"Americans Exercise More....Obesity Rates Still Climbing"
Replies
-
orangegato wrote: »Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »I will say the amount of people on rascal scooters during my last visit to Disneyland was insane...
Literally an explosion of these things over the last several years...
The majority did not appear to even need them for any particular reason
@Mr_Healthy_Habits
The Disney parks would bump you to the front of the line if you were in a wheelchair/scooter. This was like 15-20 years ago. Not sure if that still occurs now, but if so, people will abuse it.
I'm from Orlando, and recall that Disney began cracking down on this abuse a few (3 or 4, IIRC) years ago. People were renting wheelchairs just for the purpose of skipping the lines, because the disability entrances take you straight to the ride. Not sure what the current policy is now, though.
3 -
orangegato wrote: »Mr_Healthy_Habits wrote: »I will say the amount of people on rascal scooters during my last visit to Disneyland was insane...
Literally an explosion of these things over the last several years...
The majority did not appear to even need them for any particular reason
@Mr_Healthy_Habits
The Disney parks would bump you to the front of the line if you were in a wheelchair/scooter. This was like 15-20 years ago. Not sure if that still occurs now, but if so, people will abuse it.
I'm from Orlando, and recall that Disney began cracking down on this abuse a few (3 or 4, IIRC) years ago. People were renting wheelchairs just for the purpose of skipping the lines, because the disability entrances take you straight to the ride. Not sure what the current policy is now, though.
https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/disney-parks-disability-access-service-card-fact-sheet/
It looks as if you no longer go to the head of the line, but you avoid waiting in lines by checking in and getting a time to come back and get on the ride. I think they're trying to balance the needs of guests with a need for disability access with countering the abuse that was taking place.1 -
MegaMooseEsq wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't know what the comparison date was, but if we are going back significant years, I don't think Americans exercise more is true. We may go to the gym more or do things we call "working out" more, but we are likely far less active in our daily lives (on average) even so.
Re CI vs CO, it doesn't make sense to say one side is more important or 80% or whatever. The problem is that if you don't do something (it doesn't have to be counting calories) to control calories in, and if you live in an environment like ours where eating is super easy and cheap, then increasing exercise may just result in eating more. Especially since many think exercise burns more calories than it does and will see that as an excuse to eat more indulgently.
I've lost weight just by increasing exercise, but it happened when my eating was already under control, so I didn't start eating more without realizing it. And I was truly exercising quite a lot (tri training)--many of the studies showing exercise does not help do things like taking someone out of shape and having them walk on a treadmill for an hour, which is both boring (people feel like it was more work than it was, since they hated it, and think they deserve a reward, food) and doesn't burn many calories.
It looks like the report is comparing numbers from Jan-Sept 2017 back to 1997. Given that time frame, it actually doesn't surprise me that physical activity would be up. I'd be curious specifically how many more people work out at home given the rise of free or inexpensive (at least compared to gym membership) online services.
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/EarlyRelease201803.pdf
ETA: The charts for "leisure-time physical activity" start on page 43 and show a distinct jump for people meeting the aerobic activity recommendation starting in 2009 with a general upward trend since then. The response for meeting aerobic plus strength recommendations is on page 46 and shows a general upward trend since 1997, although overall numbers are lower.
I assume this is largely or entirely based on self reports. Perhaps a chunk of the exercise-increase statistical result arises from people gradually starting, around 2009, to feel better about themselves if they delude themselves into believing they routinely exercise, or simply wanting to look more respectable by lying about it?
I'm curious about the self-reporting aspect of this too. My unscientific gut feeling is that people are probably not more likely to over-report now than in 1997 or 2007, but I genuinely don't know. I do know that over the last ten years, internet use has become incredibly widespread and has brought a lot of free resources that didn't previously exist. Yes, there's woo, but there's helpful information too. I think the younger generations (I'm an old Millennial personally) value walk-able neighborhoods and are genuinely concerned about the environment, and that goes hand-in-hand with increased health and fitness. I'd be curious to see the age group trends. I guess I feel like with all the crazy in the world these days, I want to cling to something positive out of all this.
