Dieting results in long term changes to hormones and muscle fibers.

[eridani]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2134162/Research-shows-trying-lose-weight-alters-brain-hormones-youre-doomed-pile-again.html

Slimmers have often feared this was somehow true, but now science confirms this cruel fact of nature. New research shows dieting raises levels of hormones that stimulate appetite — and lowers levels of hormones that suppress it.

At the end, the dieters lost an average of 30lb. Proietto’s team then spent a year giving them counselling support to stick to healthy eating habits. But during this time, the dieters regained an average of 11lb. They also reported feeling far hungrier and more preoccupied with food than before losing weight.

As the researchers reported in The New England Journal of Medicine, the volunteers’ hormones were working overtime, making them react as though they were starving and in need of weight-gain. Their levels of an appetite-stimulating hormone, ghrelin, were about 20 per cent higher than at the start of the study. Meanwhile their levels of an appetite suppressing hormone, peptide YY, were unusually low.

Furthermore, levels of leptin, a hormone that suppresses hunger and raises the metabolic rate, also remained lower than expected.

Proietto describes this effect as ‘a co-ordinated defence mechanism with multiple components all directed toward making us put on weight’. In other words, the body had launched a backlash against dieting.

<snip>

Muscle samples taken before and after weight loss show that once a person drops weight, the fibres may change to become more fuel-efficient — burning up to a quarter fewer calories during exercise than those of a person at the same weight naturally.

How long this state lasts isn’t known, though some research suggests it might be up to six years.

[Taitertots]

1. Breaking news: maintaining a healthy weight is not easy

And requires continued self control for a long period after the initial weight loss.

[eridani]

6. "Self control" being defined as

--accepting the fact that you have 10-50 years of being hungry in front of you.

[Taitertots]

15. Self control being defined as eating the right foods in the right quantities

Yeah, obese people will feel hungry when they transition from unhealthy to healthy food intake levels.

And the article suggests the effects are limited to up to six years. Not the 10-50 that you are suggesting.

[eridani]

19. "Right" being defined as whatever it takes, no matter how crappy you feel

If "healthy" means major ongoing discomfort, people aren't going to do it.

[Taitertots]

31. No one said it would be easy. If they won't accept a little discomfort...

They will just remain obese. If they want to lose the weight, they have to exhibit the self control to deal with a little discomfort. It is not easy, no one is claiming it is.

It seems that your whole position is that people will remain obese because they refuse to do anything that isn't the easiest, most self indulgent option.

[eridani]

72. Gay people could become straight is they were willing to accept discomfort also

Why should they have to?

[Taitertots]

79. Gay people could pretend to be straight and have major emotional suffering

Homosexuality is healthy, obesity is not.

[eridani]

101. No healthier than heterosexuality--depends on the individual in either case

Obesity may not be healthy, but it is still healthier than a lifetime of yoyo dieting.

[Logical]

243. LOL, you are not what I call an understanding person. But I bet you know that!

[eridani]

278. What I understand is that insecure people who need validation

--get a lot of joy of of berating LGBT people and fat people.

[Codeine]

84. No they could not. Equating the two is stupid

and beyond offensive.

[eridani]

100. It is certainly possible for gay people to live as straight

It only costs you your basic sanity. A lifetime commitment to fighting your metabolism is really not all that different.

[Codeine]

112. They can masquerade as straight,

just as I could pretend to be gay. It wouldn't make either scenario an actual change.

One's metabolism can be adjusted and compensated for in order to maintain a healthy weight without impacting your basic sanity.

[eridani]

113. For 5% of the population.

If you really had a clue about metabolism adjustment, you'd understand that it adjusts to maintain your weight, whatever it is, with total disregard of whether or not that weight is "healthy."

[Codeine]

115. Then I guess weight loss is simply impossible. nt

[eridani]

121. No. Merely statistically improbable, at least when talking about significant poundage.

For people who are actually fat, stories of losing 10-20lbs are just too piddling to pay attention to.

[Nye Bevan]

125. Conflating being fat with being gay?

Worst analogy ever.

[eridani]

147. Not if you are being rational about the subject.

The following is from a leaflet I picked up at a Pride march about 10 years ago, which I scanned before the paper deteriorated.

So why is an organization with a name like SeaFATtle showing up at the Pride rally year after year, aside from the fact that we have bisexual and lesbian members, not to mention straight members who are definitely not narrow?

The reason, other than that it's a real blast, is that fat people and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people are in a similar position in the eyes of mainstream society. Pride Day is a great opportunity to educate people about this, but more importantly it's a chance to stand with our LGBT friends in solidarity against prejudice, and to demand fundamental human rights for all of us. As long as any of us are oppressed, none of us are free - and the only way to win this fight is by joining in it together.

How are fat people and LGBT people similar?

1. Discrimination against both LGBT people and fat people is mostly still legal. Only in Michigan and Santa Cruz County in California is it illegal to discriminate against fat people. Only in a few areas around the country is it illegal to discriminate against LGBT people. Homophobia and fatphobia are not only institutionalized, but publically defended and proudly proclaimed. Racists and sexists at least have to work indirectly these days.

2. Most people believe that both being fat and being gay is a matter of personal choice. This is true in a sense -- what we all choose is to have a fully human life.

If you are lesbian or gay, it's possible to maintain "normality" by marrying someone of the opposite sex and performing feats of imagination that enable you to function sexually often enough to reproduce. You'll be expected to suppress all evidence of a fundamental part of your personality, all the time. Never mind that your soul dies.

All you have to do is recognize that you are subhuman and not entitled to a sex life that fully involves you at all levels. "Ex-gay" John Paulk does it, doesn't he?

If you are fat, and no more than 30-80 pounds heavier than average, it's possible to maintain "normality" by cutting your caloric intake to approximately half of the average intake (often to levels that the UN recognizes as starvation); if you're really heavy, it will be six tablespoons of food per day, and you'll often be expected to undergo dangerous surgery to make sure of that -- and in the end, you'll regain weight anyway, so you must continue to gradually wean yourself off food entirely, if possible. Of course, you must also work out a couple of hours every day, and maintain the regimen for the rest of your life. Never mind that your soul dies, nor that your body often dies, too.

All you have to do is recognize that you are subhuman, and are not entitled to spend many of your non-work and non-sleep hours on things like reading to your kids, taking courses to improve your professional status, or other such disreputable non-aerobic activities. Oprah Winfrey does it, doesn't she?

3. Neither fat children nor queer children are safe in schools. Both fat and LGBT kids are targeted for systematic abuse and constant harassment from their peers, destroying their self-esteem and, in too many cases, driven to suicide as a result. Sadly, the harrassers are often aided and abetted by those in authority who have been charged with protecting all
children.

Teachers tell gay students who suffer years of abuse by their classmates "They'd leave you alone if you just didn't act so swishy."

Teachers tell fat students who suffer years of abuse by their classmates "They'd leave you alone if you'd just lose weight."

4. Both LGBT people and fat people suffer disapproval stemming from American culture's Puritan roots, which have fostered a distrust of pleasure and happiness.

Homophobe: "Homosexuality is morally wrong, because it's about pleasure and not reproduction."

Fatphobe: "Fatness is morally wrong, because it implies eating for pleasure rather than subsistence."

5. Both LGBT and fat people are victims of ignorant and misguided health "information" and so-called "concern" from loved ones that often hurts more than it helps. They say, "Well, even if you aren't concerned about morals, you should be concerned about your health."

Everybody "knows" that being gay causes AIDS, that it's a "gay" disease, and that LGBT people are irresponsible about spreading the virus. Of course, informed people realize that unsafe sex (regardless of one's sexual orientation) spreads AIDS, that 90% of the people in the world with AIDS are heterosexual.

In addition, LGBT people often avoid medical care because they are unwilling to field rude statements about birth control and other personal issues, and because they worry about confidentiality. This means that breast cancer and other serious conditions may not be detected early enough for effective treatment.

Everybody "knows" that being fat causes heart disease, cancer, and diabetes. Of course, informed people realize that inactivity (in someone of any size), poor diet composition (because of dieting pressure, not choice), genetic factors, denial of health insurance and stress related to discrimination cause these health problems, regardless of weight.

In addition, fat people often avoid medical care because they are unwilling to field rude statements about their size and assumed habits, and because many doctors attribute almost every possible problem to weight instead of working on an accurate diagnosis. This means that serious conditions may not be detected early enough for effective treatment.

6. Both LGBT and fat people are subject to weird mythology, because we are so far outside the experience of many people. A couple of examples from the urban legend department:

-- There was this emergency room episode in San Francisco--a gay man came in one night to have a gerbil extracted, which was inserted into his anus as a sexual experiment.

-- Mama Cass choked to death on a ham sandwich.

If you believe either of these, we have a really great chocolate chip cookie recipe for you, plus the address of a terminally ill child who'd like you to send him a postcard.

7. Both LGBT and fat people are subject to resentment because we dare to live as we please, despite pressures that crush other people into conformity.

Homophobe: "I've been stuck in a 'shotgun' marriage for 20 years; sex with my spouse bores me, and the only person with whom I'm emotionally intimate is my best friend. I'm also trapped in a dead-end job to support kids I never wanted. Those gay people have fulfilling sex, love whomever they want, and spend their time enriching their lives. I hate them, especially the ones who are out and proud, because their very existence mocks my boring life and the sacrifices I make to fit everyone else's expectations."

Fatphobe: "I live on celery sticks and yogurt and spend most of my free time working out. I still don't much care for the way I look, but at least I am closer to the cultural ideal weight than the 10 or 20 pounds heavier that I would otherwise be, and there's always the possibility of cosmetic surgery if all else fails. At least I recognize my faults and keep trying over and over again. Those fat people are obviously eating what they want and spending a lot of their free time any way they please. I hate them, especially the ones who refuse to be ashamed and ugly, because their very existence mocks my boring life and the sacrifices I make to fit everyone else's expectations."

8. Both LGBT and fat people have a set of "things to strictly avoid doing in public." Some examples:

LGBT: expressing affection with a same-sex partner, wearing "funny" clothes, admiring people of the same sex, talking to children.

Fat: eating an ice cream cone, wearing sexy clothes, dancing and flirting, exercising -- or NOT exercising.

Granted, the former is more likely to lead to physical danger, but the principle is the same: that total strangers have a right to interfere with your life.

9. Both LGBT and fat people are not given the benefit of current mores and enlightened thinking about social issues (such as it is). We are not considered entitled to the rights and freedoms of modern society; we are expected to live in the dark ages. In the eyes of others:

For people who prefer opposite-sex partners, it's the 20th century, in which marriage is about companionship as well as reproduction. Simply loving your partner entitles you to take advantage of many legal perks, even if one of you is sterile or past reproductive age, or if you just don't intend to have kids.

For people who prefer same-sex partners, it's the 11th century, where conventional marriage is about property and cementing clan relationships, and loving (or even liking) a partner of your choice is strictly irrelevant. If you love an "unacceptable" partner, legal rights and other doors are closed to you, and it's your responsibility to deal with it somehow.

For people who don't gain weight easily and are not visibly fat, it's the 20th century, in which sufficient food is generally available and most work is sedentary.

For people who are visibly fat, it's the 11th century, where most people did day-long physical labor on semi-starvation rations. If you are hungry, you must find a way to ignore it or trick your body, and if your sedentary job requires a lot of your time, it's your responsibility to find the extra time to work on your "weight problem" somehow.

If you still wonder why we're here, we suggest that you think of all the stereotypes you may hold about fat people. Write them all down, cross out "fat" and substitute "gay," and see how you feel about them. Now you know.[/div]

[laundry_queen]

151. Interesting.

I think it's an apt analogy as well.

[mythology]

204. Just to confirm,

rational as used here is defined as agreeing with you right?

The analogy is poor. For the overwhelming majority of people, especially in the US, we have gained weight because as a society we've begun eating larger and larger portions of unhealthier foods. It took a long time for us as a society to get to the point where 1/3 of adult Americans are considered obese. It took years of us eating HFCS, more sugar, more meat, fewer vegetables, working out less, sitting more, snacking on chips instead of apples, etc. It will take years to fix. But each year it's costing us more and more to sustain ourselves. In 2008, obesity health related costs were 147 Billion. While I can't find the numbers of the top of my head, I'm willing to wager that the health related cost of being gay isn't 147 Billion dollars.

[eridani]

220. The analogy is 100% accurate in describing the way society treats both

The health related costs of AIDS are pretty significant, yet the fact that society often blames gay people the the disease has nothing to do with reality. Asserting that fat people should engage in a lifelong adversarial battle with their genetics is exactly equivalent to insisting that gays marry heterosexually no matter what the personal cost.

Besides which, the attribution of health costs for conditions which are correlated with (but not actually caused by) obesity to fat itself is bogus. For instance, if fat deposits cause diabetes, explain why surgical removal of fat has no effect whatsoever on blood chemistrh.

[4th law of robotics]

225. Ah so you do think it's genetics

amazing.

Explain how evolution worked so rapidly to change the genetics of only Americans within a generation.

[eridani]

232. Genetics and other factors that we can't do jackshit about except politically

What in fucking hell is anyone supposed to do about living in a society where there is enough to eat and where most work is sedentary? Move to Somalia? Would you get healthier and live longer if you did that? Who could possibly be dim enough to think that a few spare moments on an elliptical trainer can replace constand hard labor?.

http://articles.boston.com/2006-04-05/news/29239697_1_cynthia-ogden-obesity-data-leveling

More American children are getting fat, with more than one-third now overweight. More of their dads are getting heavy, too.

But the percentage of women who are overweight seems to have peaked, leading some specialists to wonder whether the obesity epidemic may soon be leveling off.

Overall, larger proportions of the US public are overweight than ever before, according to the government's most accurate recent check of the nation's girth. But women, who as a group are more obese, seem to be holding steady.

Of course it's levelling off, because there is a genetic limit on how fat populations can get.

[4th law of robotics]

245. Ah so the Japanese and Europeans must be a different species from us

since they both are sedentary and have plenty of food, but lack our obesity problems.

[eridani]

263. Bullshit. Obesity is increasing all over the world

Most other cultures are not nearly as obsessed with weight, and so do not engage in the destructive dieting behavior that promotes weight gain. Japanese and other coastal Asian populations have the world's lowest incidence of genetic insuling resistance--which makes a lot of sense for cultures fuelled by rice, with its outrageously high glycemic index. Therefore they don't have the single most important factor that promotes weight gain in populations.

I've never been to Japan, but everywhere in Europe that I've been is exceedingly pedestrian and bicycle friendly. There is far less income inequality, and many more restrictions on working overtime, so it is no big deal to walk and bike to work and to do errands. Lack of these characteristics is the most important environmental factor that makes European rates of obesity lower. And individuals can't do jackshit about it (any more than they can control their genetics)--only political collective action can change those things.

[4th law of robotics]

265. Interesting, you point out how the Japanese and Europeans

are healthier due to diet and lifestyle while denying that diet and lifestyle have anything to do with it.

[eridani]

271. You can't change genetics, and you can't change environmental factors either as an individual

Changing diet and lifestyle won't give Americans the genetics of the Japanese, with very low incidence of Syndrome X. Those things will never make fat people thin either--only healthier.

[noamnety]

291. This is an incorrect statement:

"you can't change environmental factors either as an individual"

Environmental factors as they relate to weight loss include your diet and your activity level, and we do have control over those. That's true even if we live in a city that's not bike friendly.

[eridani]

292. The same exercise and diet program leads to widely disparate results for different people

When one set of twins gains 9 pounds after being overfed by 84000 calories for 3 months, and another set gains 29 lbs on the same regimen, what makes you think that all people will respond the same way to any given weight loss program? Since being more active benefits you regardless of how much weight you lose, even if you lose almost nothing. what is the point of focusing on weight loss instead of the direct benefits of being more active?

I've done bike touring all over Europe without losing a single pound. All that happened was that I had a good time, my aerobic capacity improved and I got somewhat more muscular. But I'm supposed to be concerned that I didn't lose weight? Why?

[noamnety]

293. Nobody said you should be concerned about your riding results.

But if you tell people "biking doesn't make you lose weight" you should expect people to correct that.

Biking in the form of excessive steady cardio is likely to slow your metabolism with the exact results you achieved; biking in the form of effective intervals makes you lose fat and gain muscle in a fraction of the time.

(http://www.marksdailyapple.com/case-against-cardio/#axzz1uE3s45NP)

Why is it so bad to acknowledge that?
Why is it so hard to acknowledge it, even if your own personal goals for biking weren't to lose weight?
Why deny that an effective exercise program for burning excess fat can be done in 15-20 minutes a day?
Why tell others that no type of exercise or dieting is effective in losing weight - if that IS their goal?
Why tell people that the only way to lose weight is to sacrifice all their personal relationships?

I just don't get the motivation for that type of misinformation.

[eridani]

294. And intervals can be extremely dangerous for people over 65

I presume you've noticed those health club charts on recommended maximum heart rate, and how that number declines with age? What I am saying is that whatever you do, expectations about how much weight you should lose are a senseless and unnecessary contributer to stress.

For some people, an effective exercise program for burning excess fat can be done in 15-20 minutes a day. For others it will take a lot more than that.

For some people the only way to lose weight is to sacrifice all their personal relationships. For others it takes much less time.

You have no control over whether you are in the "some people" group or the "other people" group.

BTW, the real reason I refuse to attempt to lose weight is that I really don't want to gain weight. If I had paid any attention to people urging that on me over the course of my life, I'd probably weigh over 300 by now.

[Drahthaardogs]

284. Why?

Why is one's person biology more pertinent than another's?

[Habibi]

36. But, healthy doesn't *need* to mean discomfort. Really!

Experiment. If you don't love vegetables but do love other complex carbs and protein, try out combinations of foods rich in those macros. If you love cake but also love fruit, try out eating a *little* more fruit and a *little* less cake. Just a little. It'll take awhile. It's okay. It's not a race to be the Biggest Loser. Really, it's not.

Carbs don't make you fat. Fat doesn't make you fat. Excessive calories make you fat. Experiment with food combinations that help you feel full. If possible, gradually switch from calorie-dense to nutrient-dense foods. It can be quite an adjustment; don't kid yourself, and don't berate yourself. Baby steps. Why not? What's the hurry? Hey, the food industry has it in for all of us! ("Just add bacon!&quot Let's thumb our noses at those mofos! (Okay, not that I don't love bacon. I just don't eat it every day. Much as I'd like to. Mmmm, bacon, why do you taunt me? You are so salty and so bad for my BP . . .

Seriously--what's the rush? Experiment. Maybe asparagus with eggs in the morning gives you more energy than a Luna bar and a cup of coffee. Your body is different from mine. I need protein and a little bit of bread in the morning to feel my best. You might like oatmeal and fruit. What gets you to lunch without you feeling like you're going to eat your desk?

It's doable, and it's doable without hunger--or shame. Or so I believe.

[nobodyspecial]

41. Great advice.

And very supportive.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

45. This is why Weight Watchers is so successful.

Thanks for being positive and not as judgy as the people who have never had weight issues telling those of us who do that we should be uncomfortable, hungry and unhappy. That's just rude. You're sweet. I like that.

[eridani]

68. Weight Watchers has no documented long term success whatsoever.

They don't even keep records on people who meet goal weights and then leave the program.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

76. That is not true.

Once you meet your loss goals, you are a free lifetime member of the program. I know a lot of people who stay on it for maintenance because it is free. One girl lost and kept off over a hundred pounds.

[eridani]

102. They neither track nor publish their long term results

Nor do they ever report (or even know) the percentage of dropouts compared to total number of enrollees.

Long term maintenance of weight loss is not possible unless you make it the most important thing in your life, and few people are willing to throw over family, friends and community for that.

[spinbaby]

77. I'm convinced Weight Watchers makes people fat

Every time I've successfully lost weight on Weight Watchers, I've eventually gained back more. After 25 years of it, I weight 130 pounds more than when I started this roller coaster and am lining myself up for gastric bypass.

[Habibi]

82. Personally, I think WW is a bit cookie-cutter.

They seem to put everyone on 1200-1400 cal/day, regardless of your activity level. That's simply not enough for many people to not feel hungry on. Feel hungry long enough, and you're gonna go overboard.

Plus, they really don't teach you how to eat for *you*. They give carbs low points and fat high points, so it's essentially a high-carb, low-fat diet. I don't do particularly well on that type of plan; I need fat so my food tastes good and I feel full. Lots of carbs just make me hungrier--for more carbs.

It does work wonders for many though. Takes the guesswork out of the equation, and makes it (relatively) easier to lose weight.

Still, I like knowing how many grams of carbs, protein, and fat I'm eating per day, plus how much sodium and how many calories. I started using myfitnesspal.com after a couple of frustrated months on WW, and I've never looked back. So much easier, and it's free!

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Before the bypas

Could I direct you to "I Can Make You Thin?". As is they will stress you need to learn to listen to body and eat small portions. McKenna does not stress the portions but the listening to body. The portions will come from listening to body.

It is a major decision, the bypass that is and his is not a diet.

As to WW I tend to agree...some yo yo for me and I blame them.

[spinbaby]

122. Thank you

But I'm working with a nutritionist now and doing what she tells me to do--more protein, more veggies, no caffeine--but my weight is probably too far gone for it to do much good.

[eridani]

66. Healthy eating does not imply weight loss.

If you eat healthier, you will be healthier, regardless of whether you lose a lot of weight, a little weight, or none at all.

All calories not ingested by continuous intravenous feeding are "excessive," meaning that we can't possibly use all the calories we eat at any given regular meal immediately. How those are disposed of--stored as fat, glycogen, muscle mass, or thrown away in futile metabolic cycles--are strictly dependent on genetics and past nutritional history. There IS no "manual" control option here.

[JNelson6563]

78. Well said!

Excellent post.

[hairy krishna]

295. I appreciate the supportive tone BUT

calories are not equal. This drives me bonkers. There is a segment on "The Today Show" featuring some woman (not sure if she's an official dietician but it hardly matters) who has the hosts guess which is the lower-calorie option. So there's a milkshake versus guacamole and we're supposed to be "surprised" that the guac is higher in calories. So therefore we should drink the milkshake?


The truth is that on paper an avocado has x-amount of calories and fat. However, it always contains an enzyme called lipase, which actually DIGESTS FAT. The oil in avocado is monounsaturated and avocados also contain many other nutrients:http://www.peertrainer.com/DFcaloriecounterB.aspx?id=2022

I didn't know it had so much magnesium, protein (5 grams!) and fiber (16 grams!!!). A milkshake has zero fiber. The milkshake is full of refined sugar, lactose, and saturated fat.

[Habibi]

296. As far as weight loss goes, I think calories are "equal."

But I'm certainly not arguing for a diet of McDonald's or other junk as long as you're under your daily calorie goal. I'm merely pointing out that weight loss need not involve starvation or extreme deprivation.

[the peoples summit]

307. NO. They are NOT equal.

You didn't understand me, obviously. Avocados contain a fat-digesting enzyme, as well as tons of fiber. This means the avo will break down and be removed from the body quickly. A bagel will sit there, as will pink slime burgers on bleached bread...

[Habibi]

308. I did understand you.

And I don't agree.

As far as weight loss goes, when you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. (Assuming that you don't have a medical problem.) It really doesn't matter where the calories come from, although of course some calories provide better nutrition than others.

[banana convention.]

309. It DOES matter because the food functions differently.

A calorie is NOT a calorie. I can show you people on 3000+ calories a day with most of the calories from fruit. Even though they are athletes, I bet if they ate ten donuts they would not be as thin, nor as healthy.

[Habibi]

312. Give it up.

Seriously.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. I think it really depends on how YOU DO IT

no serious. I followed a simple plan, and lost and maintained fifty pounds off (need to lose another twenty but doc and I think perhaps not possible due to adrenal issues, adult metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance)

Anyway did not count calories, did not chose right or wrong foods... none of that nonsense.

I simply paid attention to my stomach and ate until full, not a morsel more. I do that to this day. I was never hungry...

It got even more interesting, as I paid attention to my body... I started to crave fruits and vegies. Due to the diabetes I need to control my input of carbs anyway. But it is not that they are bad foods... just pay attention.

I used McKenna (Paul McKenna four golden rules)... and you know what? It works.

Now traditional diets... I agree... and I was a yoyo, even if I gained those fifty pounds in three months over the side effects of one medicine. It took almost four years to lose them.

Granted these days I have zero appetite for bread, but that has to do with my gluten allergy. I see donuts, like today I had coffee at a donut shop... they are all but attractive at this point. They did look beautiful though. (And the size of those monsters... nope they were not one portion, even two... they were five donuts in one... the largest donuts I have ever seen in my life)

We went to the movie theater. We ordered a small popcorn for two people... and it was enough... sometimes we have some left over for the conures. They love popcorn.

And unlike the poster who talked to you about self control... I admit, I don't have any self control... what is that? I learned to listen to my body, period.

I have pointed to "I can make you thin" in the past, because at least IMHO it works. And one reason it works, is that there is no judgement on it, there is no self control, there is no good or bad foods, or any of that nonsense...and yes, it is puritanical nonsense.

And you know what? There are days I am hungry. A few times it is emotional, have learned to tell the difference too. At times it is real hunger. When it is emotional, water... when not I eat... even if "out of schedule."

There are days I am hardly hungry. Those days can be a challenge since I have to actually eat something to keep diabetes under control... I eat, a small portion... but most of the time, I eat, and that is it.

And to the but you have to have self control... I just say.. .bullocks...

.

[eridani]

70. For plenty of people "listening to your body" leaves you fat

Even though typically at least a little weight loss will occur.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. But for plenty of people it doesn't

And also what the op pointed to was not 1200 calorie diet, but a starvation diet. I know people who did that. My sister and my brother in law...not only got all back and then some, but now I know why doing the sensible thing will not work on them. She's a dietitian, so I is tripple ironic.

Yes, they are hungry all the time now.

[Habibi]

33. Actually, they don't need to feel hungry.

They can eat a fair amount of food (we all can!), that will be filling and satiating, and still be fewer calories than what they (we) were used to.

"Feeling hungry" is the death of weight-loss success. It's to be avoided as much as possible.

[Taitertots]

34. The article in the OP would suggest otherwise

Due to changes in hormones and brain chemistry. Which suggests that even eating a fair amount of food will still leave the dieter hungry.

[nobodyspecial]

37. You need to read more closely

and understand nutrition better. From the article:

Researchers, including Joseph Proietto, a professor of medicine at the University of Melbourne, have uncovered one of the main possible reasons. Two years ago, his team recruited 50 obese men and women, and coached them through eight weeks of an extreme 500-to-550-calories-a-day diet (a quarter of the normal intake for women).

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2134162/Research-shows-trying-lose-weight-alters-brain-hormones-youre-doomed-pile-again.html#ixzz1tf0GzURY

Anyone who knows anything about nutrition and weight loss would never recommend going below about 1,200 calories a day, which is the very least an average person needs to function. Obese people need even more calories to maintain basic body functions. So, according to this article, the researchers basically STARVED these people for TWO months. And when I say starve, I don't mean a little bit hungry. These people were literally starving.

And it's no surprise that it messed up the brain chemicals that control appetite and hunger. The body is in survival mode. Your primal brain is telling you to eat because it doesn't know when it will be starving again. It will consume food to build reserves so it will survive another famine. It has no way of knowing that the starvation was self-imposed.

It's the same reason why you always want to eat something within about one hour of waking. It signals to your brain that you have ample food and all systems are go to fire up and burn calories for energy. You may have to force yourself to do it, but after a few weeks, you will actually feel hungry in the morning and end up consuming many more calories later in the day after the body signals the brain that it has been literally starving all day.

[Habibi]

51. Yes, yes, yes!

You are exceedingly correct! You understand. That poor woman in the article that didn't eat all day, and then went crazy at dinner time! Of course she did--she was trying to starve herself in order to lose weight and it didn't work for her. And then berated herself for eating "bad food." Good grief, what a roller-coaster.

[Taitertots]

80. You are correct regarding the content of the article

500 calories a day is far too low to be considered healthy.

[Habibi]

38. Sorry, what? I missed that in the article.Who wouldn't feel hungry on a 500-calorie-per-day diet?

What does the article suggest is a "fair amount of food"?

[nobodyspecial]

43. They did this restrictive diet for two months

and then put the subjects on a more normal diet. However, the damage already was done.

[Habibi]

50. Right. Craziness. Nobody can feel good on a 500-cal-a-day diet. It's wrong and stupid and harmful.

Don't go there.

Slow down. Look to lose, say, a pound a week, or even a half-pound. That last is only a 250-calorie deficit/day. That means you maybe cut out that extra helping of <whatever> and have <something tasty but lower calorie for lunch than whatever>.

Slow and steady, brothers n sisters! The weight will come off. The time's going to pass anyway, right?

Why does this type of discussion always remind me of the famous Bill Cosby line (paraphrased): You don't want to get your college degree because you'll be <x years old> when you're finished? Really? How old will you be if you don't do it?

[dixiegrrrrl]

42. Your name is making me hungry!

[Habibi]

29. And that's why I don't believe in diets.

[4th law of robotics]

167. Reasonable portion sizes should leave you feeling content and not gaining weight

if you are used to eating an entire buffet for every meal yeah the first couple of meals will be rough.

But after that you get used to it and you end each meal feeling full, but not stuffed.

/also people need to eat slower. It takes about half an hour for your brain to realize you're full. Meaning if you shove food down your throat you can get well beyond being full while still thinking you're hungry.

[eridani]

181. Or not

There is no statistically significant difference between the eating patterns of fat people and thin people, at least judged by data on people observed eating in public.

If you are fat and eat a lot, you are far more likely to be able to lose weight.

[4th law of robotics]

187. So far you have argued that what you eat doesn't matter

the number of calories doesn't matter and how you eat doesn't matter.

So either you believe thin people work out all the time (seriously, do you know how long it takes to burn off just 200 calories, or one candy bar, by jogging? Quite a while) or you don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe it's genetic. Yeah that's the ticket. Can't have anything to do with what you eat, it's just genetics. Weird that the US has such radically different genetics from europe since we have so many common ancestors. Or that our genetic composition changed drastically within a generation, defying evolution.

But since it can't be diet and there's no way exercise can make up the difference that must be it. Somehow the american race (which must now be a thing) evolved within a generation (which is totally possible) to break the laws of thermodynamics (makes sense to me!).

[eridani]

198. What doesn't matter is the weight loss results from eating less and exercising more

You can choose to do those things, and your health will very likely improve. However, you have not the slightest bit of control over how doing them will affect your body. The typical result for fat people is that you get healthier and become a fat person who weighs less. A few lose a lot of weight, and a few lose very little weight.

[4th law of robotics]

215. Let's take an extreme example

a Somalian kid on a less than 1000 calorie a day diet.

Is he going to A) add fat, B) stay the same, or C) lose fat.

[eridani]

221. Given the reality that human metabolic controls prefer fat to lean body weight--

--he is going to lose a lot of lean body mass before losing fat. Under starvation conditions, glycogen stores are the first to go, protein from muscle and other tissues next, and last of all, fat.

[4th law of robotics]

224. That is utterly false

like 2+2 = ketchup false.

I have no idea where you got that information.

The body uses up fat before muscle. Fat is energy storage. Muscle isn't. What you are saying makes no sense and is completely contradicted by reality.

[eridani]

227. I got if from the course I taught in metabolic biochemistry

You don't know enough to bother with educating. Google is your friend.

[eridani]

274. Energy input required for burning protein is lower that required for burning fat

http://www.bodypeptalk.com/2012/02/18/what-happens-when-you-dont-get-enough-calories/

When the energy output is greater than the energy input, there is a negative energy balance. This means that the body has to find ways to obtain extra energy to match the expenditure and balance the equation. This energy comes from body storages, mainly glycogen[2] and fat. Don’t get too excited, though, because burning fat as fuel is not as easy as it seems. Before mobilizing fat, the body uses glucose stored in the liver because this is the fastest way to obtain energy. However, the glycogen storage is very limited, and if the energy shortage persists, the body has to come up with a different solution.

You must be thinking, “Now we’ll be using fat, right?” Wrong! The problem is that fat can only be used for energy in a few body tissues; our nervous system, for instance, is not one of them. The brain can only use glucose as fuel. Since fat cannot be converted into glucose, the body starts breaking down protein for energy, protein that comes from your hard-working muscles and other lean tissues. In addition, as you consume your own body protein, large amounts of water are lost in the process. That’s how people obtain rapid weight-loss through very low calorie diets. In reality, they are not burning fat at all – just muscle and water.

If the low calorie intake persists, the body’s last alternative is a process called ketosis. Ketosis is the partial breakdown of fat which creates compounds known as ketone bodies. The upside is that half of the brain cells can use these compounds for energy, momentarily sparing muscles and other lean tissues from being consumed. However, ketosis upsets the acid-base balance of the blood which can harm the body. In addition, the body ultimately shifts into a conservation mode, slowing down the metabolism in order to save energy. This makes you feel sluggish and fatigued.

Admittedly, this oversimplifies variations among individuals, who vary in their metabolic preferences for breaking down fat as opposed to lean tissue for energy. Mice and rats have been bred who lose really large percentages of lean tissue for energy rather than relying on fat.

[Vehl]

18. This!

We have become a nation demanding instant gratification. Everything has to be "now" (or within a few days/short time).

This same trend can be seen not only in weight loss programs but also in the lack of funding for long-term projects like renewable energy, high speed rail and funding for education, amongst other things.

[eridani]

20. That's very true

However, metabolism is not a bank account, so monetary investment as an analogy doesn't work too well.

[Vehl]

28. well

While I agree that the monetary investment analogy does not factor into this directly, I was using that to highlight the preference for short term gains over long term ones present in the minds of a considerable number of people.

For example, when it comes to weight loss, a lot of people try the "lose weight fast" methods, which might not work out and/or have side effects/high-chance of failure. Instead of trying those methods they could have opted for a long-term, but more successful method of eating better and exercising. The Exercise need not be intense, nor the food change huge. Change could and should be gradual so the body grows used to it. This is especially true for exercise....often people get into the "I need to lose weight fast" mode and exercise like crazy...and then slack off...and this is worse than not exercising in the first place. On the other hand, someone who does a little bit of exercise(need not even have to go to gym..can do it at home) and eats a bit healthier...and slowly changes to a more and more healthier diet along with excercise will have a very good chance of not only losing weight, but keeping the lost weight off. The only "downside" of this is that this process will probably take an year or two(for those who have to lose a lot, maybe a bit more)..and most people do not(and cannot) have the discipline/willpower to sustain such a thing. They would rather go for the "lose weight in two weeks" plans.

[trumad]

208. The irony of your name cracks me up...

but I do agree with your posts.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I've heard about this effect before.

And I believe that it's more likely to happen when the dieting is extreme, when the calories are cut to very low levels. The body gets the message that the person is literally starving, and then these effects happen.

I wonder if the same thing happens when the dieter goes about cutting calories in a more moderate way.

I've been working on getting my weight down for about 15 years now, and the weight is coming off, though very slowly. I've lost over 50 pounds in this time. I did it by eating what I always eat, but less. And I've been working out.

The weight comes off the way it went on: slowly. I'm doing what I can live with, and it has worked for me. Even though it's been slow, it has worked, and I don't really feel the cravings the way the dieters in that study did.

[eridani]

5. 300 lb people who lose 50 lbs are still fat

And therefore more likely to consider extreme dieting.

[Habibi]

12. "300 lb people who lose 50 lbs are still fat"

and Holy Cow! Those mofos lost 50 fuckin' pounds! High five! Terrorist fist-bump! Don't stop what you're doing!

[eridani]

16. Keeping on with what you are doing does not necessarily result in further weight loss

Getting just as much public abuse at 250 lbs as at 300lbs is a big demotivator.

[Habibi]

40. I understand. But rapid weight loss from a crash diet and

putting it back on just as quickly when you go back to eating a more normal amount of calories can't be all that motivating, either, can it?

[AnnieBW]

65. Word that

I'm 300+ pounds. I've recently lost about 40 lbs, but I'm still obese. However, I feel a lot better since I've been eating healthier and exercising more. (Current sinus infection not counted.) If someone makes a nasty comment, I just tell them that I may be fat, but they're a jerk, and I can diet.

[mythology]

205. Losing 40 pounds is an exceptional accomplishment

I'm a guy who weighs less than 250, but I noticed when I lost 7 pounds.

And way to channel your inner Winston Churchill. A woman once called him a drunk and he responded that in the morning he'd be sober, but she'd still be ugly.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

46. That is just rude.

I hope there are no obese people around you. Because you're about as motivating and supportive as a door knob.

[eridani]

153. I'm around me, and connected to the real world that fat people live in

In that world, you get as much public abuse from people when you weigh 250lbs as when you weigh 300.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

171. Yeah. I know, I'm in that bracket.

But you don't put down someone for only losing 50 pounds when they're 300...you encourage and love them.

[eridani]

177. Since when does reporting how the rest of the world reacts to a 50 lb weight loss--

--in a 300 lb person mean that I endorse that reaction? Quite the contrary, I assure you. Are you suggesting that someone going from 300 to 250 deserves love, and that someone going from 200 to 250 deserves derision? How the hell can you tell the difference between these two hypothetical 250 lb people anyway?

[Habibi]

7. You are doing it exactly right, Peggy!

Some people might cut calories more for a quicker weight loss, but the key is *what you can live with forever*--not just a flash-in-the-pan crash diet. Those never work.

[alfredo]

25. Portion control worked for me and I've kept the weight off for years.

I just lost 5 lbs from the flu. Not the best diet.

[Habibi]

3. Good grief, what a load of bollocks this study is.

"Two years ago, his team recruited 50 obese men and women, and coached them through eight weeks of an extreme 500-to-550-calories-a-day diet (a quarter of the normal intake for women)"

Of COURSE they were starving, and of COURSE the weight came back on. That is a ridiculous amount of calories to try to survive on daily.

The key to weight loss is a *moderate* caloric deficit, not an extreme one. And patience.

Ugh, I hate shit articles like this.

[eridani]

4. People go for extreme diets when moderation doesn't work

And for many people it doesn't.

If moderation gets a 300 lb person a 20 lb weight loss, it is highly predictable that, since they are still fat, they are likely to go for extremes next.

[Habibi]

8. It might be predictable,

but not good sense. If moderation (whatever that means for the individual) worked for them to lose 20 pounds, there's no reason to expect it to not work for 100 pounds.

Honestly, if you lost 20 pounds, why would you change your approach? Obviously, the moderation is working.

[eridani]

10. Because weight loss eventually flatlines

After your body adapts to new levels of calorie intake and exercise, weight loss stops. How long the adaptation takes depends on individual genetics.

[Habibi]

13. Possibly. But people can shake things up when they flatline, too.

Up their activity level, even up their calories. It sounds counterintuitive, but it can work. Do something different--change your movement routine, take up a new hobby that involves more movement, however gentle; eat some foods you're not used to. The body may very well go "whu? this is cool!" and let go of a few more pounds.

[eridani]

17. Or not.

Is upping your activity level so that you have no time at all for other meaningful activities acceptable?

[nobodyspecial]

39. Or, just continue to make excuses

All up to the person who is obese. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I've fought my genes every day of my life. It's hard at first, but once you make changes, it becomes a lifestyle, not something that you do and then stop.

I don't even get your statement. Physical activity *can* be a meaningful activity that includes fun, joy and loved ones. It doesn't have to be hours on the treadmill. What about a hike up a hill? Or a family bike ride? A run along the beach? Yoga in the park?

From the CDC:
We know 150 minutes each week sounds like a lot of time, but you don't have to do it all at once. Not only is it best to spread your activity out during the week, but you can break it up into smaller chunks of time during the day. As long as you're doing your activity at a moderate or vigorous effort for at least 10 minutes at a time.
Give it a try

Try going for a 10-minute brisk walk, 3 times a day, 5 days a week. This will give you a total of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity

http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/adults.html
(Lots of great tips at this link.)

[eridani]

67. But if the physical activity you enjoy and have time for does not result in significant weight loss-

--what then? I've done bike touring (fully loaded) for hundreds of miles and not lost so much as a single pound. Although, admittedly, my body composition changes after a two week tour.

[Habibi]

44. I'm not talking about burning another 500 calories on the elliptical.

I'm not. That's not necessary. What if you--say--just decided to put in a tomato/pepper bed in the backyard? What if you volunteered at church (or wherever) one night a week? What if you decided to redo your wood floors? Calories can get burned in all sorts of ways; many of them useful and even fun.

We've learned to think of "exercise" as a chore and a pain in the ass, and forgotten that we "burn calories" doing simple things that we might actually love to do, however slowly and haltingly.

[noamnety]

133. I agree. Upping the activity level isn't normally doable or even helpful.

That puts people on an infinite loop of having to eat less, exercise longer - which isn't maintainable. Your experience of doing long bouts of cardio and not getting the results you wanted exactly matches a lot of what I've been reading about traditional weight loss wisdom.

Things that seem to be more productive are either working different muscles or working the same muscles in different ways. My favorite thing is bike riding. I like long bike rides, but once you get to a certain level of training with that (not pro or racing, but just moderately comfortable with it), your body learns to do it more efficiently and the same exercise becomes less effective. It sucks. The trick is to avoid always doing something you're already good at because we don't WANT to work out efficiently. We need to perpetually be doing things that we are somewhat clumsy or inefficient at if the goal is to build muscle and burn fat. (Paraphrasing that from the New Rules of Lifting for Women.) That was a new concept for me.

A good way to break out of a plateau is instead of going from an hour long ride to an hour and a half, drop to as little as 4 minutes of severe interval work. There are studies showing that changing to even 20 minutes a week of exercise can be more effective at increasing both your aerobic and anaerobic capacity than riding at a moderate speed for 5 hours a week. http://www.active.com/triathlon/Articles/Go-for-Broke-with-Tabata-Intervals.htm

Or change from biking to another strength training thing at home for 10-15 minutes a day. I posted up my progress photos from doing that in the fitness forum a few months back. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1149101 I still like biking so I'll add that back in as recreation for summer but I no longer view it as my exercise program.

I really wish shows like the biggest loser didn't emphasize having to work yourself to a state of misery for long sessions to meet weight loss goals. I know it's good for business but it's bad for us. Just as your experience demonstrates - that isn't the most effective solution. I've built more muscles and shed more weight with 1-2 hours per week in my living room than I did over the summer riding 6-9 hours a week building up a serious sweat.

[eridani]

144. What you are suggesting (though you probably don't mean to)

--is that I should stop regarding biking as a pleasant and practical means of getting from point A to point B, with plenty of time to enjoy the scenery and devote an increasing chunk of time to fussing and worrying about some formal training program. Unfortunately, working out in my living room (even if there was room for that) doesn't get the groceries home.

[noamnety]

155. No, I'm not really suggesting that.

Last edited Thu May 3, 2012, 08:40 AM - Edit history (1)

When it gets warm, I plan to return to bike riding myself for exactly the same reasons you do it - pleasant recreation, transportation, getting groceries.

But bike riders can change just the way we pace yourself for the first 3-4 minutes of our bike rides, then ride the way we normally would for the rest of the ride and it would be a way more effective workout than an evenly paced ride the whole time.

Or we can do even a few minutes of stuff in our living room while dinner's cooking 3 times a week. If we have room to lie in a straight line on the floor, we have room to do planks (up to 90 seconds, or 270 seconds if you add each side) or the cat vomit exercise (100 seconds, or 10 reps of 10 sec). If we have room to stand in one spot and hold our arms straight out in front of ourselves, we have room to spend 120 seconds of kettlebell swinging.

I'm definitely NOT talking about insanity videos or px90 or even old jane fonda tapes. I need to have foot surgery, so if anything involves even THINKING about jumping or jogging in place or lunges I am not doing it. I'm strictly no impact, no video tapes, no grapevining across my living room, no hour long chunks of time mapped out for that shit.

To be honest, I'm still a little angry that this stuff was never taught to me. "Exercise more" never clued me in that interval work at the START of a cardio thing like bike riding would release fats from the cells into the bloodstream to make them more available to burn. I was instead taught to do the opposite - do a slow warm up, and at the end of the bike ride if I had extra energy, do a sprint in the final bit to get home. That's exactly the opposite of how to burn the most fat effectively. That's why I get annoyed when people reduce it down to calories in/calories out like the problem is just lack of willpower or laziness.

[eridani]

197. What you are talking about is a mindfulness about training that many aren't motivated to share.

I really get why people who are involved in amateur athletic competitions would be interested in tracking the minutiae of how they spend excercise time to make it more effective.

The reason that I don't is that I don't want to, period. I prefer thinking about the most efficient adjustment to my precinct map (where to lock up the bike, how much walking vs biking), mentally running through changes to articles or slide shows that I'm working on, how to deal with people in my local Dem organizations that are at each other's throats because of contested primaries, etc. I combine cooking with other necessary household tasks like laundry, bill paying or mail sorting.

Which is, of course, the main problem with making weight loss a major project--it seriously interferes with living.

[noamnety]

199. I don't do any athletic competitions.

I just hit a point where my doctor let me know I have to be mindful now of how I eat and exercise or I wasn't going to be around as long to do those other things. And I was having weight-related chronic pain, having to buy orthopedic-recommended shoes, getting steroid shots, avoiding longer walks, and waking up at 2am with shooting pains in my hip. (I also was a bit shaken up by watching an overweight but otherwise healthy coworker have a stroke and end up incapacitated for life.)

Eventually not losing weight also seriously interferes with living for some people. Unfortunately I was in that group but it doesn't sound like you are.

[eridani]

201. I just watched a not overweight friend have a stroke

Luckily, she is responding well to rigorous physical therapy.

I find it mindboggling that you can do so much strenous training while being in pain. I've never had pain related to weight. I got a lot of function back from frozen shoulder by massage therapy. I fixed what I thought was lower back pain by wearing an intertrochanteric belt at night and while doing specific exercises--turns out the problem was hip misalignment due to an earlier fall. Got rid of plantar fasciitis (caused by too much walking in new shoes of a brand I hadn't worn before) by stretching exercises and wearing a foot stretcher at night. I use orthotics because of high arches. None of those conditions had anything to do with weight.

You're right--if I couldn't function well at my weight, I'd probably be way more upset about it. Anything resembling interval training also has its own risks if you are over 65. One advantage of fat for women is better bone density--I have the bone density of a healthy 20 year old.

[noamnety]

211. Plantar fasciitis is related to being overweight, among other things.

It's not always the sole cause; I'm not claiming it is. But it can absolutely be a main contributing factor. It's the combination of force plus lack of support that causes it.

"Plantar fasciitis is particularly common in runners. In addition, people who are overweight, women who are pregnant and those who wear shoes with inadequate support are at risk of plantar fasciitis." http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/plantar-fasciitis/DS00508

That was one of my issues. Spending 10 minutes a day working out in targeted ways to drop the weight could be interpreted as interfering with my life. But the crippling pain of the plantar fasciitis was interfering more. Aside from the shooting pains, I spent at least the same amount of time in total on the doctor visits, shots for it, doing stretching exercises for it, rolling it on frozen bottles of water, going to a crocs store to get the RX line of crocs, going to specialty stores for dansko clogs and redwing boots. Between the shoes, the nighttime foot support, and the dr. visits it cost me hundreds of dollars.

The kettlebell I bought was less than $30. Since I dropped the weight, I haven't had a single recurrence of it. I needed the serious shoes when my weight gain put me at risk, but at the lower weight even if I wear cheap shoes it's not a problem. The combination of factors (too much weight + cheap shoes) is more than my body can handle.

When you talk about the "so much strenuous training" I'm doing, it makes me think you are completely misinterpreting either the type or amount of workouts I'm doing. I suspect that's because we are so conditioned to believe an effective workout has to resemble the Insanity routines or something from the biggest loser. That's my point - it doesn't.

A 90 second plank or the cat vomit exercise (done on all fours) doesn't put strain on my arches. The kettlebells are strenuous for just a couple minutes, but my feet never move during it. These things interfere with my life far less than the side effects I was having from the excess weight I was carrying.


As for your friend you had the stroke, first, I'm sorry to hear about that. But the fact that thin people also have strokes does not negate the association between weight and strokes, just like a nonsmoker having lung cancer doesn't negate the link between smoking and cancer.

[eridani]

222. Since I fixed it without losing a single pound, the correlation is meaningless in the real world

If you read through the whole thread, you notice many posters proclaiming moral superiority when whatever they are doing results in weight loss, and insisting that if others don't get the same results they must be doing it wrong.

I'd like to call their attention to the fact that I'm not claiming that I'm better than you because fairly simple solutions to plantar fasciitis and back/hip trouble worked for me. Because those things worked for me, it doesn't mean that everyone else is going to get the same results, and if they don't they must somehow be lying about sticking to the regimen that worked for me. Your case indicates that the things causing your pain were different for you.

I have analogous things that I do for exercise other than biking. When I elevate my feet for 10 minutes before putting on support hose, I use a stretch band for Pilates and other exercises that are slowly adding more range of motion to my frozen shoulder. Whenever I go into my office, I do wall pushups in front of the door--same if I get restless from doing too much computer work. I find them helpful, but they have resulted in no weight loss whatsoever.

Oh, and don't confuse correlation with causation--physiological conditions that enable obesity enable a lot of other problems as well.

[noamnety]

241. It's possible the mayo clinic is wrong.

Wait - no, on this they aren't. Again, it's the combination of FORCE and SUPPORT.

That's why runners are prone to it - they put excess force on their feet. Ditto for overweight and pregnant people. If we have enough force on our feet, we'll need excess support beyond what nature provided. You addressed one part of the equation, the support, and that worked for you. That doesn't make the equation meaningless in the real world at all.

That's nothing to do with superiority of me or of you. Whatever works for you is fine for you. But I'd hate for you to be spreading the false wisdom that the cause itself (excess force) is unrelated to the symptoms. If other people reading the thread are suffering with plantar fasciitis, they ought not to be misled about the causes - and thus the whole range of cures.

- from another person with excessively high arches, which did their job moderately well ... until they couldn't.

[eridani]

257. Not wrong, just misguided

What's easier to do? Stretching exercises that fix the condition or long term loss of large amounts of weight? (Yes--high arches have plusses and minuses for sure.)

BTW, I wasn't claiming that you were acting superior, just that I never accused you of failing to do simple things to fix plantar fasciitis and hip trouble like I successfully did. If you look through the whole thread, you'll see quite a bit of that kind of comment directed towards fat people.

[Dorian Gray]

238. Losing weight

has to be a priority.

I lost 100 lbs and have kept it off. It took three years to lose, and I've kept it off for two years since I reached my goal. (Not including the pregnancy in the middle of it all.) So, it's doable.

But, it was one of my top priorities. I food logged. I exercised five times a week. I made daily changes where I walked places instead of drove. I sometimes put planning meals ahead of other household tasks.

And with a baby in the house, it's more difficult to prioritize, but maintaining weight is easier than losing, and I still find time to exercise and eat decently. Luckily I work part time, not full time, so it does give me some time to play with. And my husband is extremely supportive.

I've read your posts in this thread, and I feel as though you feel defeated in the whole thing. It's doable if it's a priority. If it isn't, there is nothing wrong with embracing yourself as you are. Other things in life that are more important to you... embrace those things and don't worry about the weight loss. We all choose what in life means the most to us. It is not a matter of right or wrong.

[eridani]

256. Not defeated--I have just made a choice to have a life

Weight loss is not a priority, and I am the statistical norm, not you. Other people's choices are none of my business. However, if you are fat, other people seem to think that your choices ARE their business. I do appreciate you for not thinking that.

[Dorian Gray]

281. How you live is your choice

I would never presume to pressure anybody to do something "for their own good." Because we all prioritize what is important in our lives and what is good for us.

As for people judging you, I was judged before and after I lost weight. It's a little different now, but people always judge others. They can't help it. We're generally busybodies as a species.

[eridani]

285. Don't confuse "judgement" with public abuse.

This tends to be hard to explain to men. I still can't demonstrate how the abuse directed at me when I'm on my bike is more and different that the driver vs biker crap that my husband experiences. Whenever he rides with me, it doesn't happen. Fancy that!

[Codeine]

87. That means it's time to up the exercise

and alter eating patterns to pick up the metabolism again.

[eridani]

103. Unless you decide that you would prefer to have a life

Statistics on weight loss maintenance indicates that this is the choice of 95%

[Codeine]

116. Exercise should be part of everybody's life.

It's not the easiest path, but no path worth taking ever is.

[eridani]

118. Yes, it should. But is is absolutely nutz to assume that it will lead to significant weight loss

Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn't. When it does, prancing around like Rmoney saying that anyone is free to do the same is not helpful, to say the least.

[Codeine]

120. Oh stuff that.

Comparing posters who don't believe that overweight people are helpless and unable to make lasting changes to their body to Mitt Motherfucking Romney is the very height of ridiculousness.

[eridani]

123. You can make changes to your habits, but that may or may not result in significant weight loss

What happens after you adopt the habits is completely out of your control. And large amounts of weight kept off permanently are as statistically uncommon as ascending to Rmoney wealth levels. Sure it happens occasionally. So does accumulation of massive wealth.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

47. That doesn't make it right!

This study was ridiculous. You cannot survive on a diet of 550 calories a day! It's no wonder they were obsessed with food. They were starving! There are weight loss programs out there, like Weight Watchers, where you still eat what you love, you just eat less of it and it is more successful because people are full and people aren't STARVING THEMSELVES.
Let me guess. You've never had a problem with weight in your life?
Here's an idea. If you haven't, just be quiet. You are helping no one with your nasty comments.

[truebrit71]

168. Yup. That is an insanely small caloric number...

..and puts the body into starvation mode whereby it hoards EVERY morsel that it consumes, which inhibits weight loss, slows the metabolism down, and eventually leads to weight gain when the caloric intake increases...

Bloody stupid if you ask me...

[JDPriestly]

9. That is why my motto is: It's not how much you eat; it is what you eat.

Instead of french fries, try a low-cal snack of salad.

Instead of potato chips, how about radishes, celery and slices of pepper.

For desert, a piece of fruit, not a piece of cake.

Fill up on healthy food. Make sure you don't feel hungry.

[eridani]

11. When I tried out being a vegetarian, I discovered the discomfort

--of feeling full and hungry at the same time.

[GoCubsGo]

14. Yep.

Fat and proteins keep you feeling satiated. Celery, fruit, and pepper alone slices do not.

[Vehl]

22. I Dunno

Maybe I should not comment on what passes for vegetarian food here in the US, but as someone of South Asian origin, and as someone who is mostly vegetarian (with a lot of vegetarian family members) I cannot survive on celery fruit and pepper,salads...or whatever passes for "vegetarian" over here. I find it super bland, and if they were the only options I had , would have ceased being a vegetarian!

There are entire cuisines, not recipes....of Vegetarian food from around the world (South Asian, for example) which have a huge variety of choices for people to choose from. There are Veg dishes which do have a lot of protein and some with fat as well.Well chosen vegetarian meals can make one feel full as well as feel fresh

just my 2 cents.

[alfredo]

27. I found studying the diets of Asia and the Mideast taught me how to spice vegetables.

Chinese cooking taught me technique and how to build an efficient kitchen. Mideast and Indian cooking taught me spicing.

[Vehl]

30. :)

Glad to hear that. Yep proper spicing makes food taste awesome!

[GoCubsGo]

53. I wasn't making any points about vegetarian diets.

I was trying to make the point that nobodyspecial just made below.

[Vehl]

59. ah, I misunderstood.

I assumed that when you meant a vegetarian diet, you mainly mentioned the stuff you listed in your post, and tried to point out that there are better vegetarian alternatives. My bad.

[GoCubsGo]

63. Naw.

I didn't word it well. I shouldn't comment while in a rush to go off and do something else.

[obamanut2012]

61. It's the same here

Vegetarians eat a very varied diet, full of delicious things, and plenty of fat, protein, and complex carbs.

I cannot tell you the last time I had a piece of celery.

[nobodyspecial]

26. That is NOT a healthy vegetarian diet

and anyone who has researched it and knows what they are doing is eating well beyond fruits, vegetables and grains. I think some people make the mistake of just eliminating meat, but there is much more to it than that.

[GoCubsGo]

52. Yes, I know.

I was trying to make the point that snacking or otherwise filling up on fruit and vegetables only keep a person filled for so long. They may be "healthy", but they don't exactly do the trick when it comes to keeping you satiated, unless one has some fat and protein with them. Not mention that one needs some fats in order for the body to utilize any fat soluble vitamins (i.e, Vits. A, D, E, K). I don't know about you, but if I snack on pepper slices or celery sticks, I'm hungry again within a half an hour. Now, if I had some hummus with them...

[obamanut2012]

60. What in the world do you think vegetarians eat?

We eat fat and proteins, along with carbs.

If someone is hungry on a vegetarian diet*, then they aren't eating a balanced diet*. Celery, fruit, and pepper??? Vegans also don't eat like that.


*Using the word properly.

[GoCubsGo]

62. Sigh.

That was my point.

[Codeine]

85. Good thing there is an abundance of fat and protein in vegetarian food.

I've been a vegan for over twenty years. I have no difficulty feeling satiated. My diet is deficient in neither protein nor fats.

edit: sorry, I answered without reading ahead in the thread. Snark unintended.

[the peoples summit]

306. Um...that's not what many vegetarians eat...

But judging from your name, you are stuck on...genius...

[nobodyspecial]

23. That's because you need some protein and fat with every meal to feel full

Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 06:31 PM - Edit history (1)

And the protein can come from a variety of sources -- dairy and eggs -- if you're octo-lavo and beans, soy, nuts, etc. if you're not. Your body needs cabs, protein and fat to function properly and you will be driven to eat until your body gets what it needs to fuel and rebuild itself. You should try to have all three in a meal or snack, allowing your activity level for the day and body type help guide you to the proper proportion.

For example, if you cut carbs out, your body starts eating protein -- your muscles -- to fuel itself. This loss of muscle mass and the amount of water that is flushed out in the process is why low-carb diets yield quick and dramatic results. However, it's not sustainable. And once you go back to a more balanced diet, you often end up gaining weight. Your body has eaten muscle mass, which raises your resting metabolism. The same diet you had before is going to result in even more weight gain because your basal metabolism has been lowered by the loss of muscle mass.

People need to get off the diet crazes and learn more about nutritional science. There is no magic. It's math. Calories in must be less than calories out to lose weight. And, the sad fact is, the less you weigh, the fewer calories you need, so you need to gradually reduce and then maintain that new calorie level once you reach your goal weight.

The shame is studies like this do more harm than good. The message is that diets don't work, which isn't true. EXTREME diets don't work is the truth. Anyone who has any sense would never recommend a 500 calorie diet.

[Vehl]

32. +1

great post!

[nobodyspecial]

35. Thank you.

Had to go back and clean it up a bit, but thanks for your note.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

48. While I hate Chick Fil A...

...They have an AMAZING fruit salad that you can sub for fries that is just amazingly satisfying.

[ananda]

21. It's WHAT you eat.

NOT how much you eat.

[nobodyspecial]

24. Wrong

It's math. If your body needs 1,500 calories to maintain daily activities and you eat 2,000 calories a day -- no matter how healthful, organic, pure, superfood, etc. -- you will gain weight.

[Habibi]

56. Yes. Although I'd argue with your numbers.

[nobodyspecial]

57. So would I

I meant 1,200. How's that?

[Habibi]

75. I think it really depends on your current weight, your goal weight,

your BMR, and your total daily energy expenditure (TDEE). 1200 wouldn't be enough for me, even if I didn't exercise. That's what WW put me on and I was hungry all the time. You need to fuel the machine! So I eat between 1500-2000 a day and am still losing. But that's me--your calorie needs might be quite different.

[eridani]

69. Except that if you try to adjust caloric intake and energy output by force of will--

--your body then adjusts to need less and less.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Yup that's why people starve to death or real

The adaptation goes only so far...

But whatever..and don't tell me I am clueless by the way.

[noamnety]

96. I no longer agree with simple calories in/calories out.

I used to think it was that simple. I changed my diet 9 months ago. I'm at my target weight now and maintaining. Here's what I learned from a TON of reading.

1. The simple calories in/out model doesn't account for why two people can each drop 20 pounds, but one loses muscle mass while the other loses fat. Likewise, it doesn't explain why I can eat a surplus of 500 calories a day while losing body fat.

2. That model doesn't adequately give information about the ways in which the specific calories in can affect the calories out. It doesn't address how some foods cause your body to hang onto fat, while other foods release triglycerides into your blood stream making the fats more available to burn during exercise.

3. It doesn't address how excessive cardio can cause your body to try to conserve fat - the implication is that more cardio is better because it burns more calories.

4. It doesn't address things like water consumption - 0 calories in that makes a big difference in weight loss.

5. It doesn't address that certain foods cause our metabolism to increase (spicy foods for example).

Basically it implies that the specific calories in is unrelated to our calories out, or that the specific calories in and methods of getting them out controls whether we gain or lose fat or muscle. In that regard it ranges from useless to counterproductive.

A better model is one that explains how fats are burned, what specific diet choices speed our metabolism or makes fats more available. (Fat cell walls are notorious for NOT wanting to let fat escape - it's a membrane-cell size issue.) A better model explains what the most effective exercise method is for "burning fat" not "burning calories". A better model explains why although a calorie is a calorie, some will naturally work to curb cravings and keep you feeling satiated, while other choices will increase your appetite and make it harder to stick to a diet - in other words why willpower is directly affected by our carb, fat and protein ratios, and it acknowledges the addictive nature of certain foods. A better model explains the effect of various hormones on weight gain and loss and teaches how sleep and food choices (not just quantity but also selection) changes those hormones.

A better model gives us precise usable information. "Calories in/calories out" doesn't tell me that I can lose weight by putting an icepack on one specific part of my body or what's the most effective time of day to do that. It doesn't explain the effects of working out in a fasted state vs. after a small meal. When I hear calories in/calories out, I don't hear anything usable so much as I hear "eat less, workout more" which comes across as a disapproving lecture (that should be followed with ", dumbass&quot . It's like telling a student "you failed this language test because you should have studied more and worked harder" instead of letting them know they forgot to conjugate their verbs.

[Habibi]

99. Great post!

Although I think *most* people will lose weight on a simple calories in/calories out approach. But you are right that there are other factors that *can* come into play.

[truebrit71]

170. Can you share with us some of that reading material?

I would be very interested to take a look at it. I have recently decided that I do not wish to go through life being a lard-arse and have started to use LiveStrong/MyPlate and MyFitnesspal.com to track my exercise and calorie intake...I have lost 13 lbs so far at about 2 lbs a week, I am eating better, sleeping better, have more energy, things to ache and creak like they used, and i LOVE my daily exercise (i do about 10km per day on a stationary bike - and some limited kettlebells)...

I still have a hunger (lol!) to learn more about HOW the body processes the food it ingests, and how to maximize the efficiency of both my work-outs and my diet..

Anything you can direct me to would be gratefully received?

[noamnety]

172. No problem.

The one that got me started really understanding the mechanics was the Four Hour Body. My disclaimer is that there's a bit of male stupidity in it, ranging from clueless up to creep factor. I prefer the motivation to be purely on health and fitness, at nearly 50 my goal isn't to get a hot ass. If I had one, I'm not even sure what I'd do with it. But I still use this as my eating and workout bible. This is where I learned the basics of insulin, leptin, how sleep deprivation affects weight loss, how stress effects it, why restricting carbs 6 days a week works - but also why going to town on carbs one day a week or so keeps you from having issues processing carbs in the long run. Also what to do to minimize weight gain when you do eat carbs (90 seconds of high intensity a few minutes before the meal, and another 90 seconds an hour and a half afterwards, for example).

Wheat Belly is more focused on modern hybridized wheat, and its connection to everything from arthritis to diabetes to acid reflux. It was my introduction to wheat proteins making the walls of the intestines permeable.

The New Rules of Lifting for Women had a bunch of specific exercises that I didn't incorporate into my life, but what I mostly got from it was more specific knowledge of what builds muscle and what doesn't.

And online, leangains has been a source of good information: http://www.leangains.com/2011/01/better-blood-glucose-with-lower-meal.html. Related to that, I know a lot of people recommend the book Eat, Stop, Eat. I haven't read it yet, I probably will this summer.

edit: I meant to add that during the last 9 months when I've been on the 4 hour body program, I had a three week period when I logged my food into myfitnesspal.com. Myfitnesspal was easy to use and I wanted to get a ballpark figure of where I was at caloriewise, which was 1500-1800, but I was aware I was eating less because I was logging it. I'd guess my norm has been around 1800. But the rest of the time I haven't counted calories or carbs or points at all.

[truebrit71]

212. Awesome thanks! from your earlier post I thought one of them was the 4-hour body..

...and I agree there is some really useful info in there...as well as the creepy stuff....I skimmed it about a year ago, but now that I am really serious about losing weight will be taking a deeper look at it...my primary concern is that I maximize my efforts, I don't mind sweating for results, but I want to make sure I am doing the right exercises to get those results...

[Habibi]

180. In addition to what noamety has suggested, you might find "Fuck Calories"

by Krista Scott-Dixon interesting: http://www.stumptuous.com/fuck-calories

It's free.

I haven't given up grains, but limiting them does seem to help me lose.

I've also stopped tracking for a while. I'm about 10 lbs away from goal and I thought I'd see what happened if I just followed some of Krista's suggestions. (Of course, by now I have a pretty good idea of what a reasonable portion size is and yadda yadda.)

ETA: Oh, and I'm scaling back on the cardio and upping my weight-lifting. Just to see what happens. Apparently, barbell squats are the best exercise ever.

[noamnety]

218. Thanks! I just downloaded it.

looks like a fun read!

[YellowRubberDuckie]

49. It is both.

Honestly, If you've never had a weight problem, stop weighing in with how it feels and what works to lose weight. You don't know what it is like and you just sound self righteous and rude when you try.

[GoCubsGo]

54. Thank you!

It IS as much how much you eat as it is what you it. Nuts are considered "healthy". You can't eat the whole can of them in a day without gaining weight from it. I know I can't. That goes for just about any "healthy" thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. Pot smoking & masturbating frequently to porn are two of the best things men can do for their health

Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

[varelse]

58. It's possible to avoid this effect

by losing weight at a sensible pace (2 pounds per week at most) and adding at least a couple of strength training sessions per week to your fitness routine. Getting enough sleep also helps.

I'm not 'starving all the time' now after dropping 70+ pounds and keeping it off for 2 years.

[eridani]

71. I had a friend who did that, but then sustained a serious knee injury

--which left her pretty near immobile for a few months. She gained half the weight back, and was never able to exercise enough to get back to the original weight loss.

[HangOnKids]

73. Have Her Join A Gym That Has A Pool

Aqua Joggers are a great tool for water exercise. They are a fun and non stress way to do aerobics.

[eridani]

74. She's on SSDI and can't afford dues

A shame, because water resistance is really great, and quite a few fat folks get a lot of joy out of being in the water.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. And there are still ways to exercise

I will match her bad knee and raise her a second, plus a bum back.

Yup, there are days I cannot do much.

Eridani please, I can bring Anectdotal data too, even personal to tell you why you can't too.

[eridani]

104. You are talking to someone who has biked all over Europe a few times

--and not lost a single pound doing it. OK--my body composition changed, but it that had never altered the way I get treated as a fat woman on a bike.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. Here s a medical fact

Your body changed. You were and are healthier because of it. And you did not lose a gram since your body composition changed...muscle weights a lot more than fat...

Society's treatment is separate and you are letting that discourage you.

That is a somewhat related but separate battle.

Moreover, there are people out there who, due to genetic load are fat...usually it is genetic disorders at the rare level. I knew a few, but it has to do with where my sister worked at for years. the specialty of that clinical research center was metabolic and genetic disorders.

Also once you reach a certain level, the goal s not to be thin and svelte, but to lose and maintain 30% of body mass index. Which is why me and my doctor are happy as can be. I managed the rear feat of close to forty and not only maintained but started losing, slowly mind you, again after three years. I am not on any diet I am familiar with.

But you do what you will. I will be brutal, and I am sorry, you are quite negative and this does not help either.

A change in outlook might help, which includes a healthy fu to some of the worst aspects of society...and yes, been there, done that.

[eridani]

141. I'm realistic, and I represent 95% of fat people

BTW, the genetic variant Syndrome X is not at all rare, being present in about 30% of the population.

I know I'm healthier, but I still get told to lose weight all the time. IMO there is no other possible response than "Fuck off."

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. More than 5% of people lose and maintain

sorry to break this to you.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19828901

Read that. I would say that YOU have had very low success. I will recommend AGAIN that you take a look AGAIN at McKenna... perhaps what you need to do, IF YOU WISH... is NOT to follow a diet. Being in a diet might be your main and major problem. I know anecdotally it was for me.

But success and compliance, and yes 24 months is considered both... is HIGHER than 95% per those pesky damn scientific, double blind studies.

I fear though that it will not matter what you are shown.

As to Factor X, yes, that is ADULT METABOLIC SYNDROME. Dear, I have it... so use that one somewhere else.

In fact. many of my fellow diabetics, who have successfully lost and maintained some, have it.

You may want to see what is the cause, as in MEDICAL reason, why you cannot. Or perhaps you really do not want to. I really don't know... not my place to have that conversation to be honest.

As to society telling you constantly to lose weight... look at Seventeen... the magazine. It started when you were a young kid. It's called a sick ideal of what means to be thin. Sorry, but anorexic, or well on my way, is not healthy either. So yes, FU is a good and adequate response.

[eridani]

148. If you cheat and have 86% of your subjects be male, of course you will get better results

--than 95% failure. This study does not come from the real world, in which the vast majority of dieters are female. Of the small number of women they bothered to include, 29% dropped out, leaving only 32 in the study for the full 2 years. The typical male dieter has never dieted until his doctor got on his case about some health problem in middle age, and is significantly more likely to lose weight than female dieters.

Other observations--
--the study evaluated compliance with several dietary regimens, not long-term weight loss
--those who were heavier to begin with and lost the least weight after 6 months were the most likely to drop out. (Surprise!)
--two years is less than 10 % of the subjects' projected life span past 52 years, and is therefore not relevant to true long term weight loss.
--this is a single study, not a meta-study evaluating results from large numbers of different studies. Metastudies confirm the traditional 95% failure rate.

If you have syndrome X, then you certainly have to know that successful weight loss in insulin-resistant people is mostly correlated with how much insulin you typically secrete to overcome it. The more insulin, the less likely weight loss becomes. You have no control over this whatsoever.

I consider my exercise habits and being careful of my intake of foods with a high glycemic index to be a success, given that my grandmother died at 53 and my father at 59. It is only people who make weight loss the main indicator of health that consider me to be a failure.

I expect that I will lose weight eventually, and that this will be a sign that my pancreas has finally said "fuck it--I'm done" after 65+ years. That will be my cue to ask my doctor to see about putting me on insulin.
My father had significant weight loss at age 58 after a lifetime of dieting failure, and was dead within a year, a fate which I intend to avoid if I can. Of course, we know much more about insulin resistance than we did in the 70s.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. As predicted

Scientific studies are wrong and you are correct.

Have a good day and good luck with that.

[eridani]

152. You failed to discuss my analysis of the actual results.

Though I didn't actually predict that--your're usually much more rational. You might have noticed that I said nothing about the results being actually wrong--I just questioned their relevance to the reality that most of us live in. f you want to insist that a study with 86% male subjects represents the real world where most dieters are female, go for it. Don't expect me to agree, though.

[laundry_queen]

154. First of all.

That's not a double blind study, LOL. I'm pretty sure the dieters were aware of WHAT they were eating.

Second, quote me the part where it says more than 5% are able to maintain their weight long term.

[Edweird]

206. Hi, my name is 'Edweird' and I have dieted strictly out of vanity.

After trying many kooky diet schemes (including Atkins which got me 'crack skinny' in a flash but cost me my hard earned muscle mass) I have returned to 'eat what I want and use intense physical exertion to burn it off'.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

182. My local YWCA has a low-income program

It may be worth checking out.

[eridani]

228. Good idea n/t

[varelse]

81. Exercise can be adapted to a person's ability

A lady who posts on the site I am using to log food/fitness stats has herniated discs in her spine, fibromyalgia, and a host of other health issues. She has lost 205 pounds and is still losing the weight, despite being bedridded when she started.

She started exercising with a hand bike, in bed because she could not walk. She is 47 years old (like me).

There is always hope.

[Habibi]

83. That is truly inspiring!

What site do you use?

[varelse]

131. Spark People - it is free and has a food and fitness journal built in

http://www.sparkpeople.com/

The community is huge, very diverse (although there are more women than men) and extremely supportive.

I have never had an easier time with weight loss and maintenance.

[Habibi]

136. Very good.

I used myfitnesspal, with much the same experience.

[varelse]

159. I had not heard of myfitnesspal

I'll have to look at that one. Some people I have referred to sparkpeople feel the site is too busy (and they have a point). It never hurts to have alternatives.

[Habibi]

161. I agree with them.

mfp is much simpler.

[Dorian Gray]

239. Spark people

is a great site. Love it! i

[eridani]

105. There are only 99 other people like her who did the same thing and didn't lose much weight

You sound like Mitt Romney telling us that everyone can really do what he did to get rich.

[varelse]

130. There are over 2 million users on the site I am using

and there are hundreds if not thousands of success stories.

Of course, some people come back after a break and let everyone know they have regain some weight. Others are in maintenance mode and just using the food journals to maintain - or socializing.

[eridani]

142. And there are no statistics or any kind of scientific tracking, right? n/t

[varelse]

158. No, just a huge social network

with blog posts, before and after pics, and a forum where people share what works and what doesn't - for them

[eridani]

178. Which has nothing to do with proving or disproving the statement that

--most significant weight loss is not maintained. What do you know about the people who drop and quit sharing?

[varelse]

210. To me, what is important is *why* weight loss is not maintained

What is reported most frequently on the site, by those who come back after experiencing setbacks, is emotional issues. Stress, self esteem, negative self-talk, emotional eating (this is a big one) and depression.

Among those who maintain weight loss, about 60% of us maintain the habit of keeping a food journal. Quite frequently, people don't know what they're eating and even more importantly, they aren't paying attention to why they're eating.

Emotional eaters tend to eat when we're tired, angry, bored, frustrated, procrastinating, or even thirsty. Keeping a journal helps us control emotional eating.

[noamnety]

216. That's good advice.

I don't personally do a food journal but I did find that understanding why I was overeating made it a lot easier to control. I already mentioned the food addictions, and consciously thinking of my cheese consumption as an addiction - reading up on what it does to the brain - gave me more control than telling myself that I should eat less cheese. I understood why when I decided to have a "moderate" portion, it would inevitably lead to seconds or thirds. Certain foods I can't have in small amounts. On refeed days I can go nuts if I want, but the other 6 days if I cross the line from NO to Maybe just a little in moderation, it's all over for me. Knowing that I have to be rigid even when dealing with peer pressure has been key. And it's part of the reason why for me weight watchers wasn't an option I thought I could stick with - it doesn't address the addiction part of the equation.

I do journal the exceptions to my diet and my morning and evening weight, though. So I have entries that look like this:

10/12: 129lbs, Tuesday kettlebell routine, 132lbs at night, not enough water, handful of raisins.

When I saw all that laid out, I could see directly where the things I did affected my weight. The immediate feedback loop between actions and weight helped me link cause and effect better. I know that sounds stupid, DUH if you cheat you will gain, but I still needed to see my own evidence on that level.

[varelse]

244. Yes, the feedback loop is what makes this technique so valuable

For me, with my interest and educational background in science, it also made weight loss/maintenance more interesting. Like a game, rather than a chore.

Previously, I had more of a problem with eating way too little while losing weight. I'd then return to my old eating patterns and gain it back. Not eating enough and losing the weight too fast resulted in health and emotional issues which I (sadly) never connected to the fasting behaviour.

With a journal, it is much easier to stay within a healthy nutritional range, eating 200-500 calories less than you're burning instead of 'crash' dieting, which burns muscle and organ tissue (BAD!).

[eridani]

223. That's just nonsense. I'm far too busy to bother with food journals, and also

--too busy to spend a great deal of time going out to any kind of restaurant, fast food or otherwise. I'm too busy to be bored or to procrastinate. If I get frustrated with a task, I switch to one of the many other tasks I have lined up. Fat people are no more likely to engage in emotional eating than anyone else.

[varelse]

249. Actually, food journaling doesn't have to take much time

There are even smart phone apps that make it easy to do at any time.

Also, small increments of exercise can be built into even the most busy schedule. Even a few 10-15 minute intervals can help.

I rarely ate at restaurants or fast food outlets (and now I never do), but I was obese for 12 years before I was finally able (and willing) to address the issues which trapped me in a body that had limited mobility.

Emotional eating is often a contributing factor in chronic obesity, but of course it isn't the only one. As others have said, there are health conditions that make it more difficult to maintain a healthy weight. Fortunately, difficult and impossible aren't quite the same thing. There is hope for most people who wish to maintain a healthy body fat ratio and weight.

[noamnety]

250. That's true about it not taking much time.

During the time I logged everything into myfitnesspal, logging my food for the day took about 5 minutes a day for the first couple days, and less after that. You search on a food in their data base, pull up the closest version of it to what you ate, punch in the amount and hit enter.

Once you get your more common meals entered, it's quicker because you hit a key that says "I ate that again." So you can log most days in the amount of time it takes to make a post or two on DU.

Now that I'm just logging the exceptions to the diet in excel, I spend less time on that than writing a post like this.

[eridani]

258. Only if you make weight loss the most important thing in your life

I'd prefer to use my time keep up with revisions of my single payer slide shows and handouts, and do my precinct walking focusing on voter contact rather than worrying if I am walking fast enough.

[varelse]

297. It isn't the most important thing in my life

and it doesn't have to be in order to be achievable. I did this at 2 pounds a week for 8 months. It was never hard. I did it while working 60-70 hour weeks on a new ERP system (which was immensely stressful - the exercise actually helped me deal with that stress).

Eventually, the habits formed during the loss stage of the process become ingrained, making maintenance much more attainable.

[eridani]

298. Correction. For SOME people "it doesn't have to be in order to be achievable"

For others, it does. I have biked all over Europe without losing a single pound, nor did I gain any weight after resuming normal levels of activity at home. Your experience is relevent only to people who are very similar to you. And before you tell me to do more interval training, check out what the health club chart says maximum heart rates should be for people over 65.

[varelse]

299. I don't think that the woman who started at 460 pounds

and now weighs 255 pounds is much like me at all. She's the same age, but with many more health problems than I have ever had. She's also happily married and has not worked outside the home for decades.

Other people who have been successful include cancer survivors (including some with thyroid cancer), busy moms with full-time jobs, grandmothers, and amputees.

It's possible for anyone who wants to do it, and it does not have to be the main focus of your life.

Of course, the only person who gets to decide that maintaining a healthy weight is an appropriate goal is the owner of the body in question. It's not up to anyone else.

I, and thousands of others made the decision and are happy with the results. Others have decided not to try and are ok with their lives 'as is'. Some, however, would like to do this but feel that it is hopeless.

It is not hopeless. It is doable with proper nutrition and reasonable, obtainable mini-goals. It is entirely up to you.

The lady I mentioned in my subject line, by the way, was and is my inspiration. Although suffering from herniated discs, fibromyalgia, and a host of other debilitating health problems, she continues to pursue her goals. She looks great at 255 pounds and no doubt will be equally lovely at her goal weight, whatever she decides that will be.

[eridani]

300. These people are part of a very, very small minority

Even with very, very loose standards for success, there is only a 20% success rate for fat people. You ought to quit channelling Mitt Rmoney--most people really, really cannot get as rich as he has gotten.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.nutr.21.1.323?journalCode=nutr

We propose defining successful long-term weight loss maintenance as intentionally losing at least 10% of initial body weight and keeping it off for at least 1 year. According to this definition, the picture is much more optimistic, with perhaps greater than 20% of overweight/obese persons able to achieve success.

IOW, about 4 out of 5 people weighing 300 lbs can't even lose 30 lbs and keep it off for more than a year. For those people, significant weight loss is indeed pretty close to hopeless, and they would be better off to focus on specific excercise and dietary changes with the goal of maintaining the behaviors regardless of how much weight they lose. Note that the authors of the redefinition maintain the National Weight Loss Registry, which is about as optimistic as people in the field ever get, and that they stay optimistic by setting pretty low standards for success.

Please stop telling me that if 6-8 hours a day of fully loaded bike touring results in no weight loss, then there must be something that I could do that is way easier which will have different results.

I don't have the athletic talent of successful fat athletes, but I admire them a great deal more for prioritizing athletic success over weight loss. For that matter, doing anything well regardless of weight is my ideal.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/28/local/me-18062

Here are some numbers on Dave Alexander, triathlete

Finished 276 triathlons in 37 countries in 17 years.

- Swam 9.6 miles, cycled 448 miles, ran 104.8 miles in a recent super-triathlon in eastern Hungary. His time, he says with perfect recall, was 85 hours, 46 minutes, 38 seconds.

Those are pretty remarkable numbers. But Alexander has a few more: He's 55 years old, 5 feet, 8 inches tall and 260 pounds heavy.

Alexander's silver hair is thinning. His bright blue eyes are going bad. His barrel stomach is getting bigger. Other triathletes often mistake him for a race organizer.

"I'm a great bar bet," he says with a laugh. "I don't look like I can walk across the street, let alone run a triathlon."

http://www.fortunecity.com/olympia/romario/912/gnews186.htm# (unfortunately you have to pay $4/week to get at the 1999 archives)

She does not want to be perceived as a novelty, greeted with grins and stupid questions. She is large. She is a weightlifter. And she is, thank you very much, an Olympic medal hopeful. Cheryl Haworth, a high school junior, stands 5 feet 9 and weighs 300 pounds. She owns every record in every category of American women's, junior and school- age weightlifting in the super heavyweight class.

She just turned 17 last week.

At the March national championships here, she easily topped the women's field and, for good measure, outlifted every male her age. She is so strong, U.S. women's national team coach Michael Cohen said, some high school football coaches avoid her training sessions at the state-of-the-art weightlifting complex in Savannah, Ga., so as not to demoralize their players.

<snip>

Even four years after her debut, she continues to make observers exclaim. In Frederick, she snatched an American record 264.6 pounds and lifted a record 319.7 pounds in the clean and jerk. She runs the 40-yard dash in five seconds flat, an excellent time for an NFL lineman. She has a 32-inch vertical leap, which would satisfy a college basketball coach. Her flexibility is equally impressive: She can do a split both with her legs splayed to the front and back as well as sideways.

http://www.haverford.edu/news/stories/59061/51 (More recent link)

At first glance, Olympic weightlifting might seem out of place amidst the scholarly brawniness that generally defines Haverford. But then again, Olympic medalist Cheryl Haworth has never been one to uphold traditional expectations.

Haworth, who has been called “the strongest woman in this hemisphere,” visited Haverford last week as a part of both the ongoing art exhibition And the Winner is… and the Strange Truth Documentary Series. She currently holds the North American record in the clean and jerk lift (319 lbs.) as well as the snatch (275 lbs.) and has competed in three Olympic Games, winning the bronze medal in 2000.

Her weightlifting prowess, however, isn’t the only thing that sets her apart. While Haworth weighs about 300 lbs., she remains flexible and agile. She’s fond of boasting that she could out-jump all but two players on the U.S. Olympic Volleyball team and even run the 40-yard dash in 5.5 seconds. In her free time, though, she’s an accomplished artist and received a B.F.A. in Historical Preservation at the Savannah College of Art and Design.

[varelse]

301. Rich people gain wealth by accumulating it at the expense of others

Healthy people do not need to take from others in order to maintain their own health. There is a difference between accumulating and hoarding wealth, and working to maintain your own health.

[eridani]

302. And there is a difference between maintaining health and losing weight

Reducing intake of high glycemic index foods and increasing activity levels leads to improved regulation of blood sugars and lowering of blood pressure immediately, well before weight loss (if any) occurs. There is no correlation between amount of weight lost and such improvements. Simply removing fat from the body via liposuction produces zero changes in blood chemistry.

Weight loss is not important; healthier behaviors are.

[varelse]

303. if weight loss is not important to a person

then they are in no way obliged to achieve it.

There are millions of people who are fine with their weight is it is, even if they are considered overweight or obese by medical standards. I personally don't see it as a moral issue, and I do not approve of 'fat shaming' or bullying based on a person's size. I spent about half of my total life to date at a size well above what is considered acceptable for a woman, and I don't take kindly to discrimination, bullying, cruelty or rudeness toward fat people.

In my own experience, the extra 70 pounds of fat was disabling and I am much more active and healthy without it. I can sprint again now, for example. I couldn't before losing the weight.

My point is that there is hope for those who do not wish to carry this extra burden, and it doesn't have to cost them money or even take that much time.

[eridani]

304. And if you hadn't lost the weight, you could have become healthier anyway

And statistically, there is very little hope. About 1 in 5 people weighing 300 lbs succeed in losing 30 lbs and keeping it off for a year. The other four fail. If you are one of the 20%, that's great, but your exiperiences really aren't relevant for the 80%.

[Feron]

305. That's not true.

Being obese is killer on your joints. Hell I tried strength training alone for my knees and it doesn't work. I've lost 40 pounds and my knees feel 90% better. Keep in mind that one pound puts 4 pounds of pressure on your knees.

Furthermore, exercise and food logging aren't a big time commitment. Food logging is certainly eye-opening in that people are often unaware of just how many calories they are consuming. Little things like olive oil can certainly add up.

Not to mention that people tend to overestimate how many calories that they burn during exercise. And eating excess calories will stall or stop weight loss.

And if your health isn't worth a minimal time commitment, then I don't know what to say.

An obese person simply losing and maintaining 10% of his/her body weight will reap a lot of health benefits. That's certainly achievable.

I used to make the same excuses you did. Then I got to the point where I could no longer deny that my weight was a problem. So I decided to do something about it because excuses don't improve your health.

[eridani]

310. An obese person who exercises more and eats a healthier diet will also reap a lot of health benefits

--regardless of how much weight they lose, if any. Here's a big fat clue for you--a 300 lb person who loses 30 lbs is STILL FAT, despite achieving many health benefits. At that point, you can decide that you won't rest until you weigh 150 lbs, or you can decide that you would rather have a life.

My weight isn't a problem for me because I choose to avoid perceiving it as a problem, instead focusing on incorporating regular physical activity into my life and closely watching my intake of foods with a high glycemic index. I've never had joint problems, and I have the bone density of a healthy 20 year old despite being way past osteoporosis age. My weight doesn't stop me from precinct walking (in a rather hilly part of the country), or biking to the store when the weather is decent. When we could afford vacations, we spent them doing loaded bike touring. I'm busy to the point of having even less spare time than I did when still in the work force, and my life is very satisfactory, thankyewverymuch.

[Codeine]

86. Those were starvation diets. They were doomed to failure.

Adopting a new food lifestyle with healthy eating in reasonable amounts combined with lots of exercise and activity is far more conducive to long-term weight loss and health than a 500 calorie starvation nightmare.

[GaYellowDawg]

88. I've lost 21 pounds in 6 weeks.

You have to do a number of things in order to lose weight.

1. Make yourself some general guidelines about food intake to combat your worst habits. I have these:

A. No fast food.
B. No fried chicken/meat.
C. No sugared soft drinks.
D. No salad dressings.
E. No deli "instant meal" type foods.

2. Track your calories and stay on or below budget consistently. Track everything. No omitting or lying.

3. BREAKFAST!!

4. Exercise. Start slow, then build as you can.

5. If you choose to go below a certain calorie level (for me, it's 2000), make sure that much of it is protein.

6. Drink a LOT of water. I try to get in a gallon a day.

7. Take vitamin/mineral supplements to make up any unrealized deficiencies. Every morning with breakfast, I have 2 multivitamins, 2 calcium/Vitamin D supplements, a Vitamin E supplement, and a biotin supplement.


Before I got started with this, I was taking in about 3500-4000 calories from eating a lot of fast food, etc. I cut back to 2450 calories a day for 4 weeks. Now I've stepped it down to 1500 a day, and all 3 meals have protein. I eat a lot of 93/7 ground beef. I love the taste, it's low calorie, low fat, high protein, low cholesterol (as far as meat goes). But everyone has different tastes, and you HAVE to find something that works for YOUR taste, not anyone else's. I detest beans, but if you love them and you don't like or object to beef? Make the beans a staple food instead of what I do. Everyone has at least one very good source of low fat, low calorie protein. Find it. And realize this: everyone's starvation threshold is different, too. I'm lucky enough to be able to take in 1500 calories (at over 300 pounds) and still lose weight rapidly. When I get to my target weight, I will pick a maintenance calorie level.

I used to be a complete couch potato. I got into a workout program, worked at it as hard as I could, and in 6 weeks, after seeing a lot of different exercises, I've chosen my exercise of choice: swimming. Yesterday, I swam a mile in an hour and 2 minutes. Today, I'm going to try to cut that to an hour flat. I can't emphasize too much the importance of exercise. I have a ton more energy now than I did with a diet of 2K more calories. It IS possible to lose weight and gain muscle density and mass simultaneously. I don't give a damn what anyone says. I am stronger and have more muscle now than when I started dieting.

You also have to learn the difference between hunger and thirst. Sometimes, thirst can feel like hunger. It's messed up.

You also have to deal with the fact that sometimes, you're going to feel hungry. You have to learn to eat at certain times a day (without having more than 4 hours between meal intervals), and in between? If you get irritated at the feeling, then in the first few weeks before weight loss begins to kick in, suck it up. When the weight loss begins to kick in, get up and walk around for a second and feel how much better off you are. I find that the irritation goes right away.

Finally, here's this: it will be hard. Resign yourself to that. But with the effort comes reward. I feel so much better about myself right now, and it is unreal how much better I feel physically. Just losing 21 pounds has impacted every area of my life positively, even though I want to lose about 120 more. It will be a huge challenge, but when you're in the process of overcoming it? Just knowing that you're succeeding at something that hard is the kind of boost to your self-esteem and emotional well-being that no food can match.

[Habibi]

89. Good for you! And best of luck on your journey!

Although I quibble about the low-fat approach. No need to avoid things like salad dressings or such as long as you are within your calorie goal. If a little salad dressing gets you to eat more fresh vegetables, it's a good thing. I also eat fried foods occasionally, and it's not a problem. I'm still losing.

[GaYellowDawg]

95. Thanks, and I completely agree with you

I completely agree that it's about calories rather than fat. But even a little honey mustard takes up SO MUCH of my calorie budget that I've said good-bye to it. Hot wings dipped in honey mustard are one of the things I love the best, but they're just too high calorie for me to continue eating. When I hit my goal weight, I'll be slim enough to run off a very occasional indulgence in it.

I eat my veggies on the protein - each 93/7 burger I eat has a good half cup of spinach on it. Also, there's a local Tex-Mex place that makes incredible wraps. I get their marinated flank steak with double spinach, double salsa, cilantro, a scattering of fresh jalapeno, and have a lime squeezed over it. No beans because I hate them, and no rice or cheese because of the calories. It is FABULOUS and very filling, and it only costs me 554 calories. I get about a cup of spinach and a cup of salsa (tomatoes, onions, cilantro, lime juice, lightly salted, and something else I can't pin down) on each wrap. I'm getting 83 g protein a day, which is enough to sustain a 180 pound man. I think between the protein, the supplements, and the exercise, I'm keeping my body from going into starvation mode, because my weight loss has really picked up lately.

[Arugula Latte]

92. Good job ... but one more comment on salad dressing:

If you make your own, they're not so bad. Combine little olive oil, a little vinegar, and whatever else you feel like -- shallots, lemon juice, Dijon mustard, herbs, pepper, sometimes a drizzle of honey ... tasty and fairly healthy.

[noamnety]

97. I'll throw in a couple more suggestions

because I've stopped eating bottled dressings but I'm not normally up for dry salad.

Salsa or homemade chili works well as a taco-salad type dressing. A spoonful of humus (as long as you don't go crazy with the quantity also works, and it can be thinned down with vinegar.

[SlimJimmy]

98. +1 I switched from Ranch dressing to the make your own variety a few years ago

and couldn't be happier.

[eridani]

107. I've been making my own salad dressing for 25 years

No effect on my weight whatsoever. However, it's fresher and tastes much better than commercial stuff.

[Arugula Latte]

135. Definitely.

I was just noting that I didn't think the OP had to cut it out; the homemade stuff would probably have negligible effect on weight. However, if you smother food in commercial ranch dressing you will pay the price.

[eridani]

106. Well bully for you. Very few fat women start out with a habit of eating 4000 calories a day

If you are currently at 2500 calories a day, cutting 2000 will put you about where the dieters described in the OP were for 2 months.

[Codeine]

114. My fiance has recently lost weight and it has meant enormous changes

in her overall health, both physical and mental. She's happier, has tons more energy, and is much more confident in her appearance. She even sleeps less.

[RebelOne]

132. I have been dieting my whole life.

Weight has always been a problem with me. A few years ago, I lost 4 dress sizes. But now that I have not been working (was laid off in 2010), I have become a couch potato and can't get into those size 8 jeans right now. I have been having back problems and cannot walk a lot, so I can't take my dogs for long walks like I used to. I am now on a starvation diet. I am a vegetarian, so it's not too hard. I am looking to buy a treadmill.

[tawadi]

251. No salad dressing? Not even non fat vinaigrette?

Some oils are good for a body you know.

[Cali_Democrat]

109. The study is based on a 500 calorie/day diet?

Come on! You can't be serious! That's basically starvation.

[eridani]

110. That's what obese people generally do when "sensible" measures

--result in them becoming obese people who weigh somewhat less.

[Cali_Democrat]

128. I think everyone's body is different

what works for some people won't work for others.

[Codeine]

117. And yet people will use this info to convince themselves

that all dietary and lifestyle changes with weight loss as a goal are doomed to failure. Learned helplessness.

[eridani]

119. The info isn't necessary to convince me of that. Reality is sufficient all by itself.

Feeling better and being healthier are far worthier goals than weight loss.

[Habibi]

162. Good point.

[eridani]

190. The thing about these long threads is that if they go on long enough--

--posters can often come to points of agreement.

[eridani]

111. OK--Mitt Rmoney sock puppets should 'fess up right now.

No, not really. But do you realize that triumphant kvelling about the very small percentage of people who maintain large weight losses sounds exactly like the Mittster informing us the other day that what Republicans really want is for everyone to have huge homes with golf courses and Cadillac elevators?

[nobodyspecial]

127. People have shared ideas, tips, experiences and advice

and even explained how flawed this study is.

It is clear that you believe that no dietary or exercise changes will make a lasting difference -- although many people have shared their personal stories.

If you *believe* you are defeated before you even start, then you are. Nothing will change that and there really is no hope. I'm sorry you did not find the validation you clearly thought you would from this study. Change is possible and there is hope. Being healthy and able to enjoy life does not mean being model thin and a life of endless exercise and starvation. Studies show even modest weight loss and increases in exercise can have very beneficial results. But, I realize now that nothing I can say will ever convince you of that.

However, I think it is extremely rude and insulting to discount all of those who have taken the time and effort to contribute to this thread by insulting them all and comparing them to Mitt. You really owe people an apology.

[noamnety]

134. I didn't take it that way.

I think eridani is echoing the very real experiences of people who have been told all their lives that if you exercise more more more and just restrict your calories eough you will lose weight - only to try it and not get the results they were told to expect, and rebound when they stop restricting calories.

Yes the study is flawed for the reasons mentioned, but on a smaller scale it's also true that people often do slow their metabolism by doing all the things we've been told will increase our metabolism. It's true that much of the common wisdom about weight loss is counterproductive and leaves us feeling like there are no options when it doesn't work for us. It doesn't address that fat is its own organ, just like skin or lungs ... and it has a strong self-preservation mode, to the extent that it will rob other organs of nutrients. So even when we should be full and lord knows we don't need another lecture about portion control, the signal from our body might still be that it's hungry - and that's because our bodies in effect really are being starved even though we're eating a calorie surplus.

If we drop all the sugars and carbs we're told we will lose weight - and initially we do, but then our bodies stop producing leptin which we need to balance out insulin. Body builders know this, that's why they do refeeds. But traditional dieters aren't taught that stuff. If we do too much cardio it becomes less and less effective but gym trainers won't tell us that because it doesn't fit their business model to clue us in. It's an industry and it operates like one.

Programs that don't address all that tend to fail long term at impressive rates. It's not rude to acknowledge that, or to be frustrated about the ineffectiveness of those programs.

[nobodyspecial]

137. I understand what you are saying and know the frustration

as I've spent my entire life dealing with this issues.

However, telling people they are just like Romney is quite an insult. How do you think Democrats on a political board would take that. Acknowledging is fine. Insulting is not.

[eridani]

143. Pointing out success that occurs only for a small percentage of people--

--with the implication that if these people can do it anyone can, is exactly what Rmoney says about getting rich.

[Scout]

163. please post this information every time there is a "weight loss thread"

so sick of the traditional responses....

as if "portion control" and "exercise more" have never occurred to someone who is fat

[eridani]

139. Modest weight loss leaves fat people with exactly the same levels of public abuse as before.

Of course you get substantial health benefits--the irony being that the less weight you lose, the more keeping up exercising will benefit you--and the more you will be perceived as being a failure. As far as blood sugar control and lowering blood pressure, benefits occur well before any measurable weight loss, and there is ZERO correlation between these benefits and the amount of weight loss.

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. Wrong, there is a direct correlation

But you knew that...

The positive effects come with as little as ten percent weight loss.

Or perhaps all those scientific studies are wrong and you are correct.

What is not true is that you need to be at your ideal weight to get those benefits. Why a GOOD PHYSICIAN that actually knows his or her shit, will be happy as clam with a moderate weight loss, as little as ten percent. AS LONG AS YOU MAINTAIN IT LONG TERM.

And keeping off a few pounds is possible...

[eridani]

150. Yes, as a matter of fact, all of those SNAPSHOT studies ARE wrong

Studies that track weight loss, blood sugar control and blood on a regular basis throughout the study instead of just at the beginning and the end, clearly demonstrate that sugar control and blood pressure begin to improve well before any measurable weight loss. Therefore they are not caused by weight loss. Furthemore, the AMOUNT of weight lost has ZERO correlation with sugar control, making any such guess at averages close to 10% irrelevant.

You don't need to maintain ANY weight loss long term. What you have to maintain is the new diet and exercise habits, a goal which is massively undercut by emphasis on weight loss per se.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. You know what

NIH is wrong, CDC is wrong, you got all the truth. Have a good one, and good luck with that.

Sorry for wasting my time. I now know better.

Have a great life.

[eridani]

173. You can address arguments, or you can appeal to authority

I don't give a flying fuck whether Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy and Howard Zinn wrote it in their own blood--whatever they say still should be checked for logic and evidence. You don't want to do that, fine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

179. Social science is not well, science

They are quite different in both method and research.

Logic fail...

Have a good life.

Bye.

[eridani]

191. I'm well aware of real science, given that I have a doctorate in biochemistry

That seems to be the problem here. I've spent my entire adult career doing research, writing articles, working on various commercial problems and having my work constantly shredded (and improved) by co-workers and reviewers. I've done a good bit of shredding myself. I'm starting to realize that few people on your generic discussion boards will react to citations of scientific work that way, preferring instead to read the conclusion and assume that everyone in the thread absolutely must agree with it because it comes from an Official Source.

Here's a clue--you post a link and I will actually read the article and evaluate the methodology and come to an opinion as to whether the data supports the conclusions, and whether the conclusions of the article have any logical relationship to the point the person citing it was trying to make.

Instead of analysis of what articles say, all I've gotten from you is that the normal scientific evaluation process is bad, and that everyone should just look at conclusions in scientific articles and accept them. That's one of the reasons why election integrity is such an uphill struggle--too many people think that if the machine said so, it has to be right.

Two more shots at rationality here

1. In what way is a study on dietary regimen adherence (NOT weight loss) with 86% male subjects relevant to the real world, where the majority of dieters are female and have far more extensive histories of dieting than men typically do?

2. Why is a study in which weight and other physiological parameters measured once at the beginning of the study and once at the end just as good as a study where regular measurements of all parameters are taken at frequent intervals throughout the study?

You don't want to even try, then I'll give up too.

[zappaman]

169. You are absolutely right

Sorry that the pretentious know-it-alls are just giving you the same old condescending crap they always dish out.

[4th law of robotics]

188. I guess that explains all those skinny athletic kids with type II diabetes

since you know, being overweight has nothing to do with blood sugar.

[eridani]

189. You have everything exactly assbackwards

Being genetically prone to Type II makes you gain weight in adulthood, and also causes Type II--unless you grow up in an environment like most of our ancestors dealt with--daily hard labor on a semistarvation diet.

Naturally people with that genetic background ought to be required to recreate primitive conditions in a world where most work is sedentary and most people have enough to eat, on pain of being assigned to permanent second class citizenship.

Eat very little, and you don't overload a regulatory system that doesn't work normally. This does not mean that you are not still diabetic, any more than saving a badly frayed macrame hanger for use only with light plastic pots fixes the hanger.

[4th law of robotics]

213. You seem to have access to data that is entirely contradictory

to what every researcher, doctor, and nutritionist in this area has found.

Could you please present it?

Could you also explain why Americans and particularly Americans since the 1960s are uniquely predisposed, genetically, towards type II diabetes when these problems are not epidemic in other, closely related populations?

[eridani]

226. There has been no increase in the number of people genetically predisposed toward diabetes

You are born diabetic, period. What is changing in a really disturbing way is the age of onset of symptoms, and on a worldwide basis, not just in America. Back when most people did a lot of physical work on short rations, diabetics very rarely developed problems with sugar control before they died of something else. Since the industrial revolution, it became more common to see symptoms in late middle age. Now symptoms are showing up in kids and teenagers.

Americans are unique mainly because of the high levels of inequality, lack of universal health care, and lack of a strong labor movement. Stress hormones are very well known antagonists of insulin.

Don't blame me because you don't know anything about current research. For starters--

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20120105p2a00m0na006000c.html

Team of Japanese scientists discovers insulin-resistant protein

A team of Japanese scientists has identified an insulin-resistant protein that could be a major cause of obesity and diabetes, a discovery that could help medical practitioners diagnose and treat lifestyle diseases.

Using a method called "comparative proteomic analysis," the team of scientists from Kobe University, Shimadzu Corp. and other groups found the insulin-resistant protein in mice after conducting detailed analysis of various kinds of protein. The analysis showed that the levels of the insulin-resistant protein in the blood of obese mice were twice to three times higher than normal. When the protein was injected into other mice, those mice that were not obese became resistant to insulin.

Moreover, those mice that were made incapable of producing the protein did not become obese even when they were fed fatty foods and showed no resistance to insulin. The same protein exists in humans and it is known to be effective in treating inflammation and injuries...


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/17/no-proof-paula-deen-s-high-fat-southern-cooking-caused-her-diabetes.html

After eight years, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate at which type 2 diabetes occurred among women in the two groups. (The women who reduced their caloric intake weighed an average of four pounds less than they did at the beginning of the trial.) This study is the most powerful evidence yet that there simply is no causal relationship between dietary fat intake and developing type 2 diabetes.

Indeed, diabetes is primarily a genetic disease. If one identical twin doesn’t develop diabetes, the odds are less than 1 percent that the other will, while if one such twin does have the disease, the odds are better than 75 percent that the other twin will develop it as well. It is also a disease of affluence and old age: in poor countries beset by chronic undernourishment, diabetes is unusual, in large part because most of the population dies before getting old enough to develop it.

It is true that there’s a strong correlation between higher weight and diabetes. This does not, however, mean that higher weight causes diabetes. Rather, it appears that both higher weight and higher diabetes risk are caused by the same underlying genetic mechanism: the so-called thrifty gene that leads some people to store caloric energy far more efficiently than others.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990305073924.htm
Washington D.C. - A team of Canadian scientists has identified a potentially useful target for drugs to treat type II diabetes and obesity. In the scientists' experiments, genetically engineered mice lacking a specific enzyme were able to resist weight gain and to avoid the decreased sensitivity to insulin that characterizes type II diabetes, even when fed an extremely high calorie, high fat diet. The results are reported in the 5 March issue of Science.

Previous research has suggested that an enzyme known as PTP-1B might somehow play a role in reducing insulin's ability to regulate blood sugar levels. To investigate this possibility, Mounib Elchebly of McGill University and his colleagues "knocked out" the mouse gene responsible for the production of this enzyme. Compared to normal mice, the mice lacking the enzyme had significantly lower amounts of glucose in their blood after eating and even lower amounts of insulin. Thus, deleting the PTP-1B enzyme appeared to increase the mice's sensitivity to insulin: they were able to use smaller amounts of the hormone to efficiently move glucose from the bloodstream into the cells.

To further probe the insulin signaling process, the scientists fed both normal and knockout mice a diet extremely high in calories, 50 percent of which were from fat. As expected, normal mice quickly gained extra weight and developed obesity-related insulin resistance. In contrast, the knockout mice did not gain much weight and had normal insulin and glucose levels.

[4th law of robotics]

248. "You are born diabetic, period."

Type 1: yes.
Type 2: a combination of genetics, diet, and lifestyle.

Sersiously, where are you getting your info because it is all wrong?

Type 2 diabetes has nothing to do with weight, fat is not what the body uses for energy during times of hunger, diet has no effect on weight loss/gain, and so on.

Everything you say is completely false.

Are you just looking for an excuse not to exercise and diet and trying to get others to support you?

[eridani]

259. False? So you read the articles at the links I provided?

Might you provide a point by point critique of how and why the articles are wrong? If what I am saying is false, why didn't I ever get fired for teaching it?

I didn't say that weight has nothing to do with Type II diabetes. I said that it does not CAUSE diabetes, but that genetics causes both weight gain in adulthood and diabetes.

The body uses fat only after it uses glycogen and lean tissue first. Why don't you just check out a goddam first year biochemistry text and read it?

Luckily, it's way less unpleasant dealing with ignorant jackasses on a bulletin board than in person when I'm on my bike. Teenage macho thugs travel in packs, and they can be dangerous, given that their cars outweigh my bike by quite a bit.

[4th law of robotics]

267. Your first link was broken

your second an opinion piece that used a study on a high-fat diet not causing diabetes to claim being obese has nothing to do with diabetes, so a misuse of the results. And the third is a preliminary study on a possible treatment rather than the underlying cause.

So yeah . . .

If what I am saying is false, why didn't I ever get fired for teaching it?

People teach creationism and don't get fired all the time. Maybe your superiors weren't paying attention? Maybe it wasn't a real school?

The body uses fat only after it uses glycogen and lean tissue first.

That is a lie. Fat goes before muscle mass. Only during prolonged starvation does the body use up muscle stores for energy.

Not that it matters but here's a real article (rather than the opinion pieces you prefer): http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/36/1/14

Presence of lipids for fuel prevents the catabolism of muscle.

And your claim that obesity and diabetes (type II) are caused by the same gene, with one following the other rather than being causative is not supported by evidence. There's a reason type II rates have been steadily increasing along with obesity. If one were an unrelated corrallary then it wouldn't change like this.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090621143236.htm

You seem to like that source. There you go.


And you are the ignorant jackass here. You are spewing falsehoods and being called out on it regularly. You are presenting opinion pieces as evidence and ignoring real studies. You are making claims that are entirely unsubstantiated. You really should stop doing this and educate yourself.

Your belief that type II diabetes is completely divorced from obesity cannot be sustained in light of evidence. Neither can your claim that a better diet and exercise won't result in weight loss.

[eridani]

276. Type II diabetes is not "divorced from" obesity. The same genes cause both diabetes and obesity

Last edited Sun May 6, 2012, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

That does not logically qualify as "divorce." The apparent increase in Type II is because of the LOWERING OF THE AGE OF ONSET of diabetic symptoms, which is definitely caused mostly by environmental factors. You are genetically diabetic whether symptoms ever develop or not.

And the article did not say that fat prevents the catabolism of muscle. The fact that it inhibits the catabolism of muscle does not change the fact that the energy input required to catabolise protein is lower than that required to catabolise fat. You get more energy out of fat, but you need more energy input initially for that to happen.

And if fat causes diabetic symptoms, why is it that physical removal of fat produces no change in blood chemistry whatsoever?

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/350/25/2549

Liposuction decreased the volume of subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue by 44 percent in the subjects with normal glucose tolerance and 28 percent in those with diabetes; those with normal oral glucose tolerance lost 9.1±3.7 kg of fat (18±3 percent decrease in total fat, P=0.002), and those with type 2 diabetes lost 10.5±3.3 kg of fat (19±2 percent decrease in total fat, P<0.001). Liposuction did not significantly alter the insulin sensitivity of muscle, liver, or adipose tissue (assessed by the stimulation of glucose disposal, the suppression of glucose production, and the suppression of lipolysis, respectively); did not significantly alter plasma concentrations of C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor , and adiponectin; and did not significantly affect other risk factors for coronary heart disease (blood pressure and plasma glucose, insulin, and lipid concentrations) in either group.

[4th law of robotics]

280. The "gene" that causes type 2 diabetes?

Please, tell the american medical association about your studies since they haven't been able to narrow it down exclusively to one gene:

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/464/genetics-type-2-diabetes.pdf

It has been estimated that 30%-
70% of T2D risk can be attributed to genetics, with multiple genes involved and different combinations of
genes playing roles in different subsets of individuals

[eridani]

283. Ok, genes

--as in "The same genes cause both diabetes and obesity." Which is why only 1% of monozygotic twins whose twin is not diabetic will develop symptoms.

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. 30% of weight loss

is not that huge actually, but keep digging...

That said the health benefits are proven and provable.

Nor is this a ... moral issue. If you truly cannot lose, and keep gaining, you may want to look for the underlying MEDICAL cause, and I am serious as a heart attack on this.

[Nye Bevan]

126. Portion sizes are too large in the USA.

Go to London and count the fat people. Compare with Orlando. Are British people gifted with self-discipline and healthy eating habits? No. They just eat sensible portion sizes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

129. And that is a given

Yesterday I was talking with a person that has issues with weight. I told her my story. Portions have also distorted our idea of calories contained in food. She was about to consume 1100 Kcals for lunch, rough estimate. She though it was 300 or so.

The donut store was selling 800 or so ( being nice probably more) calorie donuts.

I don't mostly count them. Haven't done that in a long time, but have become extremely conscious of that. Hell the last three weeks cannot find sensible apple sizes, so I am getting two fruit portions...and could go for the oh my god it's huge four portion ones...and many folks think that is one fruit.

[eridani]

140. While biking in Europe, it was flat out impossible for us to finish meals

DH and I got into the habit of splitting a main course and ordering two soups or two salads--and this was after 6-8 hours of fully loaded bike peddling. In the US, we just use the people bag solution, and in general expect two meals from every dining out experience, an option not available to bike tourers (Minifridges are HEAVY suckers.)

The real British advantage is that they care much less about weight than Americans, and therefore are less obsessed with dieting and weight loss. That and NHS, of course.

[LASlibinSC]

160. Couple of things

This thread is awesome! But nobodys mentioned stress. Lets just say I know stress, okay? I think Friday afternoon weigh ins with physical consequences qualifys me. Running works, nota mile a day but throw your shit in a neighbors car and run like hell running. 15yrs. In 15yrs I lost and gained the same 30lbs. In the last 22 mths Ive lost 12 lbs. Feels like 100. I didn't even try. I'm healthy,I don't look back. I feel GOOD. I guess my point is if you stress over your wt. you're compounding the problem. We're all different. Be healthy mentally and physically no matter your weight. Look at it this way: stress is individual...anorexia=disease, obesity=results, how fucked up is that? Sorry about the rant. I'll probably get booted off DU for spelling errors alone, but you try this exhausting rant on an old Nokia...just saying...Thank you!

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. Yup, I wish this was an OP quite frankly

same thing.

I own a scale, I rarely get on it anymore.

[eridani]

174. I agree--stress is a major stimulus for extra insulin production

--which enhances fat storage a great deal. And exercise is a wonderful antidote, provided you are not fussing and fussing about whether you are doing it right.

[eridani]

234. A great example about why focusing on weight loss instead of health is a bad idea

Stress hormones are very well known insulin antagonists as well.

[sofa king]

156. I feel so bad for people with eating disorders.

I used to be one of those assholes who was all like, "show a little self control, eh?"

Then I realized that there is a huge difference between overeaters and those of us with other monkeys, like tobacco, on our backs. One cannot quit eating. There is no cold turkey for overeaters.

All they can do is engage in a lifelong struggle to moderate an addiction--which plenty of us know is practically impossible--while still taking in the offending substance every day. Food, furthermore, is an addiction strongly reinforced by our own sensory inputs, at least two of which are primarily devoted to eating.

And then we shit all over those who do exactly what their bodies are telling them to do. How uncool is that?

[eridani]

175. All dysfunctional behaviors are NOT addictions

If you can get "addicted" to food, what are the withdrawal symptoms? Why do you not have to keep on adding more and more calories until you are eating 50,000 a day in order to avoid withdrawal symptoms?

[noamnety]

183. Withdrawal symptoms from sugar addiction include:

fatigue, mood swings, depression and headaches.

If you haven't read the princeton study on sugar addictions, there's a decent writeup of it here:

Lab animals, in Hoebel's experiments, that were denied sugar for a prolonged period after learning to binge worked harder to get it when it was reintroduced to them. They consumed more sugar than they ever had before, suggesting craving and relapse behavior. Their motivation for sugar had grown. "In this case, abstinence makes the heart grow fonder," Hoebel said.

The rats drank more alcohol than normal after their sugar supply was cut off, showing that the bingeing behavior had forged changes in brain function. These functions served as "gateways" to other paths of destructive behavior, such as increased alcohol intake. And, after receiving a dose of amphetamine normally so minimal it has no effect, they became significantly hyperactive. The increased sensitivity to the psychostimulant is a long-lasting brain effect that can be a component of addiction, Hoebel said.

... Hungry rats that binge on sugar provoke a surge of dopamine in their brains. After a month, the structure of the brains of these rats adapts to increased dopamine levels, showing fewer of a certain type of dopamine receptor than they used to have and more opioid receptors. These dopamine and opioid systems are involved in motivation and reward, systems that control wanting and liking something. Similar changes also are seen in the brains of rats on cocaine and heroin.

In experiments, the researchers have been able to induce signs of withdrawal in the lab animals by taking away their sugar supply. The rats' brain levels of dopamine dropped and, as a result, they exhibited anxiety as a sign of withdrawal. The rats' teeth chattered, and the creatures were unwilling to venture forth into the open arm of their maze, preferring to stay in a tunnel area. Normally rats like to explore their environment, but the rats in sugar withdrawal were too anxious to explore.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstories

and this article (maybe from the same study?) compares sugar addictions to cocaine addictions:

In the experiment, 43 rats were placed in cages with two levers, one of which delivered an intravenous dose of cocaine and the other a sip of highly sweetened water. At the end of the 15-day trial, 40 of the rats consistently chose saccharin instead of cocaine.

When sugar water was substituted for the saccharin solution, the results were the same, researchers said.

Further testing the rat sweet tooth, scientists subjected 24 cocaine-addicted rats to a similar trial. At the end of 10 days, the majority of them preferred saccharin.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/10/science/sci-sweet10

[eridani]

192. "Sugar" is not a synonym for "food"

It is a single biochemical compound which can be analyzed for classical addiction parameters. you've shown clear evidence that sugar can be addictive. However eating disorders are in no way similar. Binge eating and bulimia involve every kind of food, not just sweet food. What would be the analog for volutary vomiting in rats? Anorexia is an eating disorder as well, and I'm not sure there are even animal studies for that condition (though I haven't actually looked.)

There are some pharmaceutical treatments for compulsive disorders that work for some people--bulimics have even reported not only that their food cravings are less severe, but that they've lost the urge to shoplift. I don't quite see how response to sugar can account for any of that.

[noamnety]

200. It's not a synonym for food, no.

But dairy products have a similar addictive quality, sugar substitutes have a similar addictive quality, and other carbs (wheat, even whole wheat) have similar properties.

When you ask: If you can get "addicted" to food, what are the withdrawal symptoms? The answer is that people can get addicted to various foods, there are specific withdrawal symptoms, and eating addictions are one type of eating disorder. It's not the body image disorders, but it is part of binge eating and overeating.

[eridani]

229. So the solution to "addiction" is fat and protein?

I avoid milk because of digestive issues, but I have never yet gotten any strange urges for eating a great deal of cheese or yogurt. In fact, both are pretty filling. I track my carb intake mainly to avoid too much food with a high glycemic index, and I have never yet experienced any urges for more and more. I prefer salty and spicy to sweet, and have for a long time.

Attributing significant levels of obesity to "addiction" is nonsense, IMO, though eating disorders are certainly stressful enough for those who experience them.

[noamnety]

242. I'm not entirely sure

if you're mentioning you aren't personally addicted to dairy just as a side note, or whether you think the case study of one disproves the addictive nature of it.

But anyway, for anyone who wants to read about that:

Scientists first discovered the addictive properties of cheese in the early 1980’s when they found a substance in dairy products that resembled morphine. Surprisingly, they discovered that the enzymes that produce opiates are also found in cows’ livers. According to Neal Barnard the managing director of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Casein, the main dairy protein, release tiny opiate molecules, called casomorphins, which have about one-tenth the opiate strength of morphine.

http://newsone.com/1540825/top-7-addicting-foods/


I'm surprised you haven't read before about any links between obesity and food addictions. The one that comes to my mind immediately for being in the press a lot is soda addictions (sugar plus caffeine) being linked to obesity.

[sofa king]

184. Yes, but they are similar, are they not?

Overeaters deal with compulsion, and with social, financial, and health problems related to that compulsion. But as both you and I are pointing out, eating disorders cannot be dealt with in the same ways that addictions are addressed.

[eridani]

195. Compulsion and addiction are two very different things

Conflating them explains nothing.

[sofa king]

203. "Inability to discontinue harmful behavior despite negative consequences."

How's that for a conflation that explains it all?

[eridani]

219. No. The reasons for the inability are completely different

Gambling and shoplifting are not "addictions" that have withdrawal symptoms.

[sofa king]

240. So the description is the same, but "inability" is defined differently?

That sure sounds "similar" to me.

[eridani]

260. So it doesn't matter to you whether cold symptoms are caused by viruses or bacteria?

The genesis of symptoms is highly relevant, as it has a great deal to do with effective treatment.

[sofa king]

264. Someone comes in dying of cold symptoms; what do you do?

Do you determine if the patient's symptoms are caused by viruses or bacteria while the patient is dying?

Or do you first stabilize the patient using the exact same procedure, regardless of the cause?

We don't have a cure for alcoholism, for heroin addiction, for gambling addiction, or for overeating. We do not fully understand the mechanisms by which those symptoms emerge. But we have procedures to "stabilize the patient," and with the exception of the one factor which I pointed out to kick this whole thing off, the procedures are similar across the entire range of disorders.

Because we don't know how to cure addiction. Maybe you're arguing that the treatments should be different according to the cause, but right now they are not, and as a result, all treatment options bear a close resemblance to each other.

With the exception of overeating, because a person cannot be totally weaned from taking in sustenance. So there's your chance to prove to me that overeating is somehow totally different: by identifying a treatment plan that works, which differs significantly from other disorders that are also addictions except for the semantics. Nobody has found it yet.

[eridani]

270. "Overeating" is diagnosed very differently from alcoholism

The "diagnosis" is made by looking at a person's body weight and not at their behavior. People across the entire span of BMI values have eating disorders--not all of which are "overeating."

[CBGLuthier]

157. When you learn to not overeat you DO have a greater appetite

Food tastes better when you are hungry. So many people do not know what real hunger feels like as they eat too much and too often.

I do not think this is some cruel trick of nature. It is called learning how your body should really function.

The key is to learn to enjoy the feelings of hunger and not be stupid about how much you eat.

[4th law of robotics]

166. Yep, crash diets aren't the way to go

make permanent and reasonable diet and lifestyle changes.

Like for starters: avoid sugar as much as possible. Don't exclude it per se, just don't go out of your way to add it to your diet.

A regular can of coke is about 150 calories. Removing one can of coke per day from your diet is the equivalent of about 15 lbs lost/not gained per year.

Simple enough.

And maybe take the stairs and don't fight for the front parking spot.

[eridani]

176. It is nothing of the sort

Removing one can of coke for a year may or may not have observable effects. It is simply bullshit that removing some stated number of calories from your diet is just like removing some stated number of dollars from your bank account. Homeostatic regulation applies to bodies, but not bank accounts.

[4th law of robotics]

186. Science tends to disagree with you on that

one pound of fat is equivalent to 3500 extra calories.

And sugar is the worst way to add calories due to the insulin rush (telling your body to store all that sugar as fat).

Cutting 150 calories from your diet and not replacing it with anything else (so let's say you ate 2000 per day before and now you're at 1850) *will* have an observable effect. You just have to stick with it.

[eridani]

193. That is absolute crap, period. But if human bodies were bomb calorimeters, you'd be right.

Why would there be an observable effect on weight by cutting 150 calories? If you do that, your body adapts to use fewer calories. How fast that adaptation occurs is totally out of your control. That's because bodies are not bomb calorimeters, but have hundreds of complicated metabolic feedback loops which tend to maintain weight and many other parameters within certain narrow ranges.

And of course simple sugars are a total disaster for anyone with genetic insulin resistance. Anyone with that family history needs to restrict intake of sugars regardless of whether they lose weight or not.

[4th law of robotics]

214. You're right, people are amazing machines, capable of greater than 100% efficiency

we can literally store more energy than we take in. Being the only known objects in the universe that can defy the laws of thermodynamics and create energy from nothing.

Hence all those kids in Africa on a starvation diet that weight 500 pounds.

CALORIES LITERALLY DON'T MATTER! FAT IS MADE FROM MAGIC. THE HUMAN BODY HAS ITS OWN PHSYICS!

[eridani]

230. The human body is constrained by physics. This does not mean that physics explains

--what is going on in the human body. It does not.

The human body is not a simple single system where the first law of thermodynamics can be observed in a Physics 101 manner:

calories burned - calories consumed = z
x - y = z

where z is some final state:
-z (weight loss)
+z (weight gain)
0 (homeostatis)

If you pass Physics 101, and move on to biophysics, biochemistry, and molecular physics you might begin to understand that when you add multiple recursive factors (as in human bodies) to an equation, as in:

(P * (W(P * W(x-y))) = z
where P is the endocrine system
where W is some other influencing system in the body, calculating z is now much more complicated. x-y=z is still the truth. However, the ultimate values (in Kcals.) of x and y are dependent upon the influence of P and W, which may vary because of varying influences upon them. There is no "First Law of Human Endocrine Systems."

It is true that the First Law of Thermodynamics must apply to the human body. And, given the simplistic approach which most people seem to take, they are confused about what 'consumed' and 'burn off' mean.

Mitochondrial ATP uncoupling for heat generation has been indentified as one of the major energy
utilization systems of the body and could account for 20-50lb/year of weight gain some or people. And there are active control systems which reduce the amount of energy used involuntarily for many of the body's autonomic functions. There are also significant energy excretion systems which are active in most bodies. a rough estimate is therefore--

C - N - S - I - H - E - V = 0

C = calories eaten
N = non-absorbed calories excreted in bowels
S = calories stored
I = calories calories used involuntarily (muscle maintenance, involuntary motion)
H = calories used for heat generation
V = calories used voluntarily (exercise, for example)
E = calories excreted in urine (Examples: fat converted to glucose in the liver and excreted in the urine, incompletely burned triglycerides which are excreted in the urine, and albumin excreted in the urine)

It should be noted that there is 'manual control' only on C and V. People who think of human metabolism as a bank account are willfully ignorant that these other variables adjust automatically within an active control system. All adjust when some of them change. When C and V are changed 'manually', there may be permanent alteration to the control system (as in long-term dieting).

The amount of energy stored is not 'whatever is left over'. The body actively stores or mobilizes energy from its energy store. If there is a resulting energy deficit, it tries to increase C, causes a reduction in I, H, and E, and even actively prevents V. If there is an energy surplus, it tries to decrease C, increases I and H, encourages V, and, as a last resort, increases E.

The control system for these actions is decentralized. So,it is possible for the energy store to believe that it needs to increase S, while simultaneously, the liver believes that it is necessary to increase E. This leaves I, H, and V at an extreme disadvantage.

If the individual is not lethargic and ravenous, then the control system is not unbalanced, but has a different equilibrium than the average. One may wish that the equilibrium were different, but the system is not amenable to manual control (especially by manually varying C), but there are strict limits to an individual's ability to change it.

Decreasing C (dieting) has been shown to cause a long-term decrease in H and a long term increase in S, and to prevent I from increasing when V is increased. Millions of dieters have experienced this. If you aren't capable of understanding it, you need to stay out of discussions that require it.

[4th law of robotics]

246. Funny, you say what we eat is irrelevent

people can't simply eat less and lose weight.

And yet there it is: C - calories eaten

[eridani]

261. Correct, people can't simply eat less and lose weight

Because the body adapts to getting by on fewer calories. Whether cutting back results in significant weight loss depends on how fast the body adapts, and that depends on genetics and previous dieting history. I'm failing to understand why this is so hard to comprehend. It really isn't rocket science.

[4th law of robotics]

266. I take it back, this isn't funny anymore

I'm sure you're having fun getting all this attention by spreading lies.

But there is a possibility, albeit slim, that someone will read what you write and take it seriously. Yes it's fun for you, but it may actually be harmful to some naive individual trying to help themselves.

So really you should not being doing this. Please desist.

/for anyone else reading: do not trust eridani on this subject. He/she is lying. Reducing calorie intake in a reasonable manner while increasing physical activity will result in weight loss. Just as thousands of studies, hundreds of thousands of doctors/dieticians, and millions of personal anecdotes have shown. His/her claim that food intake has no part of the process and eating less makes you gain weight is utterly absurd.

[eridani]

273. Wrong. Reducing calorie intake and increasing activity shifts metabolic equilibrium--

--in the direction of weight loss. Eating fewer calories also pushes the body toward adapting to needing fewer calories. How fast this adaptation happens determines whether or not you lose little or no weight, or much more. And you have no control whatsoever over the outcome.

Therefore healthier eating and more excercise should be pursued as ends in themselves, not as a means to losing some specific amount of weight. You benefit whether or not you lose weight.

[flvegan]

185. In other news, Food Is Fuel.

It's not a "cruel fact of nature" it's just...how it is. Put the wrong fuel in, get the wrong performance out. Those that own cars, know this phenomenon. Kinda the same thing.

[eridani]

194. I agree. Eating charcoal briquettes or drinking gasoline is a very bad idea n/t

[truthisfreedom]

196. Be that as it may, I love dieting.

It makes me feel like I'm in control of my life. And it makes me feel alive.

[eridani]

202. Funny, but that's what a lot of anorexic women say a few years before they die n/t

[4th law of robotics]

268. Anorexics being people who take dieting to an extreme

and end up unhealthily thin as a result, right?

Now this is interesting that you acknowledge such people because according to your arguments, they don't exist.

You see when you diet your body changes its metabolism to store energy, which it can do forever. Meaning that any weightloss due to dieting is temporary and often leads to you being fatter than before. So people making themselves thinner due to dieting (let alone dangerously skinny)? Literally cannot happen.

These are your arguments.

I'm sure a real bio-chemist such as yourself can see the problem with such logic.

[eridani]

272. Losing 20 lbs does not make fat people thin

Losing 20 lbs can put people who are already thin in serious danger.

The effects of reducing calories range from zero weight loss to significant weight loss, with most people somewhere in the middle. What I am arguing here is that, even though reducing calories shifts metabolic equilibria in the direction of weight loss, individuals have no control whatsoever over the end results. Anorexia, dieting, and various other eating disorders are about seeking this control, which you can never really have.

[noamnety]

275. That last part is why people are arguing with you.

The idea that individuals have NO control is incorrect. And the idea that dieters want control but can "never" achieve it is false.

Where I have agreed with you in the thread is that a lot of the traditional stuff we've learned about weight loss is incorrect, or so incomplete that it doesn't get results or gets worse than neutral results. At other points I and others have disagreed with you. And that's not because we think you should or shouldn't do this or that or we have some sense of superiority over those who are overweight. It's because the information you are putting out is at times flat out wrong, at other times wrong to a certain degree or misleading. Sometimes it's the implications - that exercise by default takes a lot of time, is a burden, is impossible if you have chronic pain, has to come at the expense of something else in your life or is ineffective no matter what you do. Even though you haven't told people "don't exercise" that's the message you're sending at some points in the thread and it's unhealthy. I have a problem keeping quiet when I read stuff like that.

The message that you may as well not bother changing your diet because even you you try you will fail is a dangerous message. The message that you can't escape your genes is dangerous. Those are the messages that altered my mindset enough that when I gained weight over the last couple decades, I referred to it as "inevitable" because I'd had a child, because I was nearing 50, because all of the women in my family gain weight at the same ages I was gaining it, even if they were thinner when they were young.

I am really grateful I stopped listening to those messages. It was contributing to a sense of learned helplessness. Whatever you decide to do is your own business but please don't promote to others that we can't control the results we get, or that there's no point in managing our diets or exercise because it's all hopeless anyway.

[eridani]

277. When did I ever say "don't bother changing your diet'?

What I have been saying is that healthier diets and more exercise ought to be ends in themselves, not means to some pre-defined weight loss goals, because the only thing you can control is your behavior. The same behavior change has different results for different people, and THAT is what you can't control. Shifting metabolic equilibria in the direction of weight loss typically results in some weight loss, but actual results vary from not much to a great deal. The midpoint for most people who are actually fat starting out results in becoming a fat person who weighs less, but is almost certainly healthier. Given the known benefits of healthier diets and more exercise, the emphasis on weight is insane.

Twin studies clearly demonstrate that variable results are under genetic control

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199005243222101

We undertook this study to determine whether there are differences in the responses of different persons to long-term overfeeding and to assess the possibility that genotypes are involved in such differences. After a two-week base-line period, 12 pairs of young adult male monozygotic twins were overfed by 4.2 MJ (1000 kcal) per day, 6 days a week, for a total of 84 days during a 100-day period. The total excess amount each man consumed was 353 MJ (84,000 kcal).

During overfeeding, individual changes in body composition and topography of fat deposition varied considerably. The mean weight gain was 8.1 kg, but the range was 4.3 to 13.3 kg. The similarity within each pair in the response to overfeeding was significant (P<0.05) with respect to body weight, percentage of fat, fat mass, and estimated subcutaneous fat, with about three times more variance among pairs than within pairs (r ≈ 0.5). After adjustment for the gains in fat mass, the within-pair similarity was particularly evident with respect to the changes in regional fat distribution and amount of abdominal visceral fat (P<0.01), with about six times as much variance among pairs as within pairs (r ≈ 0.7).

Things to note-

1. Study subjects were overfed by exactly the same number of kilocalories. At 3500 kcal per pound of fat, the bomb calorimeter theory of human metabolism says that every single one of them should have gained 24 lbs.

2. That did not happen. The pair of twins gaining the least weight gained 9.5 lbs. The pair of twins gaining the most gained 29.3 lbs. Average gain was 17.9 lbs, less than predicted from excess calorie consumption.

3. What each twin gained was pretty much directly predictable from what his twin gained.

4. Why would anyone think that weight loss is any different?

[noamnety]

279. I thought the "don't bother" was implied

in posts like this: "Long term maintenance of weight loss is not possible unless you make it the most important thing in your life, and few people are willing to throw over family, friends and community for that." I don't know where you got the idea that it has to be the most important thing in your life or that you have to ditch all your meaningful relationships to maintain a weight loss. That idea is a little dysfunctional, no?

As for your study, no surprises there and I'm not sure of your point in posting it. If people share the same genes, have been raised together - most likely on the same diet since childhood with similar activity levels, and then grow up to live together so they most likely still have similar diets and other habits (like the twin smokers in your study), I would expect them to store weight in similar ways to each others, more similar than to a stranger. Yes.

Genetics, diet since childhood, activity levels since childhood, current diet and current activities all affect our bodies. Yes. So we live with the elements we can't control (genetics and previous environments we were raised in), and we control the current ones. I can't control whether I lose weight first in my chest, stomach or butt, I absolutely have control over whether fats are released into my blood stream to their maximum extent before I workout, I control whether I'm eating and workout out in a way to gain fat vs gain muscle. I know how to eat to gain fat, and if I get to a point where I want to bulk up with more muscles while reducing fat, I can do Occam's Protocol to convert the excess calories to muscle.

For anyone unfamiliar with Occam's Protocol, this is a good thread for watching a random person's progress as they try it for a month, along with specifics at least at the start of what they ate and how they worked out: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=131097663

[eridani]

282. From a psychologist I talked to who had treated many for eating disorders

--obses and otherwise. He asked a woman who had lost 125 lbs and kept it off for 18 years for her secret of success. She said "It's what I do." She was the only person he knew with that kind of success.

I'm just reporting statistics. Mostly, fat people who start progams like yours will lose some weight and remain fat, though healthier. A small number will have very little weight loss, and a few will lose much more than you did.

What I am saying is that I, and quite a few others, woulld have to give up most other things in our lives. I realize that there are also quite a few who can lose weight without doing that. That's fine with me--I just don't appreciate being told that I'm doing everything wrong. (No, not from you--from other posters.)

[Prometheus Bound]

311. Actually, it does.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/bmi_tbl.htm

Moves some people from obese to normal range.

[eridani]

313. Do the math: 250lbs - 20 lbs is not "normal"

People who are only 20 lb from being "normal" just plain aren't fat to begin with.

[Edweird]

207. Intense physical exertion is the key not starvation. Working out also changes muscles and hormones

but in a way most people enjoy. It also ups your sex drive!

[trumad]

209. Agree...

There are so many benefits to working out... less stress--- more bounce to your step. Sex drive---sleep better--- look better.

[eridani]

231. And if you don't have time to to enough of it to lose signifcant amounts of weight?

Then it's for sure a damn good thing that exercise makes you feel better, because it is not going to lead in a decreas in the level of public abuse.

[Edweird]

236. You have time. A high intensity workout does not take long.

But it does take drive and discipline.

"Usual HIIT sessions may vary from 9–20 minutes. These short, intense workouts provide improved athletic capacity and condition, improved glucose metabolism, and improved fat burning."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training

The fundamental principles of High Intensity Training (HIT) are that exercise should be brief, infrequent, and intense. Exercises are performed with a high level of effort, or intensity, where it is thought that it will stimulate the body to produce an increase in muscular strength and size. Advocates of HIT believe that this method is superior for strength and size building than most other methods which, for example, may stress lower weights with larger volume (sets x reps).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_intensity_training

[eridani]

237. And it's an extremely bad idea for anyone over 65

Against my own doctor's orders.

[Edweird]

252. Then you might as well 'live it up' and just not worry about weight loss and just enjoy the ride...

[eridani]

262. Indeed

I have no intention of ever going much over the maximum heart rates recommende for my age group. (Though my doctor said that at least when I was working, I had a reason to say no to people who asked me to participate in more activist projects. He's got a point, and I'll be working on pronouncing the "n" word.)

[laundry_queen]

217. Just thought I'd mention this other part of the puzzle.

Science is now thinking chemicals may be at least a bit responsible for the rise in obesity:

http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episode/programmed-to-be-fat.html (can watch the whole episode only if you are in Canada)

(I think this is the trailer)

If anyone knows a link to the episode in the US I'd be grateful.

[eridani]

233. The thing about all these environmental factors is that we can't do anything about them--

--except politically, and that takes a long time.

[eridani]

235. Maybe someone could start a thread where posters could be irrational about muscle tissue

Even people with scientific training often forget everything they know about scientific reasoning when someone says the magic word "fat". Oddly, muscle is hardly ever the subject of such idiotic unreason. A few years ago I was reading one of the exercise magazines at my health club, and came upon an article that compared the effects of a strength training regimen on football players, weight lifters and endurance athletes. Turns out that the football players and weight lifters added quite a bit of muscle mass, but the endurance athletes added very little using the exact same program, though they did record strength gains.

Did the authors conclude that the endurance athletes who weren't adding muscle mass just refused to try hard enough, lacked will power, were lying about their compliance with the program, or had serious psychological issues with their fathers? Nope, they rationally concluded that college athletes tend to pick sports that their genetics predisposed them to be good at. It would really be great if people could get that rational ahout fat. Do any health improvement program you like--you have still no control over its outcome.

[SmileyRose]

253. Is there any popcorn left?

[Habibi]

254. I ate it all, sorry.

[Arugula Latte]

255. Don't put butter on it.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

269. They never talk about auto-immune disease--Hashimoto's thyroiditis,

The most common cause of an underactive thyroid in the United States. Often women are misdiagnosed or put on anti-depressants because they are fat, grumpy and tired.

I lost thirty pounds -- but it was from uncontrolled diabetes and I landed in the hospital.
The doctors told me I was not burning sugar, so I was burning fat.

I don't recommend it as a weight loss plan.

[October]

286. Why are you arguing with everyone on this thread?

[eridani]

287. For the same reason I argue with people who think gay people should stay in the closet

Why can't we just start another thread for being irrational about muscle tissue?

Often people with scientific training often forget everything they know about scientific reasoning when someone says the magic word "fat". Oddly, muscle is hardly ever the subject of such idiotic unreason. A few years ago I was reading one of the exercise magazines at my health club, and came upon an article that compared the effects of a strength training regimen on football players, weight lifters and endurance athletes. Turns out that the football players and weight lifters added quite a bit of muscle mass, but the endurance athletes added very little using the exact same program, though they did record strength gains.

Did the authors conclude that the endurance athletes who weren't adding muscle mass just refused to try hard enough, lacked will power, were lying about their compliance with the program, or had serious psychological issues with their fathers? Nope, they rationally concluded that college athletes tend to pick sports that their genetics predisposed them to be good at. It would really be great if people could get that rational ahout fat. Do any health improvement program you like--you have still no control over its outcome.

[randome]

288. I'd suggest you start a thread about free will.

Except your genetics would already have forced you to do so.

[eridani]

290. Anyone can make the choice to declare permanent war on themselves

But why should they?

[eridani]

289. You do know that their is a group on DU for weight loss support, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1154

I invite you to check out all the posts I've made in that group belittling people's choices.