41 replies to this topic

[Brafarality]

Translation: Based upon what you have said, you are not likely to support the statement "Suffer your fanny for your face".
Not sure where it originated from, but it is a saying that implies you have to have a fat ass (particularly later in life) to keep a healthy, youthful face.
I don't think you would agree with that sentiment.

Oh absolutely not. It is counter-intuitive to the max in my way of viewing health.

To simplify it I will say it like this. If you need a fat face to look young then you're not that young to begin with on a biological level. This statement issues from the fact that people with youthful appearances that are based on health (and a degree of sun protection) instead of botox usually retain them despite how low their body fat is, or how skinny their faces are.

I totally hear you, but think there is more to it than just facial appearance. In nature, a large amount or percentage of body fat is a common denominator of long-lived higher order species. With too little body fat, you rely on day to day dietary intake more than you would if you had a large fat store. I think a fat store that is the result of a super healthy diet is a really good thing, since vitamins and micronutrients such as vitamin D and minerals that are initially water-soluble salts which are later stored in fat cells, are available in abundance for months on end via your blubber storage!
While a low fat diet is negative in general, it was exacerbated in the 1980s by low fat and fat free alternatives that not only deprived the dieter of vital fat, but also added a blast of the most unhealthy of chemicals.
A basic check of Nutrition and Health fact pages indicates that fat cells and fat in general are responsible for a huge number of positive things, such as cell repair and maintaining healthy skin and promoting nutrient absorption. It's so good, man. I believe there is a strong evolutionary reason we craveit that has something to do with unpredictable food availability and something to do with that it is just so good for you.

[Athanasios]

Translation: Based upon what you have said, you are not likely to support the statement "Suffer your fanny for your face".
Not sure where it originated from, but it is a saying that implies you have to have a fat ass (particularly later in life) to keep a healthy, youthful face.
I don't think you would agree with that sentiment.

Be careful using the word fanny in an international forum:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fanny

[TheFountain]

Translation: Based upon what you have said, you are not likely to support the statement "Suffer your fanny for your face".
Not sure where it originated from, but it is a saying that implies you have to have a fat ass (particularly later in life) to keep a healthy, youthful face.
I don't think you would agree with that sentiment.

Oh absolutely not. It is counter-intuitive to the max in my way of viewing health.

To simplify it I will say it like this. If you need a fat face to look young then you're not that young to begin with on a biological level. This statement issues from the fact that people with youthful appearances that are based on health (and a degree of sun protection) instead of botox usually retain them despite how low their body fat is, or how skinny their faces are.

I totally hear you, but think there is more to it than just facial appearance. In nature, a large amount or percentage of body fat is a common denominator of long-lived higher order species. With too little body fat, you rely on day to day dietary intake more than you would if you had a large fat store. I think a fat store that is the result of a super healthy diet is a really good thing, since vitamins and micronutrients such as vitamin D and minerals that are initially water-soluble salts which are later stored in fat cells, are available in abundance for months on end via your blubber storage!
While a low fat diet is negative in general, it was exacerbated in the 1980s by low fat and fat free alternatives that not only deprived the dieter of vital fat, but also added a blast of the most unhealthy of chemicals.
A basic check of Nutrition and Health fact pages indicates that fat cells and fat in general are responsible for a huge number of positive things, such as cell repair and maintaining healthy skin and promoting nutrient absorption. It's so good, man. I believe there is a strong evolutionary reason we craveit that has something to do with unpredictable food availability and something to do with that it is just so good for you.

My way of viewing things is this. If fat were ultimately metabolizing properly the body should not be left with an over abundance of it in the form of visceral stores. It is entirely possible for fat to have benefits while also metabolizing properly at the same time. Storing too much body fat is an indication of poor metabolism as a result of either bad dieting or some other underlying condition. Otherwise the only conditions I can think of in which fat is meant to 'stick' is perhaps seasonal transitions. Our ancestors likely stored a little more fat during winter months. But does that mean they were skinny fat during these months? hell no! My opinion.

[TheFountain]

Edit: Double post.

Edited by TheFountain, 04 July 2012 - 02:01 PM.

[TheFountain]

Translation: Based upon what you have said, you are not likely to support the statement "Suffer your fanny for your face".
Not sure where it originated from, but it is a saying that implies you have to have a fat ass (particularly later in life) to keep a healthy, youthful face.
I don't think you would agree with that sentiment.

Oh absolutely not. It is counter-intuitive to the max in my way of viewing health.

To simplify it I will say it like this. If you need a fat face to look young then you're not that young to begin with on a biological level. This statement issues from the fact that people with youthful appearances that are based on health (and a degree of sun protection) instead of botox usually retain them despite how low their body fat is, or how skinny their faces are.

