The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct. 3, 2002
    Location
    it's not the edge of the earth, but you can see it from here
    Posts
    12,079

    Thumbs down Why are horsepeople willing to accept

    IR, metabolic, 'easy keepers,' etc. in horses... Why do they actually believe and acknowledge that the amount of food that would barely keep a pony alive, makes their horse fat?

    But still insist that it's purely calories in vs. calories out that make people overweight?

    <<<kevlar donned, damn it's hot on a 70+ degree day. >>>
    InnisFailte Pinto Sporthorses & Coloured Cobs
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Bits are like cats, what's one more? (Petstorejunkie)



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2001
    Location
    Center of the Universe
    Posts
    7,635

    Default

    Why do they actually believe and acknowledge that the amount of food that would barely keep a pony alive, makes their horse fat?

    But still insist that it's purely calories in vs. calories out that make people overweight?
    because it is? if you starve and exercise your "easy keeper" horse he'll stop being fat at some point.
    If you prevent fat people from consuming lots of calories by doing surgery on their innards they lose weight, therefore proving beyond any doubt that it is indeed a matter of "calories in/calories out".

    But the biggest reason is that most of us know all sorts of non-svelte people who go around insisting they exercise and eat practically nothing with no effect, but casual observation of such people indicates they are lying and/or highly deluded about their actual calorie intact/output.



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar. 3, 2007
    Location
    North-Central IL
    Posts
    5,088

    Default

    It is, and it isn't. I think that all of us start off at different points when we're born, so some people can tolerate more carbs/junk than others, which is why my best friend through school could eat huge pizzas and soda and junk and not exercise and still weigh 100 pounds. I'm seriously coming around to the whole low-to-no carb idea. It's the difference between eating a proper portion of steak and staying full all night or half a pizza and being ravenous after a couple hours. Plus in this country, you know, fat people are the root of all problems. Just the other day my coworker told me her husband 'can't stand to look at fat people'. So, we're just so inconvenient for the rest of the population. Ok, I might be a bit bitter, but there ya go.
    Last edited by Mosey_2003; May. 18, 2010 at 11:46 AM. Reason: Spelling



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2002
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,537

    Default

    Because it's science? I have a thyroid issue that makes it difficult for me to lose weight, but I manage to keep myself in a normal range by cutting back the calories. I am also a type I, insulin dependent diabetic, so that makes things even harder. If you're an "easy keeper", keep yourself easily.

    It's also important to remember that the average exercise one does in a day is nowhere near adequate for weight loss. One can throw hay bales, pick stalls, toss water buckets, and deal with horses all day, but without cardio, weight is only gained in muscle, not lost in fat. Especially for people with desk jobs, fitting in an adequate amount of exercise DEDICATED TO WEIGHT LOSS/MAINTENANCE is critical.
    Here today, gone tomorrow...



  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wendy View Post
    because it is? if you starve and exercise your "easy keeper" horse he'll stop being fat at some point.
    If you prevent fat people from consuming lots of calories by doing surgery on their innards they lose weight, therefore proving beyond any doubt that it is indeed a matter of "calories in/calories out".

    But the biggest reason is that most of us know all sorts of non-svelte people who go around insisting they exercise and eat practically nothing with no effect, but casual observation of such people indicates they are lying and/or highly deluded about their actual calorie intact/output.
    Nonsense.

    I gained 75 lbs in less than 2 months. Because my thyroid crapped out, not because I increased my caloric intake and/or decreased my exercise. STILL trying to get to the right level of synthroid.

    Sure, if I literally starved myself like an anorexic does, I might lose weight.

    But calories in/calories out is simplistic thinking that permits people to hold condescending - even cruel - attitudes towards overweight people.
    http://www.tbhsa.com/index.html

    Originally Posted by JSwan
    I love feral children. They taste like chicken.



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2001
    Location
    Center of the Universe
    Posts
    7,635

    Default

    Sure, if I literally starved myself like an anorexic does, I might lose weight.

    But calories in/calories out is simplistic thinking that permits people to hold condescending - even cruel - attitudes towards overweight people.
    Even with a serious metabolic disorder, it still does come down to calorie in/calorie out. Most people don't have metabolic disorders.