Over my adult life (I'm 62) I feel like exercise has become more a thing that people feel they should do, which I think could bias self-reporting. I'm talking more about a gradual 30-year difference, vs a 10-15 year shift.
This is subjective: I have no data, and it would certainly vary by location and subculture.
Personally, I come from a rural, lace-curtain blue collar background, but later worked & socialized in a white-collar context in/near a mid-sized city, all of it in the US Great Lakes region.
Exaggerating a little, my childhood environment tended to look at exercise as something for richer people who didn't have real work: Why wouldn't they just go cut & stack a couple of cords of wood, or hoe the garden? Poor them!
My early working years (mid/late 1970s) were kind of the trailing edge of the 3-martini lunch era, but lived in more of a pitchers-of-beer social context. People might play a round of golf on the weekend or something, but it wasn't until later (late 1980s or 1990s, maybe) that it became common for co-workers to run, swim, or play basketball/volleyball at lunch. I'd say it was a bit later even for bicycle commuting to stop being a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, with early adopters mostly among the younger/lower-paid, even though the environment here (geography, roads) would've made it feasible for many through the whole time (Spring through Fall, anyway).
Over the same period (1960s to now), it also seems like the average handsome/beautiful admired celebrity has become a bit more buff/fit, and thise parts of their lifestyles more publicized.
So, it seems like there's more expectation around me that including some form of exercise in one's life is what good, responsible, admirable adults do. I feel like that could increase the chance that self-reporting might be biased by perceptions that "good people exercise, and I'm a good person", turning the occasional tennis game, bike ride, and Zumba class into a self-perception that "I work out".
I'm not trying to diss anybody here, not saying people are lying, merely that we all may tend a bit to let perceived social norms inflate our best intentions into reported realities.
On the other hand - around here, at least - the number and diversity of gyms and other workout locations/businesses have really burgeoned over the last 10-20 years. Someone is supporting them. Whether they're attending them or not is another question, though they appear busy. No way to know how much of their patronage is people who would've been active in another way, anyway (especially as so many other formerly home/personal activities and possessions are being outsourced to businesses).
That's a good point about the increased awareness of the importance of exercise contributing to over-reporting. But it's also a good point that there are a lot more gyms/yoga studios/whatever around now, and theoretically they're paying the rent somehow! I live in one of those younger, hipper (hippie-er?), bike-crazy cities in one of the healthiest states in the US, so my perspective is definitely skewed. I don't think people are lying, either, but it's certainly easy enough to "pad your numbers" intentionally or unintentionally.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I honestly have no desire to discuss OP further as if she weren't here. If you wouldn't speak these things while standing next to someone face-to-face, you shouldn't say it online. There's the "brutal truth," the "sugar coated truth," and a whole lot of room for tact in between.
If anyone truly cares I'm beyond happy to have an open discussion privately through direct message.
I don't think anyone is discussing OP . . .
Right. Not OP. You know who I mean. I don't even want to say her name. This has gone on long enough.
I always recommend disengaging from a thread if you find it stressful or unpleasant. It's easier to do that than to control what others discuss or where a conversation goes. It seems like that is where this is going for you, so it may be something to consider.
I reacted the way I did because my perception was that the attitude was leaning more towards bullying than genuine information sharing, judgment and ridicule over help.
Anyway, you read my mind. Enjoy your evening.
9 -
I think part of the problem is two fold. 1. Manufacturers make more money selling gym equipment than telling you to count calories. 2. Packaged food providers make more money selling you prepackaged food than telling you to go get a BMI table and figure out how many calories you can eat a day and lose 1# / week. (Thank you, myfitnesspal)2
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I honestly have no desire to discuss OP further as if she weren't here. If you wouldn't speak these things while standing next to someone face-to-face, you shouldn't say it online. There's the "brutal truth," the "sugar coated truth," and a whole lot of room for tact in between.
If anyone truly cares I'm beyond happy to have an open discussion privately through direct message.