I totally hear you, but think there is more to it than just facial appearance. In nature, a large amount or percentage of body fat is a common denominator of long-lived higher order species. With too little body fat, you rely on day to day dietary intake more than you would if you had a large fat store. I think a fat store that is the result of a super healthy diet is a really good thing, since vitamins and micronutrients such as vitamin D and minerals that are initially water-soluble salts which are later stored in fat cells, are available in abundance for months on end via your blubber storage!
While a low fat diet is negative in general, it was exacerbated in the 1980s by low fat and fat free alternatives that not only deprived the dieter of vital fat, but also added a blast of the most unhealthy of chemicals.
A basic check of Nutrition and Health fact pages indicates that fat cells and fat in general are responsible for a huge number of positive things, such as cell repair and maintaining healthy skin and promoting nutrient absorption. It's so good, man. I believe there is a strong evolutionary reason we craveit that has something to do with unpredictable food availability and something to do with that it is just so good for you.

Edit:

Wrong quote.

Edited by TheFountain, 04 July 2012 - 02:44 PM.

[Brafarality]

Translation: Based upon what you have said, you are not likely to support the statement "Suffer your fanny for your face".
Not sure where it originated from, but it is a saying that implies you have to have a fat ass (particularly later in life) to keep a healthy, youthful face.
I don't think you would agree with that sentiment.

Oh absolutely not. It is counter-intuitive to the max in my way of viewing health.

To simplify it I will say it like this. If you need a fat face to look young then you're not that young to begin with on a biological level. This statement issues from the fact that people with youthful appearances that are based on health (and a degree of sun protection) instead of botox usually retain them despite how low their body fat is, or how skinny their faces are.

I totally hear you, but think there is more to it than just facial appearance. In nature, a large amount or percentage of body fat is a common denominator of long-lived higher order species. With too little body fat, you rely on day to day dietary intake more than you would if you had a large fat store. I think a fat store that is the result of a super healthy diet is a really good thing, since vitamins and micronutrients such as vitamin D and minerals that are initially water-soluble salts which are later stored in fat cells, are available in abundance for months on end via your blubber storage!
While a low fat diet is negative in general, it was exacerbated in the 1980s by low fat and fat free alternatives that not only deprived the dieter of vital fat, but also added a blast of the most unhealthy of chemicals.
A basic check of Nutrition and Health fact pages indicates that fat cells and fat in general are responsible for a huge number of positive things, such as cell repair and maintaining healthy skin and promoting nutrient absorption. It's so good, man. I believe there is a strong evolutionary reason we craveit that has something to do with unpredictable food availability and something to do with that it is just so good for you.

My way of viewing things is this. If fat were ultimately metabolizing properly the body should not be left with an over abundance of it in the form of visceral stores. It is entirely possible for fat to have benefits while also metabolizing properly at the same time. Storing too much body fat is an indication of poor metabolism as a result of either bad dieting or some other underlying condition. Otherwise the only conditions I can think of in which fat is meant to 'stick' is perhaps seasonal transitions. Our ancestors likely stored a little more fat during winter months. But does that mean they were skinny fat during these months? hell no! My opinion.

Perhaps you have a point and are living a good lifestyle, but there is one thing that probably requires more dieting awareness and effort for the low body fat person: I would think that a person with low body fat would have to balance out his diet, lets say, every week as opposed to every month.

Doesnt mean he has to intake more, just that he should probably make sure he has a balanced diet over the course of a week. Less room to slack off, maybe.

A higher body fat person can probably have a balanced diet over the course of a month, as opposed to a week, relying upon stored nutients to round things off and make the need for complete balance stretched over a longer timeframe. Again, these are just impressions that could wide of the mark, but they seem to make sense.

Again, neither is necessariliy eating any more, it's just that a low body fat person may need to have 7 servings of vegetables per week as opposed to a high fat person who can have 28 servings over the course of a month, not needing to make sure he has 7 every week. But both the low fat person and the high fat person still need to have a total of 28 servings over a month...something like that.

Edited by Brafarality, 04 July 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[TheFountain]

Translation: Based upon what you have said, you are not likely to support the statement "Suffer your fanny for your face".
Not sure where it originated from, but it is a saying that implies you have to have a fat ass (particularly later in life) to keep a healthy, youthful face.
I don't think you would agree with that sentiment.

Oh absolutely not. It is counter-intuitive to the max in my way of viewing health.

To simplify it I will say it like this. If you need a fat face to look young then you're not that young to begin with on a biological level. This statement issues from the fact that people with youthful appearances that are based on health (and a degree of sun protection) instead of botox usually retain them despite how low their body fat is, or how skinny their faces are.

I totally hear you, but think there is more to it than just facial appearance. In nature, a large amount or percentage of body fat is a common denominator of long-lived higher order species. With too little body fat, you rely on day to day dietary intake more than you would if you had a large fat store. I think a fat store that is the result of a super healthy diet is a really good thing, since vitamins and micronutrients such as vitamin D and minerals that are initially water-soluble salts which are later stored in fat cells, are available in abundance for months on end via your blubber storage!
While a low fat diet is negative in general, it was exacerbated in the 1980s by low fat and fat free alternatives that not only deprived the dieter of vital fat, but also added a blast of the most unhealthy of chemicals.
A basic check of Nutrition and Health fact pages indicates that fat cells and fat in general are responsible for a huge number of positive things, such as cell repair and maintaining healthy skin and promoting nutrient absorption. It's so good, man. I believe there is a strong evolutionary reason we craveit that has something to do with unpredictable food availability and something to do with that it is just so good for you.

