but the findings were often assumed (falsely) to apply to the general population regardless of gender.
3) There is a huge danger of confusing correlation with causation. The example I always think of was a study done many years ago that showed female lab rats fed very low calorie diets and kept at a certain % under normal weight significantly outlived their normal weight counterparts. On the face of it, it makes sense to connect the dots and conclude that eating fewer calories and being underweight led to their longer lifespans. BUT, what was not mentioned, is that rats who give birth have generally have shorter life spans than rats who give birth - and, surprise, surprise, the underweight rats did not give birth during the study and the normal weight rats did. So, although there was a correlation between the rats being underweight and their longevity, it can't be determined as the causation in this particular study because a nn controlled random factor (fertility) was present which influenced the outcome.
Bottom line...IMO, reading studies, especially on the on the Internet. is fun and can actually be super useful, but drawing any real conclusions (i.e. being fat makes you dumb) should probably be avoided.
Just my (very, very long) 2 cents.
Last edited on 17 Jul 2011 12:48 am by suenos
|
Current time is 09:24 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