I don't think anyone is discussing OP . . .
Right. Not OP. You know who I mean. I don't even want to say her name. This has gone on long enough.
I always recommend disengaging from a thread if you find it stressful or unpleasant. It's easier to do that than to control what others discuss or where a conversation goes. It seems like that is where this is going for you, so it may be something to consider.
I reacted the way I did because my perception was that the attitude was leaning more towards bullying than genuine information sharing, judgment and ridicule over help.
Anyway, you read my mind. Enjoy your evening.
Except that passive aggressive behaviors like accusations and name calling and sympathy begging are the only thing resembling bullying on this discussion11 -
Sorry, I am temporarily away from my desk and currently mansplaining in the TOM water retention thread
It took me a good six months and a person rudely walking through the same doorway that I was occupying to realize how much less space I was taking up. <-- It was unthinkable to me that someone would try to walk through a doorway that I was occupying!!!!
I can actually walk on the outside of a road-sign, without falling off the sidewalk!
And yes, I can fit both legs in the pants I hold up, even though they still, on occasion, look to me as if only one leg would fit. This is 1.33 years after the first time I wore a pair of size 32 pants.
I still look at family and friends who are obese and I think to myself: well, they're a little bit overweight. No, they're not. They are obese!
They look at me with serious concern and wonder if I am done losing weight.
A friend actually calls me skinny and another slim. Well, I have been normal weight for just over 2 years. In that time frame I've moved less than 10lbs and my bmi, after the 10lbs, is 23.7, i.e. in the upper quartile of healthy BMI. Slim and skinny? Maybe by comparison. But in terms of health risk factors? *Barely* NOT at an increased risk, and DXA scans corraborate.
Yes, my personal experience corraborates that people often do not perceive themselves and others correctly.
That's why I prefer to rely on outside measurements such as weight, height, waist, thigh, and hip circumference and their various ratios, including BMI.
Waist to height ratio looks particularly promising. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177175
Where and how exactly does one measure their waist? https://www.dietdoctor.com/simple-waist-height-ratio-powerful-health-measurement
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it has a good chance of being a duck even if you would like it to be a goose.
The interesting thing to me about some family and friends is how they stop asking about how the diet is going once it is working. I am down at goal just barely under a BMI of 25 and thinking of dropping a few more and also encountering people who tell me it's unhealthy. I bite my tongue and don't tell them they look like subject matter experts on what's unhealthy.
I have also been called skinny. I could maybe go with trim. Maybe.
I am also in 32s and just for fun I tried on some 30 shorts at the store the other day and I could button them and zip them, but they were too tight to look right. But it amazes me that I could even think about whether or not to get them.
I saw something kind of cool with the waist to height ratio. It was a WHO doctor visiting some remote village and trying to teach them about healthy habits. He cut cords for them; each person got one that was their height and they were supposed to go around the waist twice and have the ends meet.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I honestly have no desire to discuss OP further as if she weren't here. If you wouldn't speak these things while standing next to someone face-to-face, you shouldn't say it online. There's the "brutal truth," the "sugar coated truth," and a whole lot of room for tact in between.
If anyone truly cares I'm beyond happy to have an open discussion privately through direct message.
I don't think anyone is discussing OP . . .
OP is Silentpadna. Her (or his) post said:...says the CDC.
I would link it, but it was actually just a 15 second news radio story I heard on the way into the office today.
The CDC spokesperson cited the "fact" that 70% of the battle is in the diet, but Americans believe that exercise alone will do the trick.
This struck me for 2 reasons:
1. I've always said (guessed really based on my own experiences) that 80% of the battle was in the kitchen (diet). I guess this could be a small case of confirmation bias....
2. A vast majority of the "I Can't Lose Weight" posts start off with how much exercise the poster is doing, many times with no other information.
So, MFP peeps, how can we emphasize the importance of the CI side of the energy balance? You want to lose weight? You almost have to find a way to eat less. That can seem harsh, but seems true enough to me - and most of the veterans around here (of which I am not one).
