Swine Flu Kills Obese People Disproportionately 661
Philip K Dickhead writes "Bloomberg is reporting that the World Health Organization discovered a single, surprising characteristic that's emerged among swine flu victims who become severely ill: They are all fat. Infected people with a body mass index greater than 40 suffer respiratory complications that are harder to treat and can be fatal. The virus appears to be on a collision course with the obesity epidemic. WHO officials are gathering statistics to confirm and understand this development. 'It's very likely that if we went back retrospectively and looked at people who did poorly during seasonal flu, what would shake out is that obesity would be one of the risks.' Fat cells secrete chemicals that cause chronic, low-level inflammation that can hamper the body's immune response and narrow the airways, says Tim Armstrong, a doctor working in the WHO's chronic diseases department in Geneva."
Well... yeh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases (Score:5, Insightful)
With the relatively small number of people that have died as a result of the H1N1 it's much easier to detect whether or not it's accurate for the group. But when doing models of how this is likely to shape out, the BMI is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it. The only other measure that's reasonable to consider is the waste to hip ratio, and that's not really designed for this.
Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases (Score:4, Insightful)
Overweight is symptom, not cause (Score:3, Insightful)
This surprises me not at all - people who are overweight generally are not eating that well, and also not exercising a lot.
I've been lucky to have a good metabolism and never really had weight issues. But I used to drink a ton of soda, and not eat that great... I was having combing down with the cold and flu multiple times per year.
Now I'm eating much better, drinking mostly water, and exercising a few times a week. I get at most about one cold a year now, and even that is not as bad as the worst of the colds I used to get.
One aspect of the flu I did think was odd was how so many cases were in Mexico... when I feel like I'm perhaps going to get a cold, I often eat spicy food and it seems to knock it out of me. I would think they have a lot spicier stuff in most Mexican's diets than elsewhere.
Oversensitive, in this case it works (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, the BMI they are recording is over 40 - categorized as "morbidly obese". The only people not actually very overweight that would hit that would be professional weight lifters...
For just seeing if someone is a touch overweight it's not a great tool. But in this case the observation is perfectly valid.
Obesity = Bad general health? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it's not so much that H1N1 affects obese people more than others, but that obesity is a sign of bad health generally?
If so, then the correlation would be "unhealthy people more likely to develop respiratory complications that are harder to treat and can be fatal".
Doesn't roll off the tongue like "swine flu kills fatties" though.
A reasoned discussion (Score:4, Insightful)
I would be going to be very politically incorrect here, but people that are medically obese suffer a wide variety of ailments. If swine flu is what finally motivates these people to seek and complete treatment, why is this a bad thing? Or shall we continue to scream about the oppression of our right to be fat, forgetting that the virus doesn't give two sh--s either way.
Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases (Score:4, Insightful)
BMI is a bogus and misleading measure. Try percent body fat instead.
Bogus, no; misleading, sometimes. Someone with a BMI over 40 is always fat, however. Even a 7-foot tall, heavily-muscled man cannot achieve that without huge rolls of fat or a stomach full of ball bearings.
Re:Overweight is symptom, not cause (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I'm eating much better, drinking mostly water, and exercising a few times a week. I get at most about one cold a year now, and even that is not as bad as the worst of the colds I used to get.
I too have been through years without so much as a sniffle, and had years where I've been struck down repeatedly by colds and flus. It hasn't correlated with what I ate. Correlation isn't causation is overused on /. but in this case I think it's appropriate. That doesn't mean that you're wasting your time eating and drinking better. In the long run it will probably make you live longer and healthier. It's just your use of colds and flu as an indicator that I find completely bogus.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't have a simple issue with self control. If I did she'd be dead and I'd be up on murder charges. On the other hand I have a huge problem eating small portions. If I do I literally walk around voraciously hungry.
[snip]
Combine this with a desk job and yeah I _could_ try to make time for the gym (which I hate with a passion) but keeping up an excercise routine is to say the least problematic.
So, in other words, you have a complete lack of self control and are unable to motivate yourself to keep yourself healthy.
Losing weight is stupidly easy: eat less, exercise more. So you have a bad ankle, talk to your doctor to come up with an exercise routine that doesn't involve massive amounts of walking.
30 minutes a day. That's it. If you can't do that, then yes, it's a self control issue.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:1, Insightful)
> Now imagine trying to do that with severe cravings for the food. The kind of cravings addicts have for their poison of choice.
That usually (YMMV) means you're eating the wrong food. Your body tends to stay hungry until it has got what it needs. Eat something else and the craving remains.
> I don't have a simple issue with self control. If I did she'd be dead and I'd be up on murder charges.
That seems a little farfetched, unless you ate one of those things she is allergic to because you wanted her to die. I suppose you could be looking at involuntary manslaughter.
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Obesity is something you *can* fix. It's not like cancer or something else where you have little to nothing control over it. You can just do it, if you really want to.
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:0, Insightful)
Not in all cases, just most. Former athletes and cheerleader types can be hit with the glandular problem. It's very sad for those afflicted with it, there's nothing that can be done. Still, 99.999% of fat sods are troffers, so don't hold back.
stop using the term swine flu (Score:4, Insightful)
the term itself is misleading, the virus strand might have originated from swine, but the current flu has nothing to do with pigs. The proper term should be Influenza A (H1N1)
Re:A reasoned discussion (Score:1, Insightful)
Well I got obese around the age of 3 asshole. You going to hold a child accountable for that? Even holding the parents accountable has its problems.
How is it a problem? They apparently either didn't take you to a doctor or did and ignored his advice. Apparently they overfed you. Most childhood obesity problems can be traced to poor diet, which would be (or should be, at least) the parents' fault.
Not all our bodies work the same way dipshit.
Yeah, I know. However, we're talking about morbid obesity, not the fact that not everyone is going to be an Olympic gymnast.
Of course you know everyone's complete medical history and have statistics to back up your abhorrent decision that this "fraction of a percent" of people isn't "worth considering".
Yes, because when talking about a problem, you always talk solely about the edge cases and never the vast, vast majority.
Yeah that'll work. You wanna be the one to explain to my boss what the fuck I'm doing. Asshole.
Really? Shit, man, you need a better job. The place where I work has a gym for employees along with a walking program. Management discovered that healthy workers tend to be more productive.
So what you're saying is that a huge percentage of the population are just weak willed.
No, just that the percentage of the population that are huge are weak-willed.
Well it's clear that you have no compassion period.
OK, fine, let's go with the car analogy. Someone doesn't bother repairing their car or changing their oil or doing even the least bit of maintenance. As a result, their engine seizes, and they start complaining about how much money it's going to cost to repair.
How much compassion do you feel for someone who just is too lazy to do the simplest things to keep themselves healthy?
Why don't you post with your actual name instead of being such a coward to boot?
Sure, syousef, no email or website given. Since you apparently care so much about usernames, I'll go with "root."
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, and manic depressives should just cheer up, 'cos they could if they wanted to.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:5, Insightful)
"and that even those that have the ability to lose weight can work their arses off and still lose nothing in a week."
I'm going to call bullshit on this, it's fucking impossible to NOT lose weight in a week if you are "working your ass off", you're certainly not working you ass off if you're not losing even half a pound or 1 pound in 7 days. Losing weight DOES require some amount of willpower and definitely requires a commitment hence (by and large) one is responsible for one's weight.
One cannot just excuse oneself unless one has a serious medical condition, but even those that are sick (your arthritis in your leg/angle) can do other exercises. For instance when I was lifting free weights and benching you still burn and awful lot of fat without having to move around that much. What matters is expending energy.
I walked at a leisurely pace 4hrs/day 7/days week and lost 10-12 lbs a month, it's a matter of *commitment* either you want to lose the weight or you dont, if you don't like high intensity you have to make up the lack of intensity with duration of time and distance for low intensity aerobics (like walking).
The biggest thing is monitoring your appetite, no amount of exercise will help if you're over-eating and taking in more energy then you're burning off. The army did a study a long while back that showed just this: Taking in too much energy negates the weight loss benefits of exercise and you don't have to starve youself either, just limit yourself to 1500-1800 cals/day and keep track of it on a site like http://www.fitday.com/ [fitday.com]
The truth is many people who are overweight have never been thin for most of their life and got fat fairly young and developed a victim psychology because of bullying/social prejudice.
There's only so much you can do to excuse yourself from being overweight.. I agree there are many different body types and some of us store fat easily on the smallest amounts of food, but many of us that store easily barely exercise.
The real issue though is not paying attention to how energy dense the food you're eating is, most people "wing it" when they eat they don't get rigorous ambout keeping track of the amount of food (see fitday.com), once you get rigorous and can see it on a chart, then you will realize that - yes, you are over eating!
I realized this when I started tracking what I ate @ www.fitday.com (a great site btw) and it is handy because it will show you the evidence and you can't just deny it anymore.
Most people live in the fog of their own mind never really looking hard at teh evidence in their own lives contradicting and lending support to the naysayers of "no willpower", the truth is it's more about being aware of your own bad/blind thinking on the matter of how you eat and live that is the root of the problem.
I know I went through it.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not such bad news, since i'm thin (Score:1, Insightful)
The Spanish Flu of 1918, which was a H1N1 strain as well and killed more people than WWI, came in two waves, the first starting in spring with a low lethality and the second bad one in August.
If this one evolves in a similar pattern the worst might be yet to come, I however think that even in that case modern medicine and communication will save us from the worst.
Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, these examples (from the far right hand side of the bell curve) say little about the general usefulness of of BMI in the general population.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't expect a serious discussion in response to your post. Although most people on Slashdot are smart and keep up with the latest technology, many have rather medieval attitudes when it comes to medicine.
Blaming the patient for the condition is one of those attitudes. Illness is like a "sin" to them, so the solution has to have some penance involved. "No pain, No gain" is one mantra of this religious belief.
Even the medical community has been guilty of this. Ulcers used to be all about stress and lifestyle until one doctor discovered the bacteria that was actually the cause. A simple triple antibiotic "no pain" solution worked while the "painful" lifestyle changes didn't.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that people are all different.
Some people can maintain a light weight with no effort all.
Some people can maintain a light weight with a moderate effort.
Some people can work hard and maintain a light weight.
Quite a few people have to put in a huge battle and really not get anywhere with it - or they make progress only to lose ground.
Look, I suspect that most people, if they worked REALLY hard, could do as well in math as I do. I'm not a complete prodigy or anything. However, I don't consider people lazy if they end up getting 70s on tests that I score in the high 90s on - that's just how it has been for all of my life - I can cruise through tests that most normal people barely pass with a fair amount of study. However, why should they bother trying to reach my level of proficiency at math? They should just spend their time on something they're better at, and learn enough math to get by in normal life. (Yes - I realize that quite a few people who read this post could outperform me in math - that isn't my point.)
I'm hardly morbidly obese, but I do struggle to keep my weight down. Maybe that means I'll live ten years less than my peers - I'm willing to accept that. I do try to control my diet, but the fact is that unless somebody comes out with some kind of medical advance I'm not going to be average in weight without a huge amount of effort. I'm not sure that effort is really worth it - I'd rather die happy at 70 than suffer until 80. :) And if somebody comes up with better healthy ways to lose weight that don't involve huge amounts of self-deprivation, then that is just a win-win for everybody. Sure, maybe in the meantime I'll statistically cost society more to keep alive than the "average" person, but last time I checked I was paying far more in taxes than the average person and that's just how things work. In the meantime I'll keep working on my health, but if I can refrain from taunting people who weren't developing software in multiple languages in middle school in the 80s perhaps we can get beyond taunting people for having trouble controlling their weight?
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:1, Insightful)
It is amazing to see that some people have lost their feeling of "I've eaten enough". They go on, because there is still food, even if they are not hungry any more. They completely lost their instincts or don't feel them, regarding food. That includes taste too.
I can feel hungry but not eat, nothing special.
Other people get bad moods up to the point as to be social incompetent when they are hungry and don't get their meal.
We all are going to die, someday, everybody their own way.
When I don't feel like living any more, I will stop eating. And I suspect a lot of really old people try this trick. Besides the hunger-craving it seems to be painless.
Don't feed intravenous by force.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, losing weight has little to do with exercise. You exercise to be healthy, you eat fewer calories than you burn to lose weight.
Hacket's Diet. Look it up, follow it, you'll lose (or gain, if you want) weight. It's the meta diet for all diets! With the hacker's diet you learn how your weight is completely arbitrary, you can weigh whatever you want!
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent might be a troll, but depression is anything but off-topic. Depression is a major risk factor for obesity. It has often been observed that depressed people are more likely to fall victim to binge eating, which is a major cause of obesity. Depression can also be a symptom of hypothyroidism, IIRC, which causes low metabolism and can lead to obesity. The links between depression and obesity are not completely understood, but it is quite likely that reducing the incidence of depression will also reduce obesity.
point of information (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything kills obese people disproportionately. Heart attacks, liver disease, cancer, pneumonia, you name it. Flu is just one more thing, and Swine Flu is just one more flu.
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if these "beliefs" are true (the whole brain scenario sounds like hand-waving speculation to me), but if they are his claim that "Its as simple as that" is wrong.
Some people just don't want to believe any explanation that doesn't allow them to feel morally superior.
Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases (Score:2, Insightful)
Then there are utilities. Lets say electricity eats another 200 a month, and water about 75. Now you are down to around 950 a month left. Telephones? another 30 a month. Down to 920. Car payment, can't afford one, lets say you have a 20 year old clunker. Gasoline, how about 100 a month in gas. Down to 820 dollars. Or about 200 a month per person. We haven't considered car insurance, clothing, cell phones, cable or internet. Or credit card bills or anything else you may want to buy. Or any of the million emergencies that can eat up that remaining 800 dollars you have left.
Now, how much more expensive is healthy food that cheap junk food. Pasta is cheap. So you eat a lot of pasta. Do you remember all the Ramen you ate in college?
Researchers discovered to no one's surprise that a healthy diet can cost up to 10 times more than the crap food, junk food diet that the vast majority of people eat [nytimes.com]. So, is it any wonder that obesity is a problem? People buy lots of carbohydrate foods because they are cheap. That allows them to stretch their meager food budget to the end of the month, with only an occasional stop by the church food pantry to beg.
People, obesity is a problem because a lot of people eat crap food. As a result, they are hungrier more often and their body stores the crap food as fat. And when people are poor, they buy crap food. Mississippi is a relatively poor state.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Spoiler Alert: According to the book, the calorie balance hypothesis is wrong. Numerous studies over the years failed to link high-calorie diet with weight gain, but this fact was overlooked because it challenged nutritional and medical orthodoxy. The real culprit, as the title suggests, is the composition of the diet, not the absolute calories it contains. It's a fascinating read, well researched, and worth the trip to the library.
Uhh... I'm pretty sure if you can burn more calories than you consume, while still gaining/maintaining weight, then you could quite comfortably claim the Randi Challenge [randi.org] prize. And then you could sell your body to science for billions.
The sky is falling... (Score:2, Insightful)
Really. Did anyone, even the submitter, read the article? Stupid question in these parts, but come on - this is science. We're nerds. Where's the critical thinking people? First off, they are not all fat. The only numbers they quote in the article is 3 of 5 seriously ill people in Manitoba who are obese. 60% != 100%. Not by a long shot. The article goes on to say that the evidence is anecdotal and cites the very specious fact that the first two people to die of swine flu in Europe were from Scotland and Scotland is the most obese country in Europe. Lovely. That evidence can also be used to support my theory, which is that swine flu only affects peoples with difficult to understand accents. Manitobans, Mexicans, the Scottish and children from New York. And while I'm at it correllation does not imply causation [xkcd.com]. Although they mention it briefly in the article they downplay it as much as possible. To say nothing about stuff like sample size. But hey, what the hell. Who needs stuff like science! What's that ever done for us?
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, come one. Like you need to see a f*cking expert to know what is healthy and not.
It's very basic, the more the food is processed, the worse it is.
Fish healthier than meat.
Carrots healthier than fries.
Water healthier than coke.
Eat a variety of vegetables and fruits, don't eat food from somebody serving nearly 47 million customers daily.
That will be 140$
here's the big secret: (Score:4, Insightful)
eat less
exercise more
that's it. that's the magic. everything else is bloviating
everything else is a giant game of rationalization, victimization, and other psychological manipulations, internal and external
again: eat less, exercise more. end of story
cut the fat, in your thinking as well as on your body
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:5, Insightful)
You should submit yourself to the department of energy immediately.
Your bodies ability to create matter out of thin air and somehow ignore the second law of thermodynamics by burning more energy than you ingest is nothing short of amazing!
*Or* you're just making the same tired old excuses that those with some vice *always make*. You claim that your body is somehow special and refuses to burn the energy that you put in well guess what - that means you are going to have to eat 1/4 of what you do now for the rest of your life end of story (unless there's some medical "cure"). OR, you can be continue being fat and whinge about it on Slashdot for the rest of your (more than likely) short life...
You need to expend more energy than you ingest per day, no amount of moral indignation can change the laws of physics.
Otherwise if you already are ingesting less than you expend then you are a scientific marvel and for the good of human kind please get make yourself known to some scientists in the relevant field.
On a side note you're at +5 which means that you've got a pretty general support from the people on here, it's kind of amusing how the basic laws of physics and "personal responsibility" ideals that are usually worshiped with religious fervor around here are kicked to the curb as soon as it's useful to do so.
Glad to see the highly "logical" slashdot hordes - to borrow a clique, are just as prone to self delusion and excuses when it suits as the masses that are so often looked down upon here for doing exactly the same thing are.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you serious about losing weight, you can take this advice from anyone, eat healthy. No junk foods, no junk additives, unless you know and understand all the independents and, know them to be natural (as in really no just labelling) and safe (as in really no just marketing) do not buy it and do not eat it. The obesity problem is tied to the addictive nature of the neuro stimulants used to create perceptions of flavour and beyond the B$=PR marketing used to give that 'hit' to keep people coming back again and again, hell, they even brag about the addictive nature of junk food in commercials promoting them. Not to forget if it says 'diet' on the label, bin it, that is just code for junk additive plus.
On the flip side, if you have shares in junk food companies, sell 'NOW', if would appear their customer base is shrinking and not from dieting. Of course those additional helth problems might not just be from a weight problem but also from a health problem of ingesting too many chemicals pretending to be food.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Your problem is mentally, you're a pussy. You don't need 2 hours a day. You just like to give excuses.
If I could get to a pool 2 hours a day maybe I'd have a chance.
WRONG. Let me fix this for you... If you wanted to get to a pool 2 hours a day, you would. You just don't care about that as a priority. And don't give me that crap about how you have to work so you don't have time. Either your work is a higher priority (which isn't necessarily bad) because you could make the time if you wanted to or you do have 2 hours of free time a day but you're just too fucking lazy to get off your fat ass. You tell yourself you're not lying but you know damn fucking well you're just lying to yourself. And whats this crap about a pool? There are elliptical machines and numerous other intense cardiovascular workouts you can do that is low impact on your joints. But again, you just make excuses for yourself because if you REALLY wanted to do it, you would have already researched what kinds of workouts you could do. You think I'm full of shit about you quitting and making excuses? Lets see...
What's worse is when I've stopped it's taken a couple of months of eating reasonable portions and not excercising as much to put on all the weight I've lost over 6-8 months AND add some more kilos as the body overcompensates
Now why the hell would you stop if this was really something that was important to you? OBVIOUSLY, its not.You can lie to yourself as much as you want but to the rest of us, its apparent whats going on. I'm somewhat sorry I'm being a complete dick to you but really, you deserve it. Being nice to you obviously doesn't work so someone has to give you the hard truth. Besides that, I hate the idea that you are perpetuation this bullshit mentality. Other overweight and unhealthy people see what you post and empathize with your falsities and use your post as an excuse. Point is... GET OFF YOUR FAT LAZY FUCKING ASS AND STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR YOURSELF. If you really want it, you can get it. Eat 4 small meals a day that are less than 2000 calories and work out 30 minutes a day, 4 days a week. YOU WILL lose weight after months.
BTW, don't get me wrong, I don't think its easy for everyone to lose weight. I acknowledge the fact that it might be harder for you to lose weight. However, if this is really your priority, you would do it. But don't spew bullshit to us saying you want to but you can't. Come clean and admit that you don't care to because its too hard for you to do and we won't have crap to say to you. Don't give us bullshit excuses.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't get how people can keep making excuses! I mean, I get the motivation. It's so much easier to just claim the "I'm special, the rules don't apply and you don't understand my woes!"-excuses so readily employed by fatties than to do something.
Absolutely. Worst. Case. Scenario:
You actually have a metabolic disease that makes your metabolism, say, 20% (pretty damn far fetched!) lower than what is normal and it's not treatable (a pure lie). The maintenance level of a normal person your height/size might be 2500 calories. How on earth does this mean you should stuff your face with whatever you feel like and whine when you get fat? Your illness puts your maintenance needs at 2000 calories, so 1500 calories a day means you will drop a pound a week of pure fat! Add a bit of exercise and your weight loss increases even more. 1500 calories a day means you can eat plenty of food, if you eat right, and you'd lose weight and never go hungry.
Get the point..? The number of people who actually have a sickness that screws up their metabolism that bad is roughly equal to the number of people who have actually seen Bigfoot or Nessie. Even so, should you happen to be that one-in-a-gazillion guy who has a metabolic defect faaar worse than anything normally diagnosed, you still don't need to be a lard-ass. Besides, there are about 300 million americans at the moment, right? At >26% obesity, that means you've got 78.000.000 people who are obese. This is not counting people who are simply fat, we're talking 78 million need-custom-built-air-plane-seats fatties! How the FUCK is that not a sin?
I am a pphysicist so I would like to say : COE (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:3, Insightful)
And use a non-motorized means of transport to fetch food.
Walk around New York City, and you'll eventually realize that the only truly obese people you see are tourists. This despite a culture highly reliant on high-calorie restaurant meals.
Certainly it helps that the culture here is not very accepting of fat, but I think it is more related to the fact that most people don't have a car.
As for the Atkins low-carb hypothesis... I want to know why Dr. Atkins thought that human evolution suddenly stopped at the introduction of agriculture? The ability to digest lactose is just one adaptation that I can point to off the top of my head.
I suspect the success of people on Atkins diets is due to the fact that they've cut all their "empty" calories from things like sugar and white flour. Our great great grandparents knew that sugar isn't good for you - it's not exactly groundbreaking that people who restrict their sugar intake lose weight.
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... yeh. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've read a bunch of your posts now in this thread, and you continuously assert that you are somehow a special case, yet from what you write, you behave *exactly* like the typical diet-failure case.
1) You claim that it is impossible for you to lose weight. This is not true. I'm sure it's harder for you than for most people to lose weight, but by claiming it's impossible, you've resigned yourself to useless victimization.
2) You claim that since the long-term results are so bad, you might as well give up already. It is true that many who "go on a diet" return to their original weight afterwards, when they resume their original eating/exercising habits. This is obvious, it is exactly those habits that made you gain weight in the first place. Most people fail to achieve permanent weight-loss, because they fail to realize that the changes to their eating and exercising habits has to be equally permanent. The ones that succeed are the ones that realize this.
3) You say you have such a busy schedule that you don't have the time to lose weight/eat right. That's fine. It's perfectly ok to value your job and your family higher than your weight, and for you to choose to spend time on that instead of yourself. But be honest about it. Don't play the victim by blaming all sorts of other things. "I don't have time to exercise because I'd rather spend that time with my family" is perfectly fine. "I don't exercise because it's impossible for me to lose weight" is not fine. It's a lie.
4) You say you did maintain a strict diet and exercise routine for 8 months and that you hated it. Then you're doing it wrong. To achieve permanent weight-loss, you have to change your lifestyle permanently. Noone can live a lifestyle they hate, that's just a giant setup for failure. You have to change your diet and your exercise habits into something you actually enjoy. Talk to a doctor or dietitian to get help finding what's right for you. You can get inspiration and ideas from random idiots on the internet like me, but don't trust us, you have to find out for yourself what works for you.
5) You are very frustrated by the weight-loss industry. That's understandable, but not very useful. The entire weight-loss industry is one giant scam. They cannot help anyone lose weight, and they're not interested in it either. Ignore it. There are no magic pills or diets or exercises. There is only this: Eat less. Exercise more.
Finally, start small. Pick one thing to change at a time. Drop sweetened beverages for mineral water. Switch fries for carrots. Eat fruit instead of candy. Just do one small thing at a time, and only do things you are comfortable with sustaining.
Re:The story title is wrong ... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the things I've found is that reducing your calories too much is counter-productive. Remember that our bodies evolved over millions of years where food supplies weren't constant. The body has to be able to deal with lack of food without completely failing. So, when you radically cut your calorie intake, your body senses this as a famine. It then reduces your metabolism to conserve energy. You burn less calories and retain more fat. During an actual famine, this is a good thing. You certainly don't want to burn off that one meal quickly if it is the only meal you can scrounge together for the whole day. During a modern times diet, however, it is a bad thing. It means that you will need to work out harder, and diet more just to drop a few more pounds.
This is one of the reasons why people find themselves yo-yo dieting. They go on a diet and lose some weight. The body senses the weight loss as an impending famine and reduces the metabolism. The dieter then goes off their diet and resumes their normal eating patterns. Unfortunately for them, the increased calories in coupled with the decreased calories burned results in rapid weight gain.
I lost about 80 pounds a few years back and one of my secrets was completely revamping how I looked at/considered food. I went on an "unofficial Weight Watchers" program. (Unofficial in that I did all the calculations/tracking myself and didn't join up with Weight Watchers.) Food was no longer just some tasty thing that I stuffed in my mouth. It had a number value ("points") attached to it representing how much Calories, Fat and Fiber were in it. Calculating this number turned out to be a perfect fit for my inner math nerd. Eventually, I would see at a tasty looking donut and not think of how delicious it would taste, but of how many points it was. Sure that donut would be tasty, but it just wasn't worth the huge points hit when other treats would suffice for much less. I didn't stop eating food, I just changed what foods I was eating. This shift in thinking helped me keep off my weight even after I stopped actively tracking my points. Yes, I still gain weight from time to time and go back on the program to take the weight back off, but my weight gains are much slower (30 pounds in a year, if that) and are much easier to catch early on.
Re:Dammit, BMI != fat in all cases (Score:1, Insightful)
For most people, BMI is a perfectly accurate and useful measure of fat. It is annoying how people desperately cling to the exceptions in order to disprove the general. What was the name of that logical fallacy again....