CKinnard wrote:I've done my fair share of physio in the bush, and know a fair portion of boomer and younger farmers delude themselves on how "hard" they work, compared to their forefathers. There is much manual farm work you just cannot sustain month after month when overweight/obese.
i.e.
spot the fat shearer...
My father was obese in about 1980 when we arrived on the farm. The work got him down to just into the normal weight range at a guess. Standard AU diet. Meat daily. High Cal density foods. Nowhere near low fat.
As for the shearers. That is the extreme end of rural work. Those are all dressed alike, so probably in some kind of show. They all look normal weight except maybe the guy in the middle. He might be in the overweight range. For the sheer amount of physical work they do in a day, most don't have a lot of definition. So I'd guess they wouldn't be eating well.
CKinnard wrote:It's easy to blame the sedentary nature of truck driving (a lot of miner work) for obesity, but there were enough examples of drivers who were very healthy. I recall a 40something female driver, who was the epitome of health...She confirmed her diet was all salads and vege, and she did a little gym work at the camp site most days. She said the obese drivers reflected what they ate on site, which was bacon and eggs for brekky, and hot chips with each main meal. And the only vege might be potato pumpkin and tablespoon of peas for dinner.
Thanks for posting this. A good anecdote to show we aren't type cast and can break free from it with a little effort.
You would think the management would be onto limiting what they supply in food type since that type of food would be affecting their mental clarity on the job. If I was their management I'd be looking into it to some degree.
CKinnard wrote:Nevertheless, I never want to come across as a diet Nazi.
Too late for that. For both of us.
Most on these forums most likely see us (especially me) that way though. But that's the price of progress I suppose.
CKinnard wrote:Incidentally, I've dropped my total Cals comfortably over the last few weeks to a 500-1000 Cal deficit.
I'm getting 80-120 grams of carb a day, which is low carb by several authorities' definitions!!! but it is all legumes, sweet potato, buckwheat, salad vege, 1-2 pieces of fruit.
Should be an interesting experiment then.
Our approach to weight control is where we differ somewhat. Yours being Cal specific, mine being Cal density specific.
I'll put my approach below as it may help some:
I tend to look at how individual foods have affected me in the past, as well as their processed Cal density and adjust. For me, legumes, (sweet) potatoes, grains and nuts I would either limit or avoid if I wanted to lose weight. Excessive nuts should be obvious for this style of eating (although others may not be effected). The other foods I mentioned are processed/cooked to some degree and so have a higher Cal density and/or absorption rate than they advertise IMO. Cooked veg is fine for the low Cal density fibrous veg like broccoli, cauli, carrot, cabbage, beans, etc. But I need to be cautious with the higher Cal density ones. Most lower Cal density fruit will lose weight for me when eaten to satiation. I've got my doubts about bananas from previous experience, which are on the high side. I try to keep my total diet around a Cal density of 60 Cal/100g. Fat is currently about 0.4g/kg of body weight (BW), protein about 1.2g/kgBW and carbs I don't regulate, but about 7-10g/kgBW. Macro percentages are about C81:F8:P11, not that they mean much.
Having said that, what works for me may not work for others. I think you (CK) mentioned a third of people can do this. So it may be worth it for individuals to try it and find out if they are one of that third.
. It is generally in a range of 10mmHg of 125/85 (i have been taking it regularly since.)
)
)