Not sure why the thread has been derailed (I think it had to do with claiming that people today aren't really obese at obese BMIs and that leading to various digressions), but it might be nice to get back on topic.
I don't think any posters were being picked on.10 -
OK, more on topic instead of bashing people...
For about 7 of the last 9 months, I never ate more than 1500 calories a day. If I exercised, it helped a little. If I didn't exercise for a while, the loss over time was not dramatically different. I didn't eat back calories because I never did much strenuous exercise, mostly just walking (sometimes long walks though).
You can't outrun your fork. CI seems to be the biggest component in weight loss by far. A few years ago I was running and dieting. Running 6+ miles at a time, 3 times a week. I ate light (probably too light to be healthy) without tracking it. I lost a bunch of weight down to my goal and tried to become a natural eater. I started gaining while I was still running that much. Then I ended up needing knee surgery and gained nearly all of it back.
This time I am all about diet. I track every single thing every day. I have lost about 60 lbs and made it down to goal. I am still tracking every thing every day. I want to very slowly lose a little more as a bigger cushion. I will still keep tracking when I taper that off and then try to stabilize.
Here is something to think about - if you never track you exercise and don't really know the burn, but you track your food you will likely do better than if you have excellent stats on exercise burn but don't track the food. I think the people having the most trouble track neither; they just figure they work out so much that they can eat whatever they want.5 -
candylilacs wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'm 5'10'' and used to be 200 pounds. Let me tell you, I was fat. Fat, fat, fat. Borderline obese. Unless he did strength training and has good amounts of muscle because of that, so is your husband. And so are you. Denial won't make that go away.
And so are you. I am not saying I was thin or obese. I am saying my husband is not obese. I am calling you out for being an anorexic. There's been too many fat-phobic comments to my answer.
I have eight cats (yes, a long story). There are three cats in the obese category, three cats in medium category, and two cats in the skinny (cats still don't have nervous disorder like anorexia nervosa) category. I feed them all the same.
Don't categorize a person by what your BMI says, by what your prejudice is, and by your scale says.
And, by the way, a 6 foot 5 inch, weighing 265 lbs is obese according BMI standards. He wasn't. He was the discus (and shotput) thrower of a PAC12 university. He was my boyfriend previous to the husband.
My OH has the same height and weight as Gronkowski, only the weight is "redistributed."
I don't expect the notion that the professional athlete is not obese, and the man with the same stats who has a desk job could stand to lose some weight to be controversial.
You're getting pushback about your husband's stats because you didn't qualify them with anything like athlete/power lifter/construction worker, etc. The average American male who is not an athlete, etc., with those stats would indeed be minimally considered overweight. Many of us have had those stats or know someone who did, so can relate to those stats = overweight or obese.12 -
I'm the OP and I'm a "He". But I knew they weren't talking about me. No harm. I think everybody moved on just fine....
As to obesity classification, I am 5'11", 205. I'm on the high end of overweight. I'm also one of the strongest guys in my age range at our corporate gym. (Something I would never have dreamed of a year ago when I started lifting with the bar). My body fat, based on picture comparisons is roughly 20% +/- 1%. It's not bad. I could lose the 10 pounds I put on while lifting over the past 5 months and look far healthier and leaner than I was when I got down to 195 the first time. My BMI's will be the same, but my body fat will be about 5-7% less than what it was then - provided my measurements do what I estimate they will.
I am not a body-building lifter because I don't really want to get much bigger. But I certainly see first hand why the BMI number is just a general gage and not necessarily the gospel.
7 -
candylilacs wrote: »Your definitions need some work. Fat phobic, anorexic, and obese do not mean what you seem to think they mean.
I don't think I need a man who mansplaining what I know. Your derivative and repetitive authors shouldn't carry any weight, and your research explains nothing. The scientists research another's research?
Mansplaining: (of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.
Bench=Bodybuilding
I'm suffering from a stroke I had two years ago. I mix up language sometimes.