My way of viewing things is this. If fat were ultimately metabolizing properly the body should not be left with an over abundance of it in the form of visceral stores. It is entirely possible for fat to have benefits while also metabolizing properly at the same time. Storing too much body fat is an indication of poor metabolism as a result of either bad dieting or some other underlying condition. Otherwise the only conditions I can think of in which fat is meant to 'stick' is perhaps seasonal transitions. Our ancestors likely stored a little more fat during winter months. But does that mean they were skinny fat during these months? hell no! My opinion.

Perhaps you have a point and are living a good lifestyle, but there is one thing that probably requires more dieting awareness and effort for the low body fat person: I would think that a person with low body fat would have to balance out his diet, lets say, every week as opposed to every month.

Doesnt mean he has to intake more, just that he should probably make sure he has a balanced diet over the course of a week. Less room to slack off, maybe.

A higher body fat person can probably have a balanced diet over the course of a month, as opposed to a week, relying upon stored nutients to round things off and make the need for complete balance stretched over a longer timeframe. Again, these are just impressions that could wide of the mark, but they seem to make sense.

Again, neither is necessariliy eating any more, it's just that a low body fat person may need to have 7 servings of vegetables per week as opposed to a high fat person who can have 28 servings over the course of a month, not needing to make sure he has 7 every week. But both the low fat person and the high fat person still need to have a total of 28 servings over a month...something like that.

There are pros and cons to both. I think the pros of having a little more body fat apply to famine situations mainly, which I am not sure is very applicable to modern living. If during a famine someone had higher fat stores they would certainly last longer than someone with lower fat stores. But all things being equal? Lower body fat still seems to be better for overall health outcome.

[TheKidInside]

May a mod please close this thread? It's anti-productive. Fact, obese and overweight people are unhealthy. the end of this "discussion". I am a nutritionist so I am supposed to "accept and give obese people a ribbon"? I don't understand what you are getting at. Sure, Oprah can sit around and attempt to get her arms around people who are dying from lack of information and the disgusting chemically treated make-pretend "food" that the government and bio-tech companies are trying to kill us with but that doesn't mean it's "fine to stay that way".

Don't even start with that "body fat and famine" nonsense. If a famine comes and those people aren't able to consume the lard and french fries they used to, they will first and foremost suffer cognitive and neurological problems as well as SAD-like symptoms and depression. This is a revolving door argument that is senseless and doesn't belong on a forum discussing health as previously mentioned multiple posts ago.

[Brafarality]

May a mod please close this thread? It's anti-productive. Fact, obese and overweight people are unhealthy. the end of this "discussion". I am a nutritionist so I am supposed to "accept and give obese people a ribbon"? I don't understand what you are getting at. Sure, Oprah can sit around and attempt to get her arms around people who are dying from lack of information and the disgusting chemically treated make-pretend "food" that the government and bio-tech companies are trying to kill us with but that doesn't mean it's "fine to stay that way".

Don't even start with that "body fat and famine" nonsense. If a famine comes and those people aren't able to consume the lard and french fries they used to, they will first and foremost suffer cognitive and neurological problems as well as SAD-like symptoms and depression. This is a revolving door argument that is senseless and doesn't belong on a forum discussing health as previously mentioned multiple posts ago.

Not sure who is arguing in favor of obesity here, but it certainly is not me. I am arguing against too little body fat: big difference. Like someone arguing in favor of national defense is not necessarily in favor of a massive arms build up. Too little body fat leaves one vulnerable, and not just in famine situations. It creates too much reliance upon immediate nutritional intake.
Obesity is an unhealthy and dangerous condition. But, so is the modern ultra-low fat percentage body type, imho. Both have drawbacks.

Edited by Brafarality, 06 July 2012 - 04:41 PM.

[platypus]

Abdominal fat converts testosterone to estrogen, so it's prudent for guys to minimise abdominal fat..

[TheFountain]

May a mod please close this thread? It's anti-productive.

I don't agree with everything Paul is saying but he is still entitled to his opinions and he does make some points worth considering, although I still disagree with them for the reasons I already explained (metabolic mainly). So let's not be over-dramatic or attempt to be dictators, okay?

[TheFountain]

Too little body fat leaves one vulnerable, and not just in famine situations.

Can you substantiate this beyond an opinion? I'd love to read some studies or articles.

It creates too much reliance upon immediate nutritional intake.

One could say the same of people with too little muscle, yes?

Nobody is saying lower your body fat to single digits without having some muscle tone to make up for the lack of fat. Muscle in place of fat stores has its own rewards which more than make up for the lack of fat my friend.

Edited by TheFountain, 09 July 2012 - 03:20 PM.