Kerala has the lowest positive population growth rate in India, 3.44%; highest Human Development Index (HDI), 0.790 in 2011; the highest literacy rate, 93.91% in the 2011 census; the highest life expectancy, 77 years; and the highest sex ratio, 1,084 women per 1000 men.
By the time I came to America and started competing over here, it was very clear when I said to someone, “Let me ask you something, do you have any knee injuries or something like that?” Then they would look at me and say, “No, why? No. I have no knee injury at all. No, my knees feel great.” And they say, “Why are you asking?” I said, “Well because your thighs look a little slimmer to me. I thought maybe you can’t squat or maybe there’s some problem with leg extension.”
...
People are vulnerable about those things. Naturally now when you have a competition, you use all this.
...
It throws people off in an unbelievable way.
Tim: And they get defensive.
Arnold: They walk away like this didn’t bother them at all, but then you can see, you watch them as they walk around the pump up room, and when you warm up for the competition, and you can see them kind of thinking to themselves, kind of them going to the mirror and checking it out secretly and all that stuff.
"Metabolic rate does vary, and technically there could be large variance. However, statistically speaking it is unlikely the variance would apply to you. The majority of the population exists in a range of 200-300kcal from each other and do not possess hugely different metabolic rates."
Calories-In-Calories-Out is a rather limited view of the situation.
It's like saying, driving a car requires a neutral energy balance, you need to put in just as much gas as you burn.
While 100% true. It's not helpful information. It doesn't mention the fact that different cars burn fuel at a different rate. That some drivers can afford a higher octane fuel. And that a poorly tuned vehicle with incorrect tire pressure will require more fuel.
The point is, that there are many factors that go into weight gain and loss. And while in terms of basic physics it does indeed boil down to energy balance, that ignores a great many factors that affect both ones internal demand for more energy and ones ability to make use of ingested energy rather than turning it into fat.
And yet for each of us, where we're at right now, we lose weight by eating less and exercising more that we are right now. Its a wonderfully self-calibrating system.
It doesn't matter what people like, what matters are the facts of the situation. I'm arguing that answers like yours are self serving reinforcement of your own ideas about morality which blind you to the possibility that you're just wrong in thinking that everyone is on the same playing field.
That does NOT mean we aren't all personally responsible. It means that you should consider having compassion and less contempt for people who fail where you succeed.
Are there cases of pure gluttony and laziness leading to obesity? Damn straight there are, and I'm not arguing otherwise. But whether you believe me or not there are real challenges that _some_ fat people face that you (presumably) and I just don't have to deal with.
Think of it this way, if someone is born with only one leg. They still have all the same personal responsibility you and I have to live their life as an adult. But both of us will understand if they struggle with certain things we're able to accomplish with ease. You wouldn't dream of saying that person lacks personal accountability because he struggles with walking.
So why do you presume to know FOR SURE that everyone who is fat got that way because of a failing of personal accountability? Perhaps they were just born without a leg... so to speak...
I hope you'll reconsider your position. At least to admit there is a possibility that other people have unseen handicaps that you just don't have to deal with.
> So why do you presume to know FOR SURE that everyone who is fat got that way because of a failing of personal accountability?
Nope. I think we both agree there are edge cases for every situation. Where I find fault with your premise is that it is presumed everyone with a "problem" (weight, anxiety, depression, etc.) all fall into the "edge-case" category, where in fact 99% of them do not. Despite that, I get annoyed when we as a people assume that the the majority of people fall into the minority group.
Being very over-weight is a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. I posit that the same argument can be made about anxiety, or depression, et al.
> I hope you'll reconsider your position. At least to admit there is a possibility that other people have unseen handicaps that you just don't have to deal with.
Sure thing, absolutely. I'l even go as far as to say I don't need to reconsider this. I agree with your point. Where I take umbrage is with the fact that people are allowed to shirk personal responsibility, hiding under the guise of "this problem is bigger than me", when in fact is isn't. The majority take advantage of the sincere problems (missing a leg) of the minority, which to me is slap in the face of people who need the real help and attention.
Sure there are corner cases. But almost everybody can lose weight almost always by simply eating less and exercising more. The rest of the billion-dollar industry preys upon our low self-control by promising some magic cure. That requires no effort.
Of course. As I said above, we all have to live with our personal realities and behave as adults. But I can't help feel that your answer is exactly what I'm arguing against. It feels right, but it lacks compassion or insight into other aspects that are just as valid and germane.
How can you eat 5,000 kcal a day and not be a huge fat pig? How many miles a day do you need to run to burn that off?
On the days when I lift weights I eat close to 5K calories, sometimes even a little more, depending on the commute. All of my daily commute is by bike, including taking my kid to and from the kindergarten, and later to some extra activities (welcome to Denmark), which can be anywhere between 20 and 35 km total for the day.
Thats quite a bit of cycling. Don't you think all that cycling is getting into your lifting? I used to cycle about 10km a day and found that it was already hampering leg training at the gym.
I actually changed my approach to lifting a little and now following the principles described by Greg Nuckols in his article about increasing work capacity
So essentially every week I'm doing just a little bit more volume in every exercise, either by adding a little weight, or an extra rep. So far I'm able to do it consistently for a few months so I guess I'm recovering well.
Then of course there is all that "getting used to it" thing where you do something long enough and get into it gradually and increase little by little and you're fine.
I worked originally about 5 km from home and it felt like it was enough cycling there and back. Then I changed my job and now I was 11 km from home so I started combining bike + train for a while because that felt like too much to cycle. Then one sunny day I cycled all the way home. I realized two things: 1) I'm not that tired and 2) I cut 10 minutes off my train + bike commute. So now I bike all the way and save time and money at the same time! Win-win!
Thats one hell of a boost to your TDEE. Im impressed.
I lift 5x, walk every where and swim LISS 3x a week. 173cm about 82kg. TDEE is ~3250 kcal. Currently shoot for 3500 a day. However, I only see my son on weekends. I bet my TDEE would be higher if had him every day.
His hypothesis (and he is a smart guy) is that science will allow people to live longer, but probably not much longer than 125.
Not exactly! I just finished the same book and the exact quote is: I doubt we will ever find a way of living much beyond 120 by merely fine-tuning our physiology.
So he's a smart guy indeed! He says that there still may be ways to extend lifespan, but they have to be more radical compared to just fine-tuning physiology.
I presume you speak Russian then? If so did you learn anything about the quotation? I Googled it just now and found... this page.
The best jokes defy explanation to some degree. A good example: the de facto definition of 'chutzpah' is, "To kill your parents and then ask the judge for clemency because you're an orphan." Not only is it funny, it's also the best available definition.
I'd always thought evolution was heavily biased in favor of rapid reproduction.
It's an arctic scavenger that grows both massive and very old without any natural predators worth mentioning. It doesn't make any sense for it to have a high reproductive rate.
Kerala has the lowest positive population growth rate in India, 3.44%; highest Human Development Index (HDI), 0.790 in 2011; the highest literacy rate, 93.91% in the 2011 census; the highest life expectancy, 77 years; and the highest sex ratio, 1,084 women per 1000 men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala
Interesting!