Sometimes, here on DietHobby,  
I choose to share videos that I find personally amusing.

Here's an "infomercial"  that is twisted, horrifically offensive, totally inappropriate,
............. and yet hilarious.

It made me laugh, and maybe that's good enough for today.
If you aren't easily offended, and want a chuckle,
click to expand this article and watch the video "Naptime"  just below.

  
In general, today’s society seems to think that Running, or Athleticism is a positive goal for everyone. This opinion tends to support its prejudice against obesity in general. Sometimes I am amazed at the depth of such prejudice, along with the overwhelming acceptance of the biased misinformation that accompanies it.

Many obese people are quite healthy, and they live active, functional, and fulfilling lives. An Obese person is not necessarily an Unhealthy person, and being obese is not a direct cause of either disease or ill-health.

Even though there are many studies that have found that any correlation between being Obese and being Unhealthy is merely an ASSOCIATION, many people, including those in the medical profession, wrongly believe that the mere state of being Obese is Unhealthy and that being Obese is the CAUSE of disease. Nowadays, there are even people who say it obesity causes diseases which no one has discovered either the cause or the cure… such as Cancer and Alzheimers.

I am in agreement with this recent article by Dr. David Katz which is quoted below:

I have now been interviewed several times about those Nike "find your greatness" ads we all saw during the Olympics,… in particular, about the ad that shows an obese boy running down a dirt road.

Personally, I think Nike may have meant well, but went down the wrong road.

We may reasonably commend Nike for good intentions. Of course, an athletic-ware company implying that we can all find greatness, but should do so along a course through some kind of athletic activity -- for which they, presumably, stand prepared to provide wardrobe and accessories -- may not be the purest form of altruism we've ever seen. Still, let's give Nike the benefit of that doubt, and say thank you for the concept.

For the execution, not so much.

The ad in question, suggesting that this obese boy is pursuing greatness as he runs down the road -- is presumably intended to remedy obesity bias. But it seems to me it may be propagating it. Obesity is not a barrier to greatness of many varieties. But it certainly is a barrier to great distance running.

I am concerned that the ad suggests that something for which obesity is a genuine barrier -- athletic prowess -- is what greatness is all about. This, of course, is near-sighted nonsense. I don't know for sure, but I bet Sir Isaac Newton did a truly lousy butterfly. I can't see Mother Teresa in the synchronized swim. And I bet Mozart wasn't much of a hurdler.

The boy in the ad, Nathan, made running look every bit as wretched as David Rudisha and Mo Farah made it look inspiring. If we pretend we saw greatness, or even the potential for it, in this ad, we may be buying into Nike's version of the Emperor's New Clothes.

The message that obesity is no barrier to greatness is both a good and important message. But did this poor boy running, looking like he was about to pass out or throw up (as, apparently, he actually did during filming) -- look like greatness to you? It looked like torture to me.

Even as we are trying to escape our cultural biases, they are in fact asserting themselves. Why does greatness need to be about running, or even athleticism? Why show that obesity is NOT a barrier to greatness, by picking a form of greatness to which obesity is clearly and objectively a barrier? As my friend and colleague Steve Blair points out routinely, fitness and fatness can of course go together. But severe obesity, as in this case, and distance running clearly do not.

In fact, as a physician, I would advise this young man AGAINST running until after he had lost considerable weight by lower-impact means, far less hazardous to his joints, connective tissues, and even cardiovascular system. The running this boy was doing looked not only horribly unpleasant, but also potentially dangerous, and ill-advised.

There are innumerable alternative roads to greatness. Perhaps this boy is a great writer, a great humanitarian. Perhaps he is the kindest person you could ever meet. Perhaps he is an orator, a singer, a musician, a composer, a poet, a painter, a chess master. There are countless ways this boy might be great -- and obesity would not be a barrier to any of them.

The ad could have shown a boy we were inclined to judge based on his appearance sitting down at a piano bench -- and stunning us with his virtuosity. That would have rocked our bias back on its heels and shown us, without muddling the message, that obesity and greatness can travel the same road.

If Nike wants to promote physical activity, per se, that's fine -- but that's not about greatness. Then the message is: Anyone can be active, and everyone can benefit from it (a message with which I agree wholeheartedly). Start small, do what you can do, and build from there. The message is that anyone can get to better health, and everyone deserves to do so. But health is not "greatness." And implying that doing anything at even a nominal level is "greatness" demeans what most of us want the term "greatness" to mean.

It might even suggest a double standard. To be a "great" runner if you are lean, you have to be actually great; to be a great runner if you are obese, you merely need to survive until the cameras stop rolling. I don't buy it.

Such a double standard propagates, rather than redresses, obesity bias by failing to look past Nathan's weight to all of the ways in which he might be truly great. Weight does not measure human worth. It is not an indicator of character. Bathroom scales are not designed to weigh merit. The boy in the Nike ad may well be full to the brim with greatness -- but none of it has anything to do with running.

Obesity is not a barrier to greatness. It is not a barometer of worth. But it does tend to impede running down a road, and often, achieving greatness in athletics per se. Pretending otherwise is about denying our biases, not fixing them.

Nike was right to suggest that we can all seek greatness, and that neither weight nor physical disabilities need preclude that. They were right to suggest that the boy in their ad could find greatness -- now or in the future. 

                                                        Dr. David L. Katz
                             www.davidkatzmd.com   www.turnthetidefoundation.org

                    
Everyone doesn’t need to be an athlete.
Everyone doesn’t need to be normal weight.
Those goals aren’t a necessary part of a fulfilling, or even a healthy, life.

I had an active, fulfilling, and healthy life when I was morbidly obese, and I have one now at normal weight. I like being normal weight, and I hated being fat, but this is primarily due to my own vanity. I love looking at myself in the mirror now, but (truthfully) I was fairly fond of doing that before...Now I just look at my whole body, instead of merely isolated parts of me.

My goal ... NOT to be obese .... was one that I set for myself in childhood, no doubt due to the social influences around  me. I'm very happy to have accomplished it, and I'm willing to continue expending a great deal of effort to sustain that goal.  I didn't lose weight to be "healthy".  My life experiences have caused me to internalize society's bias toward non-obesity, which means that I see myself as more attractive at normal weight. 

For whatever reason, it's important to me personally, but everyone doesn't have to share the same goals. The main reason that I’ve always worked so hard to avoid obesity, and to be a normal weight, is because … in general… society treats me better at normal weight. Because I no longer look obese, ...... strangers, acquaintances, and the people who don’t love me, tend to give me far more positive …rather than negative…attention. 

The people who love me are happy to see me be a normal weight. But, when I was fat, the people who love me treated me just as well as they do now. That is something that lets me know that they love me. I believe that people who truly love me will accept my appearance as I am, whether fat or thin, whether young or old..

I was healthy when I was fat, and I’m healthy now that I’m normal weight. It’s a matter of genetic luck. My genetic heritage gave me a body with the tendency to be fat, AND my genetic heritage also gave me a healthy body.

   I believe that one of the reasons I still have a healthy body here in my late 60s is because I did not abuse it with excessive exercise during the years when I was obese. I feel sad when I see those television “reality” shows that encourage fat people to engage in physical activities that are clearly inappropriate for their morbidly obese bodies. People who abuse their bodies with excess food don’t need to also abuse them with excess exercise. It's just two abuses. One abuse doesn't cancel out the other.

Watch the video below to be reminded of one of life's great lessons.

  
You've heard it a million times, Eat Less, Move More.

You’ve may have also heard that that ELMM = Eat Less Move More is a failed strategy for weight loss. The rationale is something like one, or more, of the following:

• A calorie is not a calorie, because two people who eat the same amount won't weigh the same, or gain or lose the same amount of weight.

• The 3500 cal/pound fat figure is wrong because with deliberate overfeeding
or caloric restriction, people don't gain or lose exactly as this formula would predict.

• If you eat less your metabolism will just slow down to compensate.