I'm a woman, and baffled as to how bench=bodybuilding. Never heard it expressed that way until you said it in this post. Seems like some backpedaling tbh.10 -
Netflix forks over knives and the China study offers an explanation18
-
junecox2018 wrote: »Netflix forks over knives and the China study offers an explanation are worthless, biased propaganda garbage that cherry pick facts and misstate evidence in an effort to further their agenda. And both have been soundly debunked by evidence-based researchers.
^ Fixed it for you.15 -
A few thoughts based on personal experience:
If you eat at say 500 below your calorie expenditure for a long time, your body will adapt to that level of energy and you will stop losing weight. Then you will need to jump start the metabolism with more food, or exercise or both.
Additionally, if you dont workout a muscle group, the body will let it diminish to meet your lowered demand. Another instance where workout will help.24 -
When I started MFP I was 5'3" weighed 254 lbs and (given that I told MFP I wanted to lose 1lb/week and it started me on 1720 calories), maintained on 2220. I now weigh 153 lbs and, because there's less of me, I maintain on 1650. That's not my body adapting to being in a deficit. That's my body being smaller and needing less fuel to function.9
-
If you eat at say 500 below your calorie expenditure for a long time, your body will adapt to that level of energy and you will stop losing weight....
Yes. Your energy needs decrease as you lose weight. A person who weighs 120 pounds will not need as many calories to sustain their body as does one who weighs 180 pounds. If you get to 120 pounds and are still eating at what was a deficit for you at 180 pounds, it most likely won't be a deficit anymore.
There's no "jump starting the metabolism" involved. Your metabolism isn't a car with a dead battery, it works 24/7 or you're dead. At that point you need to re-evaluate your daily calorie intake taking your current weight into consideration.
An occasional diet break during the process can be helpful, and there's a very good thread about that here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p113 -
If you eat at say 500 below your calorie expenditure for a long time, your body will adapt to that level of energy and you will stop losing weight....
Yes. Your energy needs decrease as you lose weight. A person who weighs 120 pounds will not need as many calories to sustain their body as does one who weighs 180 pounds. If you get to 120 pounds and are still eating at what was a deficit for you at 180 pounds, it most likely won't be a deficit anymore.
There's no "jump starting the metabolism" involved. Your metabolism isn't a car with a dead battery, it works 24/7 or you're dead. At that point you need to re-evaluate your daily calorie intake taking your current weight into consideration.
An occasional diet break during the process can be helpful, and there's a very good thread about that here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
the diet break jump starts the metabolism....i was not comparing 180 lb to 120 lb. i was comparing 180 lb to a plateau at 165 lb.
when you are eating less than daily expenditure, the nonessentials are slowed down or stopped....these include hormones for well being, muscle groups not in use etc.
this is why you break a plateau by mixing up calories and/or workout routine17 -
My best friend has watched me lose weight more than once. I've offered to teach her how to cook for herself (instead of eating high calorie fast food) and just recently after starting this journey yet again I've tried to get her to understand the importance of counting calories. She refuses to watch what she eats and insists she can lose weight by exercise alone. Everytime I've gained back weight it's because I stopped watching what I eat.
This time my goal is to get my weight down and never come back up and I want her to go on this journey with me for her own health and happiness. She just won't listen and I don't know how to get through to her.4 -
scribbles2art wrote: »My best friend has watched me lose weight more than once. I've offered to teach her how to cook for herself (instead of eating high calorie fast food) and just recently after starting this journey yet again I've tried to get her to understand the importance of counting calories. She refuses to watch what she eats and insists she can lose weight by exercise alone. Everytime I've gained back weight it's because I stopped watching what I eat.
This time my goal is to get my weight down and never come back up and I want her to go on this journey with me for her own health and happiness. She just won't listen and I don't know how to get through to her.
You may never be able to get through to her. She is a person independent of you. Nagging will probably only dissuade her from changing. Maybe just lead by example and answer questions as they come up (even if you have to repeat yourself many times.)2 -
scribbles2art wrote: »My best friend has watched me lose weight more than once. I've offered to teach her how to cook for herself (instead of eating high calorie fast food) and just recently after starting this journey yet again I've tried to get her to understand the importance of counting calories. She refuses to watch what she eats and insists she can lose weight by exercise alone. Everytime I've gained back weight it's because I stopped watching what I eat.