    I think letting people delude themselves into thinking otherwise is not fair to THEM. If you can go around blaming your "metabolism" you won't make the effort to keep yourself healthy. And it IS an effort. If you have a sedentary day job you commute to in a car it's practically impossible to get in sufficient daily exercise to maintain health and almost utterly impossible to get enough exercise to achieve weight loss, and why are there donuts and candy available everywhere but one must make an effort to find a piece of fresh fruit?
    The fat people problem won't be solved by individuals working on their own; it will require a major societal change.



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct. 3, 2002
    Location
    it's not the edge of the earth, but you can see it from here
    Posts
    12,079

    Default

    because it is? if you starve... your "easy keeper" ...

    If you prevent fat people from consuming lots of calories by doing surgery on their innards they lose weight,
    (emphasis mine)

    Research shows that ANY creature, once starved becomes even MORE efficient at gaining weight for the next famine. So the cycle of *starving* to lose is even less effective and more dangerous...

    This is my point, exactly though. 800-1200 calories to me does not seem to be "lots of calories." Bariatric surgery reduces calories to about that level.

    And yet, there are people who eat 800-1200 calories, work out--aerobic and strength--and do not lose. Just like those easy keeper horses.

    Of course we could *starve* the horse, and we end up with ulcers. And without starving them it is clear for these types that no reasonable amount of excercise gets them as lean as the hard keepers. Sure, 6, 8, or all day work might... but even on the ranch, on a grass only (not alfalfa, not clover, GRASS) diet, we had some who could work a 10 or 12 hr day and still be very, very cobby...

    Sure, if I literally starved myself like an anorexic does, I might lose weight.

    But calories in/calories out is simplistic thinking that permits people to hold condescending - even cruel - attitudes towards overweight people.
    again, emphasis mine... and, if you then went back to even a smaller-than-normal amount of calories, say, 800/day, you would find yourself gaining on less than before.
    InnisFailte Pinto Sporthorses & Coloured Cobs
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Bits are like cats, what's one more? (Petstorejunkie)



  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul. 19, 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    10,969

    Default

    Because keeping fruit fresh is a hassle, that's why. Plus people insist on wanting fruit that won't grow where they live and doesn't stay fresh long, making it more expensive.

    Also, because our bodies are about 15,000 years behind out brains, we like foods that deliver a serious caloric punch (high-fat meats, grains that convert to sugar, high-sugar fruits.) Our ancestors didn't eat much in the way of roughage as we're not built to digest it--we can't break down cellulose and our digestive tracts aren't long and slow enough to extract all the nutrients in plants. We don't even have the dentition to deal with heavy plant matter. Like most higher-order primates we're meant to seek out high-fat and high-protein foods because evolutionarily those were the hardest to get but gave us the most energry. Fruits are good (lots of sugar), animal meat and fat is good, grains were GREAT when discovered because they contained a lot of easily-broken-down sugars.

    The problem is nowdays, most Western societies are sedentary (ironically, the US seems to have peaked and is on a health-kick trend while Western Europe is now catching up in the fat department.) Plus people live a lot longer, giving them more time to develop lifestyle diseases, and to worry about living long enough to get fat. Our habits and other risks no longer match the diets we evolved to eat. We also EXPECT to live into our eighties and nineties, which we didn't used to. (It wasn't unheard of, it just wasn't something most people planned on doing.) Our children also don't do as much phyiscal activity, and are less likely to die of childhood diseases and living-condition-related illness or injury. We've gotten TOO efficient at producing food, and at keeping more people alive longer. We also went from agrarian (high activity level, high injury and mortality rate in all groups) to industrial (still high degrees of activity) to post-industrial (machines do everything, humans sit around.) In a warped way, obesity is a sign we've gotten much, much better at living than our ancestors did.



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2002
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    2,537

    Default

    I feel like OP is stuck on starving like it's the only way to lose weight for some people. No one needs to starve. But I find it interesting that OP posts frequently about the uniqueness of her blood panels relative to diagnoses (ex: TSH or free T4- don't recall which one- being within normal ranges, but still got a hypothyroidism diagnosis). And now we're talking about how eating less calories and exercising more doesn't help her to lose weight because she is unique.

