What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Obesity and Ozempic and more (1 Viewer)

Sub 20% guy…..😂😂😂

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?
I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

My VO2is between 39-40 (58 years old), so not too bad. My resting HR is around 48-52. Funny thing is, yesterday went for my bi-annual physical. BP was 114/64. O2 was 98%. Pulse was 48. Nurse did it twice asking if the low HR was normal...
My resting HR is around 45. I get the same thing at the doctor - distinct impression that this is way out of the ordinary.
Yeah, obviously there’s selection bias in play, but the number of people volunteering resting HR below 50 and vO2 max above 50 in these threads is astonishing. Both of those values are in the upper 5% of fitness for middle aged dudes.

And to pile on fat-shaming @DA RAIDERS, 99 is the upper end of “normal” for resting HR. Kinda like 21% is considered high normal for middle aged men (there’s controversy here, but play along).

But I’d never pick that HR as a target for CV fitness, especially if someone was having chest pain.
Exactly why I didnt choose some random HR.

Everyone has a resting HR. Also, VO2 max is not a specific HR, but HR over time.
And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

While it's most accurately assessed via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, which directly measures gas exchange during exertion, availability of such tests is limited, and they are expensive. So there are several formulas available to estimate vO2 max instead. One method involves the ratio of maximum HR to resting HR, another uses distance covered while running, still another uses post-exertional HR, body weight and age. Like BMI, those estimates aren't perfect, but they offer practical alternatives for the real world, and are good enough for most applications.

Nowadays, smart watches estimate vO2 max from HR at sub maximal exertion. So even though HR is incorporated in many vO2 max estimates, it isn't a surrogate for HR over time, but more a reflection of the connectedness of cardiopulmonary physiology.
I would LOVE to hear how HR does not play into VO2 max at all.

VO2 max is exertion over time where exertion is elevated HR within your unique HR zones. Your claim that HR does not play a critical role in the consumption of o2 over time is disingenuous. Is your position VO2 max can be calculated using someone's resting HR? That exertion (ie elevated HR) does not matter at all?
 
Anyway, you know how that particular message gets interpreted all too often? "Exercise doesn't matter". :shrug: :wall:
Right. As it turns out, exercise is the only* thing that matters.
* - UNLESS YOUR LITTLE JOHNNY HAS A PEANUT ALLERGY!!
Wait, are you Peter Attia?

Help me understand your stance. Do you believe exercising alone can reverse our obesity epidemic?
If we are slinging jokes ... are you sponsored by big pharma?

It is by far, way above and beyond, all other contributing factors combined.

Is a healthy diet important? Sure. Is it most important, no.
 
Yeah, I've come around to the idea that the best diet is one that is sustainable, while achieving a healthy weight.
Again, your opinion here is mis-guided. Calories in, calories out. That is all that matters, not weight. Everyone's size is different and attempting to label some sort of "healthy weight" is completely misguided.
 
( Whereas Terminalxylem and JAA are here merely serving as proxies for "factions in the public messaging regarding weight loss" )

Obese person looks at Terminalxylem. Obese person turns their head and looks at JAA. Repeats a few times. Term. JAA. Term. JAA.

Obese person sighs, silently exclaims "Eff it", and slinks back into their recliner with a sleeve of Chips Ahoy. Content that no one can really tell him he's wrong to do so.

"It's easy" "It's obvious" "Everyone knows this stuff" "The information is out there and it's easy to use" "If people can't do X, we must be doomed"

Crunch, crunch, crunch
... [gulp] ... "Just as soon finish the Oreos, too -- I only had a Dixie cup of M&Ms for lunch"
 
Last edited:
( Whereas Terminalxylem and JAA are here merely serving as proxies for "factions in the public messaging regarding weight loss" )

Obese person looks at Terminalxylem. Obese person turns their head and looks at JAA. Repeats a few times. Term. JAA. Term. JAA.

Obese person sighs, silently exclaims "Eff it", and slinks back into their recliner with a sleeve of Chips Ahoy. Content that no one can really tell him he's wrong to do so.