This time my goal is to get my weight down and never come back up and I want her to go on this journey with me for her own health and happiness. She just won't listen and I don't know how to get through to her.
I can't blame her for not wanting to take advice from somebody she's seen regain the weight twice. You know why you regained, but it's not surprising that she's not convinced. Maybe you should focus on yourself. If she decides she wants your advice, she'll ask for it.12 -
If you eat at say 500 below your calorie expenditure for a long time, your body will adapt to that level of energy and you will stop losing weight....
Yes. Your energy needs decrease as you lose weight. A person who weighs 120 pounds will not need as many calories to sustain their body as does one who weighs 180 pounds. If you get to 120 pounds and are still eating at what was a deficit for you at 180 pounds, it most likely won't be a deficit anymore.
There's no "jump starting the metabolism" involved. Your metabolism isn't a car with a dead battery, it works 24/7 or you're dead. At that point you need to re-evaluate your daily calorie intake taking your current weight into consideration.
An occasional diet break during the process can be helpful, and there's a very good thread about that here: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
the diet break jump starts the metabolism....i was not comparing 180 lb to 120 lb. i was comparing 180 lb to a plateau at 165 lb.
when you are eating less than daily expenditure, the nonessentials are slowed down or stopped....these include hormones for well being, muscle groups not in use etc.
this is why you break a plateau by mixing up calories and/or workout routine
The nonessentials are not 500 calories worth. You won't stop losing weight from adaptation.10 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »When I started MFP I was 5'3" weighed 254 lbs and (given that I told MFP I wanted to lose 1lb/week and it started me on 1720 calories), maintained on 2220. I now weigh 153 lbs and, because there's less of me, I maintain on 1650. That's not my body adapting to being in a deficit. That's my body being smaller and needing less fuel to function.
Im guessing you are not very active or you maintenance would be higher...right? If you are very sedentary that makes sense I guess. Otherwise 1650 to maintain would suck for me anyways...lol3 -
I can back this up with personal experience. My weight gain happened when I injured my back and was bedridden for a while. I made the mistake of continuing to eat the same, but was not getting ANY exercise, not even the normal day to day activity that everyone does. I naively assumed it would come back off when I became fitter and more mobile. However, getting active again didn't shift the weight. The only thing that worked was restricting my calories.1
-
karintalley wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »When I started MFP I was 5'3" weighed 254 lbs and (given that I told MFP I wanted to lose 1lb/week and it started me on 1720 calories), maintained on 2220. I now weigh 153 lbs and, because there's less of me, I maintain on 1650. That's not my body adapting to being in a deficit. That's my body being smaller and needing less fuel to function.
Im guessing you are not very active or you maintenance would be higher...right? If you are very sedentary that makes sense I guess. Otherwise 1650 to maintain would suck for me anyways...lol
Those are my sedentary calories. I actually do exercise quite a bit, but it's purposeful exercise and it can vary. So, I'm set to sedentary, but in actuality, I eat back 50% of what MFP tells me I burn from walking and strength training and usually take in 400-500 calories on top of that.8 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »When I started MFP I was 5'3" weighed 254 lbs and (given that I told MFP I wanted to lose 1lb/week and it started me on 1720 calories), maintained on 2220. I now weigh 153 lbs and, because there's less of me, I maintain on 1650. That's not my body adapting to being in a deficit. That's my body being smaller and needing less fuel to function.
Wow, that's a heck of a loss. Congrats and way to inspire and work hard.3 -
There are battles to be won, and there may be a lost cause. I'm stroke survivor and I wanted to get something straight.
Since my stroke two and a half year ago, my brain couldn't get enough oxygen. My brain died in the frontal and temporal region. I have since been gradually building in neuroplasticity -- capacity of neurons and neural networks in the brain to change their connections and behaviour in response to new information, sensory stimulation, development, damage, or dysfunction.