• If you move more deliberately, aka exercise, you'll just move less later in the day
and/or be so hungry you'll compensate by eating more.

A study of body composition of small children as related to total body fat and physical activity level published in 2012 indicates that non-exercise activity thermogenesis is genetically hardwired. This means that naturally more active babies put on less body fat than the naturally less active ones because they naturally expend more energy.

There are many studies which show that there’s a wide variation between the resting energy expenditures of different individuals. A study of Thermogenesis after cold and overfeeding published in 2007 indicates that thermogenic responses are genetically hardwired.

Although it appears possible that both non-exercise exercise activity and thermogenesis is genetically hardwired, there are many gurus and diet book authors who say that eating this or that macronutrient, taking this or that supplement, exercising or not exercising this or that way, or adopting their particular food and/or exercise plan holds the magic answer.

Maybe I’m a pessimist, but I don’t believe there’s a whole lot that we can do about our genetic hardwiring. Personally I prefer to manage calories-out in a manner I know there is some control over, rather than chase after false promises of boosting metabolism through various other, largely untested/unsubstantiated, and often expensive, means.

I'm not aware of any clinical evidence that supports the notion
that a person can't lose weight eating less total calories of whatever.
*How* a person prefers to eat less is individual.
Different diets or food plans seem to really be merely variations of the same general theme. The amount an individual need to eat or the amount they need to exercise to accomplish weight-loss is different from person-to-person.

Calories-in is just a shorthand way to describe the amount of food we put into the body.
Calories-out is just a shorthand way to describe the amount of energy the body uses.
Calories-in/Calories-out is merely a shorthand way to generally describe how energy in the body works. That's it. That's all it means. 

However, what’s true is that those calories numbers are often different for different people
…even for those people who have the same height, weight, age, and activity level.
The bodies of different Individuals are genetically different, and EVERYONE doesn’t have a body that uses the same exact amount of energy. Some types of food might provide different energy for different bodies. Some people have to take less calories in, because their body simply doesn’t use as many calories.

There are scientific studies that show people successfully losing weight simply by cutting portion sizes and making no other change. Again, someone might argue whether this is sustainable, but that argument could apply to any type of diet, way of eating, or lifestyle program, including one that changes macronutrient content.

It seems to me that Consistent Adherence to a Diet, or Way of Eating, is the most important predictor of success...not the macronutrient content. If changing macronutrient content helps a person to consistently adhere better to that diet or way of eating, then great. But if it doesn't, that person won't have any more success with it, than with any other approach.

I’m thinking that what matters is getting one’s individual Diet, or Way of Eating, to support the lifestyle that one wishes to have. We don’t need to get caught up in whether or not the lifestyles of other people match the Diet or Way of Eating that we’ve chosen.

Carbs make you sluggish?

Reduce them.

LOW carbs make you a miserable nonfunctional wreck?

Eat more of them.

Hate physical exercise?

Do only the amount of exercise necessary to keep your body functional for your normal activities.

Running makes your body feel good?

Run.

Obese or overweight and want to weigh less?

Adjust your calorie intake…. of whatever foods you choose to eat within your personal lifestyle …DOWN, and eat only the calorie amount …of whatever foods you choose to eat within your personal lifestyle….that your body needs to sustain the weight you want it to be. Ignore the advice of experts that contradicts your own experience.  If averaging 1200 calories daily causes your body to be overweight or obese, eat less than 1200 calories in a way that meets your body's basic need for protein, vitamins and minerals.

Want a different body type so you will look like a slender, shapely magazine model?

Too bad. (Except maybe in some future life, if you believe in reincarnation.)

       
Below are Eight charts showing Yearly Averages of my own Daily Food Intake. Beginning 9/20/2004 through 8/8/2012  ...  an 8 year period (approx 7 years 11 months) 2880 consecutive days of detailed record keeping.

Despite low-calorie eating, one can see that my nutritional needs were adequately met during the entire 8 years. I find it personally interesting that although I experimented with a great many different "diets" and eating plans, my nutritional yearly nutritional ratio averages wound up overall being quite similar.

