General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Hard Loser? This may really explain it.

Started by Martha Gallagher · · Last activity · 14 posts · 312 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
27 January 2005
Last activity
31 January 2005
Original author
Martha Gallagher
Posts
14
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
312
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–14 of 14
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. There's a cool Washinton Post article at

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41897-2005Jan27.html

    on the subject of some people being naturally fidgety while others are
    more stolid. They found that the fidgeters could burn up approximately
    10-20 lbs more a year simply by their jiggling around and that the
    sitters-still tended to have higher inertia even when they had lost weight
    - in other words they weren't limiting their movement because they were
    fat, they were fat (in part) because they didn't move around much.

    I find this particularly resonant because I've always been a very still
    person. I don't fidget, jump up to get things, drum my fingers. I have an
    innate capacity for stillness. In fact, I find really fidgety people
    somewhat disconcerting to be around. And, I've always tended towards being
    overweight. (honesty compels me to add that my weight problems have, in no
    small part, been due to poor and excessive food choices.)

    So, while it seems not to be the case that some people actually have
    significantly slower metabolisms, functionally, some of us may really not
    be burning up the same number of calories in our daily activities even if
    we eat the same foods and spend the same amount of time in the gym as our
    fidgety opposite numbers.

    I don't see this as a call to throw up our hands and cry "we are doomed to
    fatness" (unless doing so would burn up a few calories in itself), but
    rather as a way to understand that some of us may in fact need to work a
    little harder.

    Because this theory seems plausible to me, I'm going to try a two pronged
    experiment.

    First, I'm going to see whether I can train myself into being a fidgeter.
    It doesn't come naturally for me, but that doesn't mean it isn't a
    learnable trait.

    Second, I'm going to recognize that I probably really do burn fewer
    calories during the day by my activities, and so if it turns out that I
    can't teach myself to fidget, then I'm going to need to add another half
    hour or so of concentrated exercise to my schedule.

    Does anyone else find this study as resonant for them as I do? Anyone who
    doesn't find it convincing?

    Martha

    --
    "ALPO is 99 cents a can. That's over SEVEN dog dollars!!"
    Revek - ASDLC

  2. "Martha Gallagher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    There's a cool Washinton Post article at

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41897-2005Jan27.html

    on the subject of some people being naturally fidgety while others are
    more stolid.

    There's a documentary running in the UK ay the moment comparing a bunch of
    kids - they came to the same conclusion. The difference between the extremes
    was astonishing. Some of it did seem to be learned - a sick kid became
    sedentary.

    Buying a laptop has done nothing to make me more fidgetty!

    Nicky.

    --
    A1c 10.5/5.7/<6 Weight 95/78/72Kg
    1g Metformin, 87.5ug Thyroxine
    T2 DX 05/2004

  3. "Martha Gallagher" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    There's a cool Washinton Post article at

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41897-2005Jan27.html

    on the subject of some people being naturally fidgety while others are
    more stolid. They found that the fidgeters could burn up approximately
    10-20 lbs more a year simply by their jiggling around and that the
    sitters-still tended to have higher inertia even when they had lost weight
    - in other words they weren't limiting their movement because they were
    fat, they were fat (in part) because they didn't move around much.

    Quoted message said:

    Does anyone else find this study as resonant for them as I do? Anyone who
    doesn't find it convincing?

    I've heard of similar studies 5+ years ago. They sound good to me. I'm a
    fidgeter 🙂

    --
    Spring
    LC since 1/1/04
    260/200/170

    "Before" & "current" pics at link below:
    http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/sprgsnow/album?.tok=phX4sVBBuvxvs4Hs&.dir=/55b8&.src=ph

  4. Quoted message said:

    Does anyone else find this study as resonant for them as I do? Anyone who
    doesn't find it convincing?

    Martha


    Yup, me. I'm incredibly fidgety and I have the world's slowest
    metabolism.

    --
    Jane Lumley

  5. You only think you're incredibly fidgety.

    --
    You take stupid to a new level. -- MFW

    "Jane Lumley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Does anyone else find this study as resonant for them as I do? Anyone who
    doesn't find it convincing?

    Martha


    Yup, me. I'm incredibly fidgety and I have the world's slowest
    metabolism.

    --
    Jane Lumley

  6. Quoted message said:

    You only think you're incredibly fidgety.


    Hi, JCD. Other people think so too, and frequently say so.
    --
    Jane Lumley

  7. You only think you are resistant to weight loss.

    --
    You take stupid to a new level. -- MFW

    "Jane Lumley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You only think you're incredibly fidgety.


    Hi, JCD. Other people think so too, and frequently say so.
    --
    Jane Lumley

  8. In article <[email hidden]>, JC Der
    Koenig <[email hidden]> writes

    Quoted message said:

    You only think you are resistant to weight loss.

    I don't think I am abnormally resistant. I think most middle-aged women
    have to cut calories more and exercise harder than young chaps like you.
    As long as I do that I lose quite fast. I maintain easily, too.

    You're always out looking for that next victim, aren't you? Someone who
    can be exposed as deluded, or made to feel more anxious? Dennis Nilsson
    once remarked that serial killer are sad, weak, pathetic individuals who
    cant' get up a conversation with anyone in a bar. See the point?
    --
    Jane Lumley

  9. I'm not that young.

    Who's Dennis Nilsson, and who cares?

    Why are you still fat?

    --
    You take stupid to a new level. -- MFW

    "Jane Lumley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, JC Der
    Koenig <[email hidden]> writes

    Quoted message said:

    You only think you are resistant to weight loss.

    I don't think I am abnormally resistant. I think most middle-aged women
    have to cut calories more and exercise harder than young chaps like you.
    As long as I do that I lose quite fast. I maintain easily, too.

    You're always out looking for that next victim, aren't you? Someone who
    can be exposed as deluded, or made to feel more anxious? Dennis Nilsson
    once remarked that serial killer are sad, weak, pathetic individuals who
    cant' get up a conversation with anyone in a bar. See the point?
    --
    Jane Lumley

  10. Quoted message said:

    I'm not that young.

    How nice.

    Quoted message said:


    Who's Dennis Nilsson, and who cares?

    A serial killer. Can't answer the second part - his victims, perhaps?

    Quoted message said:


    Why are you still fat?

    I'm not. I'm within normal range for my height.

    Why are you?
    --
    Jane Lumley

  11. JPEGS!!

    --
    Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW

    "Jane Lumley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Why are you still fat?

    I'm not. I'm within normal range for my height.

  12. In article <[email hidden]>, JC Der
    Koenig <[email hidden]> writes

    Quoted message said:

    JPEGS!!


    If you won't take my word for it, why would you believe a picture? You
    would then announce to all that the woman in the picture is actually my
    cousin Sadie and that I am really a two-thousand pound heiferess.

    Why are you still fat, btw? I didn't catch the answer. Unless you are
    fat because you eat JPEGS.

    I'm bored now.
    --
    Jane Lumley

  13. Jane Lumley said:

    I'm bored now.

    what took you so long?

  14. My jpegs have been posted.

    Where are yours?

    --
    Most people are dumb as bricks; some people are dumber than that. -- MFW

    "Jane Lumley" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, JC Der
    Koenig <[email hidden]> writes

    Quoted message said:

    JPEGS!!


    If you won't take my word for it, why would you believe a picture? You
    would then announce to all that the woman in the picture is actually my
    cousin Sadie and that I am really a two-thousand pound heiferess.

    Why are you still fat, btw? I didn't catch the answer. Unless you are
    fat because you eat JPEGS.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.