"It's easy" "It's obvious" "Everyone knows this stuff" "The information is out there and it's easy to use" "If people can't do X, we must be doomed"

Crunch, crunch, crunch
... [gulp] ... "Just as soon finish the Oreos -- I only had a Dixie cup of M&Ms for lunch"
Im being very robotic in my posts, tongue in cheek in a few. I respect @Terminalxylem a lot based on his history of posts. IIRC he is a medical professional. I think my notebook also says he is in Hawaii?

My hot take still stands - medical professionals know how to treat the severely ill and make them not severely ill. They do not know how to manage someone's healthy lifestyle.
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48
 
Im being very robotic in my posts, tongue in cheek in a few. I respect @Terminalxylem a lot based on his history of posts. IIRC he is a medical professional. I think my notebook also says he is in Hawaii?

My hot take still stands - medical professionals know how to treat the severely ill and make them not severely ill. They do not know how to manage someone's healthy lifestyle.
Is your last name Attia by any chance? (This is the overarching theme of his book).
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
 
Im being very robotic in my posts, tongue in cheek in a few. I respect @Terminalxylem a lot based on his history of posts. IIRC he is a medical professional. I think my notebook also says he is in Hawaii?

My hot take still stands - medical professionals know how to treat the severely ill and make them not severely ill. They do not know how to manage someone's healthy lifestyle.
Is your last name Attia by any chance? (This is the overarching theme of his book).
Im a BMF. And no, not Attia :)
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

Yes, its great when your work is fun. Its also great when food tastes good. Both are first world problems and part of our obesity epidemic.

Oatmeal, next to eggs, may be the best non-vegetable/fruit you can eat.
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

Yes, its great when your work is fun. Its also great when food tastes good. Both are first world problems and part of our obesity epidemic.

Oatmeal, next to eggs, may be the best non-vegetable/fruit you can eat.
That doesn't blow my mind at all. There are plenty of foods that can be eaten plain but I'm not eating boiled oatmeal without adding something to it so the .14/oz becomes something more. And I'm sure most people would do the same.

And since you compared it to work, I always told my kids to choose a career they enjoy rather (similar to fun) than one that would make them rich. They'll be happier in the end.
 
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.

Side topic: I'd be interested in savory recipes for plain oatmeal. Comparable to risotto, quinoa-based "bowls", etc.
 
Im not picking on you, just your arguments

but I'm not eating boiled oatmeal without adding something to it
Imagine a world where you cant get anything to add to it and plain is your only option.

I always told my kids to choose a career they enjoy rather (similar to fun) than one that would make them rich
Imagine a world where you do not get to choose your work
 
Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesn't need to be "fun".

You've lost me here, unless you're speaking in absolute terms to make a point.
Why does food need to taste good for us to eat it?

Logically: It doesn't

Realistically: You've moved "eating well" into the realm of "hardly anyone can do it long term". See the second paragraph of my link. Disclosure: I don't believe in constant, sustained denial of one's biological drives. Less-than-constant denial of drives? OK (thought the line is hard to draw). But not ever getting to eat appealing food just based on a ... principle? Nope -- for most people, there has to be another way.
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

Yes, its great when your work is fun. Its also great when food tastes good. Both are first world problems and part of our obesity epidemic.

Oatmeal, next to eggs, may be the best non-vegetable/fruit you can eat.
if you're not enjoying your meals you're doing it wrong. Healthy + delicious is not hard to achieve.
 
Im not picking on you, just your arguments

but I'm not eating boiled oatmeal without adding something to it
Imagine a world where you cant get anything to add to it and plain is your only option.

I always told my kids to choose a career they enjoy rather (similar to fun) than one that would make them rich
Imagine a world where you do not get to choose your work
Thankfully I do not have to imagine such a horrible place. This is America, not China. ;)
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

I ate cauliflower rice every night for six weeks. Believe me, I know.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesn't need to be "fun".

You've lost me here, unless you're speaking in absolute terms to make a point.
Why does food need to taste good for us to eat it?

Logically: It doesn't

Realistically: You've moved "eating well" into the realm of "hardly anyone can do it long term". See the second paragraph of my link. Disclosure: I don't believe in constant, sustained denial of one's biological drives. Less-than-constant denial of drives? OK (thought the line is hard to draw). But not ever getting to eat appealing food just based on a ... principle? Nope -- for most people, there has to be another way.
If people could rid themselves of this taste bias, and instead we chose food based on cost vs nutritional content, how better would the human race be?

I believe the food we put in our body is a choice. Sometimes I put food in my body because it tastes so damn good. Sometimes I choose to put poison in my body (alcohol). However, I try to put the best foods in my body 90+% of the time. With that not only do I not need to worry about diets, but the 10% of the time where I am eating crap I don't feel guilty and enjoy it that much more.

Just some food for thought, hope it tastes good! :lmao:
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

Yes, its great when your work is fun. Its also great when food tastes good. Both are first world problems and part of our obesity epidemic.

Oatmeal, next to eggs, may be the best non-vegetable/fruit you can eat.
if you're not enjoying your meals you're doing it wrong. Healthy + delicious is not hard to achieve.
Then why doesnt everyone do it?

PS - this specific train of convo started discussing sugar cereals vs the taste of plain oatmeal. Youve put some different goal posts in here.
 
Im not picking on you, just your arguments

but I'm not eating boiled oatmeal without adding something to it
Imagine a world where you cant get anything to add to it and plain is your only option.

I always told my kids to choose a career they enjoy rather (similar to fun) than one that would make them rich
Imagine a world where you do not get to choose your work
Thankfully I do not have to imagine such a horrible place. This is America, not China. ;)
This doesnt work actually

Imagine a world where you only ate what tasted the best to you? You would die a horrible death.
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

I ate cauliflower rice every night for six weeks. Believe me, I know.
Actually a pretty good quick food if you buy it frozen. I used to add different seasonings every day when I was eating it for lunch. You can also add some vinegar based veg to spruce it up. If you want a little sweet and sour, heat up some frozen cherries to put on with some hot sauce. Not the end of the world.
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

Yes, its great when your work is fun. Its also great when food tastes good. Both are first world problems and part of our obesity epidemic.

Oatmeal, next to eggs, may be the best non-vegetable/fruit you can eat.
if you're not enjoying your meals you're doing it wrong. Healthy + delicious is not hard to achieve.
Then why doesnt everyone do it?

PS - this specific train of convo started discussing sugar cereals vs the taste of plain oatmeal. Youve put some different goal posts in here.
Technically, the convo was discussing the cost of a no added sugar cereal vs crap sugar loaded cereal. You moved the goal post to plain oatmeal.
 
Im not picking on you, just your arguments

but I'm not eating boiled oatmeal without adding something to it
Imagine a world where you cant get anything to add to it and plain is your only option.

I always told my kids to choose a career they enjoy rather (similar to fun) than one that would make them rich
Imagine a world where you do not get to choose your work
Thankfully I do not have to imagine such a horrible place. This is America, not China. ;)
This doesnt work actually

Imagine a world where you only ate what tasted the best to you? You would die a horrible death.
But I'd be pretty damn happy though. If I ever get diagnosed with a terminal disease I'm going on a binger.
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

Yes, its great when your work is fun. Its also great when food tastes good. Both are first world problems and part of our obesity epidemic.

Oatmeal, next to eggs, may be the best non-vegetable/fruit you can eat.
if you're not enjoying your meals you're doing it wrong. Healthy + delicious is not hard to achieve.
Then why doesnt everyone do it?

PS - this specific train of convo started discussing sugar cereals vs the taste of plain oatmeal. Youve put some different goal posts in here.
Technically, the convo was discussing the cost of a no added sugar cereal vs crap sugar loaded cereal. You moved the goal post to plain oatmeal.
Where is the old fencing emoji? I cant find it! 🤺
 
Im not picking on you, just your arguments

but I'm not eating boiled oatmeal without adding something to it
Imagine a world where you cant get anything to add to it and plain is your only option.

I always told my kids to choose a career they enjoy rather (similar to fun) than one that would make them rich
Imagine a world where you do not get to choose your work
Thankfully I do not have to imagine such a horrible place. This is America, not China. ;)
This doesnt work actually

Imagine a world where you only ate what tasted the best to you? You would die a horrible death.
But I'd be pretty damn happy though. If I ever get diagnosed with a terminal disease I'm going on a binger.
You would be happy for about 3-4 weeks IMHO. If you only ate the foods that tasted the best, assuming you are a normal human, it would contain so much sugar and fat, with zero fiber, your system would start really shutting down. Not to mention your :poop: issues.
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

Yes, its great when your work is fun. Its also great when food tastes good. Both are first world problems and part of our obesity epidemic.

Oatmeal, next to eggs, may be the best non-vegetable/fruit you can eat.
if you're not enjoying your meals you're doing it wrong. Healthy + delicious is not hard to achieve.
Then why doesnt everyone do it?

PS - this specific train of convo started discussing sugar cereals vs the taste of plain oatmeal. Youve put some different goal posts in here.
i missed the lead in,

But to answer your question i think it's multi-factored. The easiest answer is b/c mainly it takes effort. Learning to cook is prob the most important step, but also seeking out healthier options when go out. But the more complicated answer would be due to people getting addicted to foods at a young age and are unable to get out of the cycle.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
Im not picking on you, just your arguments

but I'm not eating boiled oatmeal without adding something to it
Imagine a world where you cant get anything to add to it and plain is your only option.

I always told my kids to choose a career they enjoy rather (similar to fun) than one that would make them rich
Imagine a world where you do not get to choose your work
Thankfully I do not have to imagine such a horrible place. This is America, not China. ;)
This doesnt work actually

Imagine a world where you only ate what tasted the best to you? You would die a horrible death.
But I'd be pretty damn happy though. If I ever get diagnosed with a terminal disease I'm going on a binger.
You would be happy for about 3-4 weeks IMHO. If you only ate the foods that tasted the best, assuming you are a normal human, it would contain so much sugar and fat, with zero fiber, your system would start really shutting down. Not to mention your :poop: issues.
1) I'd be fine. 2) only doing it if I was going to die soon anyway.
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

Yes, its great when your work is fun. Its also great when food tastes good. Both are first world problems and part of our obesity epidemic.

Oatmeal, next to eggs, may be the best non-vegetable/fruit you can eat.
if you're not enjoying your meals you're doing it wrong. Healthy + delicious is not hard to achieve.
Then why doesnt everyone do it?

PS - this specific train of convo started discussing sugar cereals vs the taste of plain oatmeal. Youve put some different goal posts in here.
i missed the lead in,

But to answer your question i think it's multi-factored. The easiest answer is b/c mainly it takes effort. Learning to cook is prob the most important step, but also seeking out healthier options when go out. But the more complicated answer would be due to people getting addicted to foods at a young age and are unable to get out of the cycle.
i would argue cost also
 
PS - this specific train of convo started discussing sugar cereals vs the taste of plain oatmeal.
To be fair, the Cascadia Farms cereal is sugar-free ( @3C's ? ). We had a few posts earlier in the week about whether healthier, low-sugar cereal was priced way out of line compared to familiar sugary "kid" cereals. Looks like, broadly, they're not.
 
Im not picking on you, just your arguments

but I'm not eating boiled oatmeal without adding something to it
Imagine a world where you cant get anything to add to it and plain is your only option.

I always told my kids to choose a career they enjoy rather (similar to fun) than one that would make them rich
Imagine a world where you do not get to choose your work
Thankfully I do not have to imagine such a horrible place. This is America, not China. ;)
This doesnt work actually

Imagine a world where you only ate what tasted the best to you? You would die a horrible death.
But I'd be pretty damn happy though. If I ever get diagnosed with a terminal disease I'm going on a binger.
You would be happy for about 3-4 weeks IMHO. If you only ate the foods that tasted the best, assuming you are a normal human, it would contain so much sugar and fat, with zero fiber, your system would start really shutting down. Not to mention your :poop: issues.
1) I'd be fine. 2) only doing it if I was going to die soon anyway.
Im not sure you would. There is a reason some food tastes good to us, and some not so much. Unfortunately, the reduction in the cost of food, especially the good tasting kind, has outpaced our genetic evolution of not needing it like we used to.
 
I think there are literally zero people in the United States who are fat because they eat too much fruit. That's a completely fictional character.
I agree. Who said that?

Issues with fructose are overblown, a consequence of sugar being blamed for all our nutritional problems. Fruit intake doesn’t increase the risk of diabetes, or obesity, for example. And the fiber content of many types of fruit is quite satiating. I guess smoothies can be calorie bombs, but that is way down the list of my nutritional concerns.
I'm talking about the signals that get sent to the brain, the dopamine release. Someone who is trying to lose weight, and struggling with cravings. If someone is trying to avoid excess sugar, a glass of OJ is not the best thing for them. Is it bad for them? No. Orange juice Will not cause obesity.
Will it make them more likely to crave sweet things, and maybe make a reasonable diet harder to maintain?

Yes, IMO.
Fruit juice is different than whole fruit. Even if we assume the juice has no added sugar, it is more calorically dense, and contains less fiber to blunt the glycemic response.

I can’t really speak to sugar cravings, but considering the overall risk vs. benefits, I’d not deter anyone from including whole fruit in their diet.
 
But the more complicated answer would be due to people getting addicted to foods at a young age and are unable to get out of the cycle.
I almost glossed over the BEST PART!!

So youre saying companies are producing foods (ie ask the FDA if sugar a food!) which create addiction through dopamine responses in our brain??? SAY IT AIN'T SO!! Then they put this "food" in what feels like 3 outa every 4 items for sale at the grocery store? THIS CANT BE TRUEZ!!??!!1!!11!
 
My wife is the cereal eater so I found some no sugar added cereal at Costco and it's actually really good, but it's $14 for a box of 2 bags. I haven't priced cereal in forever but that has to be quite a bit higher than the junk from Post and Kellogg's.

Go check out that Costco packaging and tell us how many ounces of cereal are in those two bags.

Familiar brands of breakfast cereal have gone up a lot in the last decade -- that $14 could be in the ballpark if the quantity is about what I'm thinking.

EDIT: The box you linked to above was ~300 grams, or 10.6 ounces. Is the two-bag packages kind of like two boxes the size in your link?
34oz between 2 bags

I didn't mean to leave you hanging here. I took snapshots earlier this week of some cereal prices at my local everyday grocery (not a Whole Foods or fancy grocery). The prices in the photos represent a mild discount -- I think regular price is more like $5.79 - $5.99. And yeah, Costco probably sells the sugary cereals cheaper than this (per ounce). But still -- this was an interesting comparison:

Cascadia Farms
Mixed Berry @ Costco
Post HoneyCombPost Fruity Pebbles
price/pkg$ 14.00$ 5.29$ 5.29
oz/pkg34.0012.5011.00
price per oz$ 0.41$ 0.42$ 0.48

$5.99 ($0.14/ounce)
Feel free to eat that as is without adding anything but I'm sure once you add "flavor" to it the price will go up.
Let me blow your mind a little bit ...

Why does "food" need to taste "good"? Food doesnt need to taste good just as much as "work" doesnt need to be "fun".

Yes, its great when your work is fun. Its also great when food tastes good. Both are first world problems and part of our obesity epidemic.

Oatmeal, next to eggs, may be the best non-vegetable/fruit you can eat.
if you're not enjoying your meals you're doing it wrong. Healthy + delicious is not hard to achieve.
Then why doesnt everyone do it?

PS - this specific train of convo started discussing sugar cereals vs the taste of plain oatmeal. Youve put some different goal posts in here.
i missed the lead in,

But to answer your question i think it's multi-factored. The easiest answer is b/c mainly it takes effort. Learning to cook is prob the most important step, but also seeking out healthier options when go out. But the more complicated answer would be due to people getting addicted to foods at a young age and are unable to get out of the cycle.
i would argue cost also
Agree, and almost added that in, maybe not as relevant for people on this board but the low income folks absolutely.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
Sub 20% guy…..😂😂😂

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?
I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

My VO2is between 39-40 (58 years old), so not too bad. My resting HR is around 48-52. Funny thing is, yesterday went for my bi-annual physical. BP was 114/64. O2 was 98%. Pulse was 48. Nurse did it twice asking if the low HR was normal...
My resting HR is around 45. I get the same thing at the doctor - distinct impression that this is way out of the ordinary.
Yeah, obviously there’s selection bias in play, but the number of people volunteering resting HR below 50 and vO2 max above 50 in these threads is astonishing. Both of those values are in the upper 5% of fitness for middle aged dudes.

And to pile on fat-shaming @DA RAIDERS, 99 is the upper end of “normal” for resting HR. Kinda like 21% is considered high normal for middle aged men (there’s controversy here, but play along).

But I’d never pick that HR as a target for CV fitness, especially if someone was having chest pain.
Exactly why I didnt choose some random HR.

Everyone has a resting HR. Also, VO2 max is not a specific HR, but HR over time.
And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

While it's most accurately assessed via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, which directly measures gas exchange during exertion, availability of such tests is limited, and they are expensive. So there are several formulas available to estimate vO2 max instead. One method involves the ratio of maximum HR to resting HR, another uses distance covered while running, still another uses post-exertional HR, body weight and age. Like BMI, those estimates aren't perfect, but they offer practical alternatives for the real world, and are good enough for most applications.

Nowadays, smart watches estimate vO2 max from HR at sub maximal exertion. So even though HR is incorporated in many vO2 max estimates, it isn't a surrogate for HR over time, but more a reflection of the connectedness of cardiopulmonary physiology.
I would LOVE to hear how HR does not play into VO2 max at all.

VO2 max is exertion over time where exertion is elevated HR within your unique HR zones. Your claim that HR does not play a critical role in the consumption of o2 over time is disingenuous. Is your position VO2 max can be calculated using someone's resting HR? That exertion (ie elevated HR) does not matter at all?
It's an extrapolation. Vo2 max is better measured with respiratory methods, but none of us have that. So we extrapolate HR and some degree of exertion based on data from people that did measure their true vo2.

Same way we extrapolate body fat by stepping on a scale that passes current thru your legs.
 
Sub 20% guy…..😂😂😂

I know you all are just jabbing at each other a bit, but it's kind of a demonstration of what I just posted about: Thin guy negging on somewhat-less-thin guy over body-fat percentage. Both of you probably look like a starving underwear models in a room full of obese people.

Related: In the world of "people who are serious about fitness" ... how serious are the "idea wars" about best diet, best fitness ideas, etc. Does it ever get to the point of profound disrespect? Do the "Mediterranean diet" guys think the Keto guys are loons?
I think humans should focus on resting heart rate and VO2 max. IMHO those are the only 2 metrics which should count. Waaaaaaaay to many different body structures out there, none of which are "wrong".

My VO2is between 39-40 (58 years old), so not too bad. My resting HR is around 48-52. Funny thing is, yesterday went for my bi-annual physical. BP was 114/64. O2 was 98%. Pulse was 48. Nurse did it twice asking if the low HR was normal...
My resting HR is around 45. I get the same thing at the doctor - distinct impression that this is way out of the ordinary.
Yeah, obviously there’s selection bias in play, but the number of people volunteering resting HR below 50 and vO2 max above 50 in these threads is astonishing. Both of those values are in the upper 5% of fitness for middle aged dudes.

And to pile on fat-shaming @DA RAIDERS, 99 is the upper end of “normal” for resting HR. Kinda like 21% is considered high normal for middle aged men (there’s controversy here, but play along).

But I’d never pick that HR as a target for CV fitness, especially if someone was having chest pain.
Exactly why I didnt choose some random HR.

Everyone has a resting HR. Also, VO2 max is not a specific HR, but HR over time.
And to clarify the knowledge you're dropping, vO2 max is not a measure of HR at all. It represents maximal oxygen consumption during physical exertion, which in turn reflects cardiopulmonary fitness. The units are mL oxygen consumed per kg body weight, per minute. Not beats per minute.

While it's most accurately assessed via cardiopulmonary exercise testing, which directly measures gas exchange during exertion, availability of such tests is limited, and they are expensive. So there are several formulas available to estimate vO2 max instead. One method involves the ratio of maximum HR to resting HR, another uses distance covered while running, still another uses post-exertional HR, body weight and age. Like BMI, those estimates aren't perfect, but they offer practical alternatives for the real world, and are good enough for most applications.

Nowadays, smart watches estimate vO2 max from HR at sub maximal exertion. So even though HR is incorporated in many vO2 max estimates, it isn't a surrogate for HR over time, but more a reflection of the connectedness of cardiopulmonary physiology.
I would LOVE to hear how HR does not play into VO2 max at all.

VO2 max is exertion over time where exertion is elevated HR within your unique HR zones. Your claim that HR does not play a critical role in the consumption of o2 over time is disingenuous. Is your position VO2 max can be calculated using someone's resting HR? That exertion (ie elevated HR) does not matter at all?
Heart rate does influence vO2 max, inasmuch as the heart pumps oxygen-containing blood. But it isn’t a direct measure of heart rate over time; it’s a measure of oxygen consumption.

And yes, it can be calculated without exercising at all. The formula is vO2 max = 15 x (estimated max HR/resting HR). Not perfect, but decent ballpark estimate, for me at least.

There are other estimates which utilize sub-maximal and maximum exertion, but when it is actually measured in a lab, they’re looking at volume of gas exchanged. And yes, maximal exertion is needed to determine maximal oxygen use. But many other physiologic and environmental factors factor in as well, so describing it solely as average exertional HR is inaccurate.
 
But the more complicated answer would be due to people getting addicted to foods at a young age and are unable to get out of the cycle.
I almost glossed over the BEST PART!!

So youre saying companies are producing foods (ie ask the FDA if sugar a food!) which create addiction through dopamine responses in our brain??? SAY IT AIN'T SO!! Then they put this "food" in what feels like 3 outa every 4 items for sale at the grocery store? THIS CANT BE TRUEZ!!??!!1!!11!
And it's crazy but some people don't get as addicted to the stuff in food as others. I know. Shocking.
 
PS - this specific train of convo started discussing sugar cereals vs the taste of plain oatmeal.
To be fair, the Cascadia Farms cereal is sugar-free ( @3C's ? ). We had a few posts earlier in the week about whether healthier, low-sugar cereal was priced way out of line compared to familiar sugary "kid" cereals. Looks like, broadly, they're not.
No added sugar. Dried fruit and date powder for sweetener.
 
Yeah, I've come around to the idea that the best diet is one that is sustainable, while achieving a healthy weight.
Again, your opinion here is mis-guided. Calories in, calories out. That is all that matters, not weight. Everyone's size is different and attempting to label some sort of "healthy weight" is completely misguided.
Yes, but all calories aren’t created the same. So the types of food you eat matter.

And we’ll have to agree to disagree about the existence of healthy weight. It’s not the only thing that matters, but weight, like BMI, is one proxy for overall health.
 
Anyway, you know how that particular message gets interpreted all too often? "Exercise doesn't matter". :shrug: :wall:
Right. As it turns out, exercise is the only* thing that matters.
* - UNLESS YOUR LITTLE JOHNNY HAS A PEANUT ALLERGY!!
Wait, are you Peter Attia?

Help me understand your stance. Do you believe exercising alone can reverse our obesity epidemic?
If we are slinging jokes ... are you sponsored by big pharma?

It is by far, way above and beyond, all other contributing factors combined.

Is a healthy diet important? Sure. Is it most important, no.
I’ve never prescribed a weight loss drug, so not the best joke.
 
  • Thinking
Reactions: JAA

Users who are viewing this thread

Top