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt. One cannot simply "baffled as to how bench=bodybuilding," or its subsequent brain damage.
Signs of Aphasia
Talking
You may find that you:
Can't think of the words you want to say.
Say the wrong word. Sometimes, you may say something related, like "fish" instead of "chicken." Or you might say a word that does not make much sense, like "radio" for "ball."
Switch sounds in words. For example, you might say "wish dasher" for "dishwasher."
Use made-up words.
Have a hard time saying sentences. Single words may be easier.
Put made-up words and real words together into sentences that do not make sense.
Understanding
You may:
Not understand what others say. This may happen more when they speak fast, such as on the news. You might have more trouble with longer sentences, too.
Find it hard to understand what others say when it is noisy or you are in a group.
Have trouble understanding jokes.
Reading and Writing
You may have trouble with the following things:
Reading forms, books, and computer screens.
Spelling and putting words together to write sentences.
Using numbers or doing math. For example, it may be hard to tell time, count money, or add and subtract.PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »candylilacs wrote: »Bench=Bodybuilding
I'm suffering from a stroke I had two years ago. I mix up language sometimes.
I'm a woman, and baffled as to how bench=bodybuilding. Never heard it expressed that way until you said it in this post. Seems like some backpedaling tbh.
8 -
what are you missing is that NO ONE even knew that you had had a stroke until after you accused PAV8888 of mansplaining....and when people questioned your attack on a board member who has provided highly valuable contributions over a significant period of time - you brought all this up....8
-
Here's the post that started this whole tangent.candylilacs wrote: »In 1998, the BMI changed. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890841/
Now, your BMI was 30 or higher, you were considered obese.
The argument here seems to be that obesity rates are climbing only because the BMI was changed. If I am misunderstanding that, please clarify. I don't think that's true, but I don't want to put words in your mouth or misunderstand something you did not intend to communicate.
As support of that, you said:
My husband weighs 210 and is 5'9" and he's not obese. [/quote]
Did the change even affect this? I know the definition of overweight changed, but am not aware if the definition of obese did. Anyway, the argument that was made -- and NO, it was not mansplaining -- was that this IS obese (31 BMI) unless he has above average muscle mass, and some indicators were given (bench press) as to how to determine if that was likely.
I'm not sure why injecting someone's measurements into the discussion was relevant anyway, as there's really no debate I'm aware of that average BMI has increased (whatever the assumed BMI definition, which yes is not perfect).I'm 5'7" and 272 lbs. and I can be considered MORBIDLY obese. I have no CPAP machine, no oxygen, and I don't even snore. I have no back problems (fingers crossed) with my petsitting job I get plenty of exercise (I'll do more focused exercise at the gym) and having a pitbull lunging and having to carry him away (90 lbs. of dog). The shopping cart has been a little healthier lately, but I have Cheetos, potato chips, and chocolate cake (for my husband's birthday!).
I'm not sure why this is relevant -- I think some assumed you were arguing that you are not obese, but I don't think you were. (In other threads you blamed sugar for your T2D, but weight seems a likely culprit.)
I think maybe you are saying you exercise and yet are overweight due to how much you are eating, which is consistent with the thread.Getting more exercise to me, I have a healthy part in my life. Even if I didn't have very healthy habits, I exercised. I do enough exercise and I will be considering what I eat. I know that I eat about 1500-1700 calories when I am exercising. I fight away my depression and even lingering effects of my stroke with my exercise.
Exercise is great, yes -- did you think people were saying it wasn't important?4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »what are you missing is that NO ONE even knew that you had had a stroke until after you accused PAV8888 of mansplaining....and when people questioned your attack on a board member who has provided highly valuable contributions over a significant period of time - you brought all this up....
After 25 years+/- on the internet. My policy on the subject is simple. Until positively demonstrated to the contrary.
"On the internet, All the Men are men, So are most of the Women. And most of the teenagers(children) are cops"
8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions