[YellowJacket]

Originally posted by bee
Ectomorphs, although it seems to many they eat a lot more junk, actually have less appetite.


Sphongled, its called having a HIGHER metabolism! Where the hell are you basing your facts on they have less of an appetite??? Sure some due but they are not genetic ectomorphs. A true ectomorph has a fast metabolism, just like a true endormorph has a slow one, regardless of "appetite".

Boy that IP looks familiar and I can recognize ignorance....you're like a genital wart.....

[YellowJacket]

Oh not to mention an ectomorph is a classification based on bone structure, body type, physical features, not basal activity. So yes, sphongled is correct.....

[CerealKiller]

Originally posted by shpongled


That's not true. Ectomorphs, although it seems to many they eat a lot more junk, actually have less appetite. I think it's that they don't try to "hide" the fact that they gorge themselves so much because they're not afraid of looking like gluttons.

I think one of the main factors is physical activity. Compare an endo construction worker to an endo computer programmer. See the difference? If you put genetically identical people into those two jobs they'll look a lot different.

Genetics does play a big role, but not enough of one to produce an excuse IMO. Even "big-boned" people always look really good when they get rid of the extra body fat.

David

Not saying genetics is an excuse but some people are pre-disposed to being fat like others are pre-disposed to being thin regargless of their physical activity or will power. The first time Hershel Walker bench pressed he did 375. I've been training with weights for over 30 years and can't bench 375. Why ? Basically genetic coding. Oprah will never be as thin as Kate no matter what strategy she tries or how strong willed she is. You'll never be a fast as Maurice Greene no matter how hard you try. IMO genetics play a much bigger role in how we look and what we are physically capable of than factors like environment,diet,exercise,physical activity. IMO we can all improve but only within our own physical limits and the good thing is we don't know what those limits are so we continue to strive.

[WYD02]

Originally posted by CerealKiller


Not saying genetics is an excuse but some people are pre-disposed to being fat like others are pre-disposed to being thin regargless of their physical activity or will power. The first time Hershel Walker bench pressed he did 375. I've been training with weights for over 30 years and can't bench 375. Why ? Basically genetic coding. Oprah will never be as thin as Kate no matter what strategy she tries or how strong willed she is. You'll never be a fast as Maurice Greene no matter how hard you try. IMO genetics play a much bigger role in how we look and what we are physically capable of than factors like environment,diet,exercise,physical activity. IMO we can all improve but only within our own physical limits and the good thing is we don't know what those limits are so we continue to strive.

I agree with much of this accept for: "Oprah will never be as thin as Kate no matter what strategy she tries or how strong willed she is".  While she may be an endo, this does not stop her from getting to the same bf % as anyone else.  Yes, she will look very much different at the same bf% but if she simply stopped eating she would have no choice but to reach that bf% over time.  Granted its a stupid idea, but its math.  Genetics plays a large role in the difficulty of achieving this, but is not the determining factor here...

[Biggs]

I would agree with the 'difficulty in achieving' aspect for the most part. Some things just ain't gonna happen, as there is far too much of a genetic difference yeah... but *most* differences can be overcome, once the huge differences in training etc will be accounted for. This can depend quite heavily on the goals too, as most everyone can maintain healthy bodyweight through simply attention to diet... I think strength is much more 'set' in terms of how far you may be able to go without drastic changes or assistance of some kind.

[dez/null]

iv herd about the overactive thyroid problem over and over. It's BS

[RVEXLER]

Originally posted by CerealKiller


Not saying genetics is an excuse but some people are pre-disposed to being fat like others are pre-disposed to being thin regargless of their physical activity or will power. The first time Hershel Walker bench pressed he did 375. I've been training with weights for over 30 years and can't bench 375. Why ? Basically genetic coding. Oprah will never be as thin as Kate no matter what strategy she tries or how strong willed she is. You'll never be a fast as Maurice Greene no matter how hard you try. IMO genetics play a much bigger role in how we look and what we are physically capable of than factors like environment,diet,exercise,physical activity. IMO we can all improve but only within our own physical limits and the good thing is we don't know what those limits are so we continue to strive.

Nobody is pre-disposed to either being fat or thin. As individuals, we differ to the degree which our body can efficiently store calories as fat or muscle. If my body can very efficiently store calories as fat, then I must eat less calories or expend more energy than someone who stores their calories as fat less efficiently. How I deal with that fact (the CHOICES I make) determine whether or not I am fat or thin.

Fat people know they are eating too much. They consistently understate their consumption and even hide their eating. It's a choice that they make. When willpower is removed from the equation (e.g. gastric bypass) they always lose the weight.

So the issue isn't genetics, but a choice that they are making to consume more calories than their bodies can handle.

[shpongled]

Originally posted by bee
Ectomorphs, although it seems to many they eat a lot more junk, actually have less appetite.


Sphongled, its called having a HIGHER metabolism! Where the hell are you basing your facts on they have less of an appetite??? Sure some due but they are not genetic ectomorphs. A true ectomorph has a fast metabolism, just like a true endormorph has a slow one, regardless of "appetite".

Either way, faster metabolism = less appetite. I'm not saying that their skinniness is only due to eating less. I'm saying that the "some people can eat all the junk they want and not get fat" assertion isn't true.

David

[shpongled]

Whosyourdaddy, biggin, rvexler... all excellent points. The BF% thing was what I was trying to get to with even "big-boned" people look good after dieting down. It's a lot more of an issue of bodyfat levels.

David

[YellowJacket]

ha, you guys will enjoy this one....


Tax Soda and Snacks to Promote Health

Measure Recommended in the American Journal of Public Health
WASHINGTON - Health advocates at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and Yale University recommended in a paper in the June issue of the American Journal of Public Health that soft drinks and snack foods be taxed to provide funding for nutrition and health campaigns.

The new study found that 17 states — including California and New York — Chicago, and the District of Columbia already have special taxes on soft drinks or snack foods. Collectively, those sales taxes and other levies raise $1 billion per year, but the revenues are not used to promote healthier lifestyles. The food industry successfully lobbied to repeal similar taxes in seven other states and is trying to do so now in the District of Columbia.

“With obesity rates soaring and the costs of diet-related diseases in the stratosphere, it is essential that government fund major campaigns to promote healthful diets and physical activity,” said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of CSPI and co-author of the report. “One way to obtain funding is to apply small taxes to foods that undermine health.”

The new report cites government studies that estimate that as many as 500,000 people are dying each year due to poor diets and physical inactivity, and that the cost of diet-related diseases is well over $71 billion annually.

Jacobson and co-author Kelly D. Brownell, professor of psychology at Yale University, estimate that a one-cent tax per 12-ounce soft drink could generate about $1.5 billion annually. In addition, a penny tax per pound of candy, chips and other snack foods, or fats and oils, would raise about $70 million, $54 million, and $190 million, respectively. The researchers said that those small taxes would have little or no direct effect on sales of those foods.

According to the new report, the National Cancer Institute spends only about $1 million annually to publicize its 5-A-Day campaign, which encourages fruit and vegetable consumption. In comparison, McDonald’s spends $1 billion, soft-drink companies more than $500 million, and M&M candies $67 million on promotions.

“Small taxes on soft drinks, candy, gum, and snack foods are a sensible way to fund health-promotion programs,” said Brownell. “Those programs could result in better health and lower health-care costs.”

[shpongled]

Great, going from a population of gluttons to a population of communists. It's a double-edged sword.

I say we require fast food places to put big labels on their burgers that say "WARNING: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS FECES." I think that would help; I know I eat a lot less beef since I found that out.

David

[Biggs]

I don't give a ****, tax them fatties... tell you one thing, that extra tax money raised wont change a ****in thing. The general public is bombarded with health, diet and nutrition issues every day, so lining pockets with candy-tax dollars wont make a damn bit of difference. Fatties will still eat poorly, until THEY make the INDIVIDUAL decision to change for THEMSELVES... this is fundamental, because there is no shortage of anything in this country (as far as environmentally imposed restrictions, food shortages etc). As you cannot use external force to make an alcoholic turn to sobriety (with any sort of long term success), you also cannot force other unhealthy people into healthier ways of life if they do not want it enough.... basically at this point I suppose I'm saying it's not for lack of knowledge that their chosen lifestyle is unhealthy, so what the hell? How about funding disease research, things of that nature, that are involuntary and uncontrollable.

[Lifeguard]

Originally posted by YellowJacket



Boy that IP looks familiar and I can recognize ignorance....you're like a genital wart.....

LoL....OH MY GOD!!!! that was great!!! LMAO!!

 

but anyway....Yes when I was younger I was a chubby kid, nuff said.  Then I got tired of being made fun of for my weight (not necessarily my weight, but more my body structure [i.e. I had a pair of boobies ]) so in ninth grade I just started to eat less, and then at the end of 9th grade I was 5'5'' 124 lbs., very little muscle on my frame (read: I was still a weak mofo), in 10th grade (almost 16 years old) I started lifting: my max on bench press was less then 85 pounds .  Then I started to get made fun of because I was actually working out and trying to get bigger and stronger.  This was almost enough to deter me, but it did not.  I kept lifting and reading about lifting, and eventually in 12th grade I was the "go to" guy when it came to supplementation or workouts.  Also I earned the nickname "Arnold" due to the size and shape of my chest . 

Moral of the story:  genetics does play a role in the development of the physical characteristics of a person.  BUT...if a person "wants it" enough, then that person has the ability to change their weight, strenght, personality, or anything else that they want to change.

 

LG.  

[msclbldrguy]

Originally posted by shpongled
Great, going from a population of gluttons to a population of communists. It's a double-edged sword.

I say we require fast food places to put big labels on their burgers that say "WARNING: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS FECES." I think that would help; I know I eat a lot less beef since I found that out.

David

Communists?? Hardly. I dont see whats wrong with funding education for better nutrition from those who abuse their bodies. Besides, that little bit of tax isnt gonna be a deterrent. Like Biggin said, its their choice. If the extra $$ collected and spent educating folks saves just one person from being a slave to glottony, then it would be money well spent.

[msclbldrguy]

Originally posted by Lifeguard
Moral of the story:  genetics does play a role in the development of the physical characteristics of a person.  BUT...if a person "wants it" enough, then that person has the ability to change their weight, strenght, personality, or anything else that they want to change.

 

LG.  

LG...

Excellent post...and basically common sense. All too often I think folks use "genetics" as an excuse to avoid trying to better themselves. And as we all know, sports, as well as other things, are full of those with the right genetics but who didnt have the desire to fully develop to their potential. Its also full of folks who didnt have the right genetics but their determination and desire made them champions...further shows that its a matter of choice.

btw...its interesting how many of us were fatties as kids...I know I was....and used bb to get outta that. Funny thing is, many of my co-workers cant understand why I eat clean, am adamant about working out and stuff, as they keep eatin their twinkies, doughnuts, and smokin their cigaretts!! But whatcha gonna do, aye? Keep up da good work bro...

[Biggs]

Originally posted by msclbldrguy
many of my co-workers cant understand why I eat clean, am adamant about working out and stuff, as they keep eatin their twinkies, doughnuts, and smokin their cigaretts!! But whatcha gonna do, aye? Keep up da good work bro...

What you gonna do, is wait until they are monstrously obese, kick and prod their jiggly-paste bulges, and say 'how you like it now fatty, I told yo fatass, now look at ya, you morbidly disgusting waste of space!!!'

[RVEXLER]

Originally posted by Biggin
I don't give a ****, tax them fatties... tell you one thing, that extra tax money raised wont change a ****in thing. The general public is bombarded with health, diet and nutrition issues every day, so lining pockets with candy-tax dollars wont make a damn bit of difference. Fatties will still eat poorly, until THEY make the INDIVIDUAL decision to change for THEMSELVES... this is fundamental, because there is no shortage of anything in this country (as far as environmentally imposed restrictions, food shortages etc). As you cannot use external force to make an alcoholic turn to sobriety (with any sort of long term success), you also cannot force other unhealthy people into healthier ways of life if they do not want it enough.... basically at this point I suppose I'm saying it's not for lack of knowledge that their chosen lifestyle is unhealthy, so what the hell? How about funding disease research, things of that nature, that are involuntary and uncontrollable.

Excellent point that further education about nutrition will not change behavior. I mean seriously, does anybody eating a twinkie not know that it is fattening? I can see the tax funded commercials:

Opening scene: mourners gathered around a rather large coffin with the flabby folds of the deceased hanging over the side.

Mourner A: It was just so sad (sobbing). If only we had known how dangerous twinkies were .... perhaps we could have stopped him in time.

Mourner B: (sagely nodding head) Yes .... too late for poor Billy .... but not to late for the other Billys .... (turns to camera) Cut to graphic of twinkie on black background. Music rises to crescendo. Narrator voice over (sonorous tones): Friends ... do not let friends ... EAT TWINKIES...