    I'm really sorry this sounds so... mean. I can totally identify with the OP's health issues and how they affect weight loss, as I suffer from similar problems (see previous posts). BUT, in light of the fact that we are all a bit more sensitive when it comes to personal health, keep in mind that I'm really trying not to be as mean as I sound.

    The bottom line is this: "normal" ranges of weight, calorie intake, TSH/Free T4 levels, blood pressure, hair growth, etc. etc. etc. are established based on averages taken from healthy people. This means that if you are outside of the "normal" range in one of these categories, you're not in the healthy group. Perhaps you're not necessarily UNHEALTHY, but you're at a much higher risk of contracting certain diseases, which is not really healthy at all.

    It doesn't matter how or why one becomes overweight/obese. What matters is that being overweight/obese is extremely dangerous to one's health- and, yes, even if you find it "normal for you" to be overweight or obese, it is still a huge health concern. Life sucks. For some of us, doing math problems is difficult, or reading copious amounts of boring literature, or painting, or skiing...whatever. None of those things are impossible, though. They just take more work- sometimes A LOT more work. Some of us are really good at losing weight. Some of us are not and need to work like dogs to do it. In the end, it boils down to how much one can/wants to work on it.

    The key is proper diet AND EXERCISE. Exercise is critical. It is one of the only things that can help you burn what you're eating. If you're eating 800 calories a day and still not losing weight, you're either eating pure fat or doing next to no weight-loss oriented exercise. I'm guessing it's the second one.

    No one thinks you should starve. Some of us think you should re-evaluate your diet/exercise program.
    Here today, gone tomorrow...



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan. 14, 2005
    Location
    Aiken SC / Fay NC
    Posts
    5,373

    Default

    I am hypothyroid. (as I later found out in life).

    At one point I was in a physically demanding job, eating 1000 calories a day, and going to the gym. AND gaining weight. Lots of it. My body was trying to save everything. So starving yourself is not the answer.

    Now I am on synthroid, eat about 2200 calories a day normally, and have a desk job, and weigh less (not skinny, but I am 20 pounds less consistently than before.).

    Everyone is different. Just because your blood test falls in the "normal" range, does NOT mean it is healthy for YOU. Everyone is different.

    I can't eat burger king every day like my hyperthyroid sister, but I don't like Burger King anyway.
    FREE TACK/APPAREL ADS: BITS AND BARTER BOARD: http://bitsandbarter.proboards.com/i...ay&thread=5450



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug. 26, 2008
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    They just take more work- sometimes A LOT more work. Some of us are really good at losing weight. Some of us are not and need to work like dogs to do it. In the end, it boils down to how much one can/wants to work on it.
    This.

    *the following is written using the universal you, not necessarily the OP you specifically*

    It is also infinitely harder to make positive, healthy lifestyle changes if you are focused on a negative self-image and the esthetics of your body compared to freaks of nature (supermodels.)

    Love and respect yourself, then accept that you have some unique challenges to maintaining an ideal weight...then take the steps.

    It isn't impossible to keep FAT off an easy-keeper horse. Yeah, they are always going to be more filled out and have a higher body fat percentage. That's why condition "healthy" is a range on a continuum. A TB is often most healthy on the lower end, a cobby type is likely healthy at a higher body fat percentage. Myself, I'm like an old style Morgan. I build muscle like crazy and have to watch that I don't overeat and under exercise, because I will inflate quickly.

    Healthy weight and body fat percentages in humans are a range too, and some people ARE healthier at the higher end. They feel better, moods are better, productivity is higher...good. Find the balance.

    It is impossible to make the positive changes if you persist in seeing yourself as a victim of your own body chemistry. Own it. Maximize what you can do with it. I've not yet heard of a medical condition that made it physically impossible to lose fat. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but the thyroid disorders I know of make it challenging. Not impossible.

    Do you need support? Probably. Get it. No one says it will be easy or that you have to do it alone.

    It is ALWAYS calories in/calories out. Metabolic disorders change the order and rates that things are absorbed and burned...they don't change the laws of thermodynamics.
    Lifestyle coordinator for Zora, Spooky, Wolfgang and Warrior



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug. 2, 2004
    Location
    Whidbey Is, Wash.
    Posts
    10,243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rugbygirl View Post
    It is ALWAYS calories in/calories out. Metabolic disorders change the order and rates that things are absorbed and burned...they don't change the laws of thermodynamics.
    Yep. If you are different, then you can't judge yourself compared to others. IE: starving yourself to lose weight...your "starving" and my "starving" are different. My idea of starving myself would be 700 calories or less a day to lose weight by diet alone, and others will lose weight on anything less than 1800 calories. If you have a metabolic disorder, and I don't, then for you to lose weight and me to lose weight, we will have different diets.