One CAN see slight differences in nutritional ratio due to various experimentation with various low-carb eating plans during the past 3 years in that the fat ratio increased slightly; the carb ratio decreased slightly, while the protein ratio remained fairly constant.

                                                     

FOLLOW UP NOTE: 
Be sure to read the Final SUMMARY
showing average weight and average calorie comparisons.

1st chart Below started on 9/20/2004 - therefore the yearly average is 42 days less than 1 year.

SUMMARY
9-2004 through 8-2012 
8 year period (approx 7 years 11 months)  2880 consecutive days of record keeping

Date        Weight

9/2004: --- 190.5 lbs.
8/2005: ----145.2 lbs.
Loss 45.3 lbs. - 1235 average daily calorie intake
11 month period –  (calculating 3500 calories= 1 fat lb)
............averaged = 480 calorie daily deficit =  making actual Total daily calorie burn 1715

8/2005: --- 145.2 lbs.
8/2006: ----108.2 lbs.
Loss 37 lbs. - 1310 average daily calorie intake
12 month period –  (calculating 3500 calories= 1 fat lb)
............averaged  = 359 calorie daily deficit = making actual Total daily burn 1669

8/2006: --- 108.2 lbs.
8/2007: ----110.0 lbs.
Gain 1.8 lbs. - 1442 average daily calorie intake
12 month period –  (calculating 3500 calories= 1 fat lb)
.............averaged = 17.5 calorie daily excess =  making actual Total daily calorie burn 1424

8/2007: --- 110.0 lbs.
8/2008: ----113.6 lbs.
Gain 3.6 lbs. - 1406 average daily calorie intake
12 month period -  (calculating 3500 calories= 1 fat lb)
.............averaged = 35 calorie daily excess =  making actual Total daily calorie burn 1371

8/2008: ----113.6 lbs.
8/2009: --- 116.8 lbs.
Gain 3.2 lbs. . - 1015 average daily calorie intake
12 month period –  (calculating 3500 calories= 1 fat lb)
............averaged = 31 calorie daily excess =  making actual Total daily calorie burn 984

8/2009: --- 116.8 lbs.
8/2010: --- 116.8 lbs.
Loss/Gain 0 lbs. . - 1069 average daily calorie intake
12 month period –  (calculating 3500 calories= 1 fat lb)
............averaged = 0 calorie daily excess = making actual Total daily calorie burn 1069

8/2010: ----116.8 lbs.
8/2011: ----120.0 lbs.
Gain 3.2 lbs . - 1081 average daily calorie intake
12 month period –  (calculating 3500 calories= 1 fat lb)
...........averaged = 31 calorie daily excess =  making actual Total daily calorie burn 1050

8/2011: --- 120.0 lbs.
8/2012: ----127.0 lbs.
Gain 7 lbs . - 1149 average daily calorie intake
12 month period – (calculating 3500 calories= 1 fat lb) 
...........averaged = 68 calorie daily excess = making actual Total daily calorie burn 1081

Re: calorie intake and calorie burn calorie numbers.
Note that I am a "reduced obese" female, height 5'0", over age 60.
I am sedentary, and I do not count, or attempt to count, exercise calories.
The "Normal" calorie calculations for my personal statistics per the standard formula Charts are: 
Harris Benedict formula - BMR for sedentary = Total daily calorie burn 1400
Mifflin formula - RMR for sedentary = Total daily calorie burn 1250

My exercise activities have been:

Primarily Walking with a bit of additional Strength Training.

🔺1st year of weight-loss exercise averaged 1/2 hr daily.
🔺2nd year of weight-loss exercise averaged from 1 to 2 hrs daily.
🔺During the first 4 years of maintenance exercise averaged 1 hr daily.
🔺Past 2 years of maintenance, exercise averaged 1/2 hr daily.

NOTE that the first two years of weight-loss maintenance, my daily calorie burn went as one might expect based on my height, weight, age, and exercise. (See standard chart calculations)  But NOT during the 4 subsequent maintenance years during which there has been an "unexplainable" drop in my total daily calorie burn.