    That is also why I run several times a week in addition to my sometimes physical job, I play with dogs and ponies, and I watch what I eat including substituting some meals for weight-loss drinks throughout the week. I eat more on physical days, less on others. It's common sense and math.

    **The "you" is not the OP, just general **
    COTH's official mini-donk enabler

    "I am all for reaching out, but in some situations it needs to be done with a rolled up news paper." Alagirl



  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug. 26, 2008
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    This is my point, exactly though. 800-1200 calories to me does not seem to be "lots of calories."
    Just read this. That is a fair bit of calories if your goal is to lose weight.

    When I was playing competitive rugby (4 practices a week and 2-3 80 minute games) I worked out 6 mornings a week (alternating running and weights) my personal trainer had me on a 1350 cal/day diet. SEVEN GRAMS OF FAT per meal. THIRTY grams of carbs (eat six times a day.) I lost weight, built a ton of muscle, improved all my sprint times and endurance, I was more accurate with ball handling and was the go-to to help out with manual labour at home. I was 19 years old, and still around 11-12% body fat. But you could see the weight loss around my face.

    I'd absolutely have gained weight if I hadn't exercised that intensely, that often.

    I eat less now, and exercise less, and guess what...I am slowly gaining. I am back into sports though, so it will balance back down.
    Lifestyle coordinator for Zora, Spooky, Wolfgang and Warrior



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2005
    Location
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Posts
    13,908

    Default It's complicated

    I have to wonder how many of the "It's just a matter of eating less" crowd are pre menopausal.

    Menopause changes so many things.

    Stress is another factor and also insufficient sleep. When a person is under stress her body tends to hoard calories in the form of fat in preparation for the upcoming disaster.

    When a person has restricted calories in the past the body adapts to that level of nutrition. More calories, even if those calories are lower than another person's will be stored as fat in preparation for the famine that is sure to return.

    A person who exercises regularly has to increase the amount of exercise to burn the same calories as her body gets more efficient.


    Insulin resistance means that a person stores carbs as fat rather than burning it as fuel.

    I may kill the next person who tells me "Oh but you must eat good carbs"
    I wasn't always a Smurf
    Penmerryl's Sophie RIDSH
    "I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was"
    The ignore list is my friend. It takes 2 to argue.



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2005
    Location
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosey_2003 View Post
    I'm seriously coming around to the whole low-to-no carb idea. It's the difference between eating a proper portion of steak and staying full all night or half a pizza and being ravenous after a couple hours.
    FWIW, there is scientific evidence to support that idea

    summary
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94388.php

    paper
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2386677/

    ghrelin is the hormone that causes us to feel hungry
    Last edited by carolprudm; May. 18, 2010 at 05:08 PM. Reason: bad link
    I wasn't always a Smurf
    Penmerryl's Sophie RIDSH
    "I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was"
    The ignore list is my friend. It takes 2 to argue.



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul. 14, 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    6,593

    Default

    My sister literally gave herself malnutrition dieting to lose weight.

    She struggled for YEARS with being overweight.

    Then she discovered aerobics, and the rest was history. Careful about what she eats? Sure. Diet? Never again.
    "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug. 26, 2008
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    A person who exercises regularly has to increase the amount of exercise to burn the same calories as her body gets more efficient.
    This is a good point, but often people up the intensity of the exercise as their fitness increases too.

    You're right, it is complicated...and also simple. You have your own base metabolic rate (which does change over time, and IS individually pretty variable) as well as your own ideal body weight/fat percentage. The basal metabolic rate does have an impact on how many calories you burn running 10 minutes at "10" intensity for you, vs how many I burn in the same 10 minutes at my "10" intensity. It doesn't vary as much as some people think though. The number the machine spits out, based on heart rate, is reasonably accurate. So maybe I burned 40 calories in our little race, and you burned only 20. I get to eat more calories than you, but we can both still lose the same amount of weight.

    Insulin resistance doesn't mean that ALL the carbs you eat turn to fat. If it did, you would die. Your muscles would be digested. An IR diet is tougher to manage than some.
    Lifestyle coordinator for Zora, Spooky, Wolfgang and Warrior



  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec. 4, 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,960

    Default

    It's not necessarily calories in vs calories out. I work in healthcare, and on a daily basis councel my cleints on healthy lifestyle choices. Everything from eating well, to proper excercise, to actually designing an excercise program for them.

    I had a collegue design an excercise program for me, since its not really recomended to make your own. What he designed for me was ridiculous, it was more like my regular warmup. Why? Because he figured without interviewing me that becuase I was a size 18 I must be inert and eat nothing but junk. This isn't so. I took him hiking with me a couple weeks after that and he quickly realized that I wasn't just a lazy fat chick.

    I *know* I'm heavy, and yes I would like to be thin, but it just doesn't happen for my body type.
    Riding the winds of change

    Heeling NRG Aussies
    Like us on facebook!



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug. 26, 2008
    Posts
    1,799

    Default

    I had a collegue design an excercise program for me, since its not really recomended to make your own. What he designed for me was ridiculous, it was more like my regular warmup. Why? Because he figured without interviewing me that becuase I was a size 18 I must be inert and eat nothing but junk.
    Yeah, that's total nonsense. There are a lot of factors that go into estimating your base metabolic rate! That's one of the keys to a successful program.

    I have skinny, bird-like friends who would actually die on the diet I described above (my rugby one.) Metabolisms like hummingbirds. C'est la vie.
    Lifestyle coordinator for Zora, Spooky, Wolfgang and Warrior



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar. 12, 2006
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    Then she discovered aerobics, and the rest was history. Careful about what she eats? Sure. Diet? Never again.
    All bodies are different. I gained weight training for a marathon, yet can sit on my rear and eat 1200 calories a day and lose weight all day long (yeah, I'll be crabby!).

    But bottom line, most people who are severely overweight don't have some slow metabolism. Yes, there are tons (ha) of people out there in that 150-200 range who can't seem to lose it even with good diet and exercise. I'm one of them- but hey, its easy enough to stay fairly healthy eating a good diet and getting good exercise. I would say we are the draft horses of the world- which is fine- whatever. Probably if we really cracked down and ate with absolute austerity, we could get thin. I do think there are a SMALL number of people who genuinely must starve to be thin- I feel bad for them.

    But boy- people eat a lot of calories- someone keeps McDonalds and Cheesecake Factory and M&M/Mars in business. It isn't ultra marathoners. You go to the grocery- fat people have bad food in their carts. They are NOT eating only fruits, veggies and lean meats. I was at a Ruby Tuesdays and watched people at the salad bar with stacks of food on the plate- yeah- all they had was salad.... but it was probably 1200 calories. I think people often don't realize how much they eat. Hell, I didn't. Then I started looking up calorie counts on restaurant items- 800 calories on a salad? 680 calories for a sandwich. Yup- double the calories I would have estimated!

    So yes, I think many people may think they are the IR Draft, but in reality they are the Quarter Horse whose owner sneaks them a handful of sweetfeed and 6 studmuffins a day.

    And for horses, they only know your weight- the horse does not really care if you weigh 350 because you are on steroids, live off McDonalds or have the metabolism of an elephant. True horsepeople consider the horse.... and the reason for the weight discrimination is often on behalf of the well being of the horse. The horse does not say, well, my back hurts, but she only ate 1000 calories today and ran 3 miles, so its OK.



Similar Threads

  1. The kindness of horsepeople...
    By atr in forum Off Course
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: Dec. 11, 2011, 11:05 PM
  2. Rochester area horsepeople
    By Equine Studies in forum Off Course
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Nov. 13, 2011, 08:33 PM
  3. Do Horsepeople take more NSAIDS?
    By SaddleFitterVA in forum Off Course
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: May. 19, 2010, 02:07 PM
  4. Horsepeople to Admire
    By magnolia73 in forum Eventing
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Dec. 8, 2008, 06:21 PM
  5. Old Subject -- Single Horsepeople
    By Velvet in forum Off Course
    Replies: 153
    Last Post: Apr. 13, 2007, 08:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness