Honest questions about fat.

[BlooInBloo]

This post is inspired by the thread at:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1353956

1) In the vast majority of cases that are typically of interest, is a person's weight under their control or not? PLEASE NOTE: I asked about the vast majority of cases, and not any of the various outlying cases that may exist.

I was under the impression that the answer to this was "yes", but am perfectly prepared to revise that assessment.


2) Is "calories in, calories out" LITERALLY true? That is, is it possible to gain a substantial amount of weight, for an extended period of time, WITHOUT increased caloric intake?

I was under the impression that that cals in/out IS literally true. And I stand ready for a physicist to convince me otherwise.


3) Regardless of one's answers to the above questions, should fat folks be treated with less respect as parents, as cocmmunity members, as customers, as people than any others?

I'm under the impression that the answer to this is "no". Good luck getting me to revise this one.


Hm. I thought I had one or two more questions, but maybe this is enough to get a conversation rolling.

I get the impression that fat folks are a bit "skittish" about questions 1) and 2), because they're scared that it will lead, by implication, to an answer (the WRONG answer, in partiuclar) to 3). One thing I wanted to do in this post was make it clear that it's perfectly possible to give the "scary" answers to 1) and 2), WITHOUT giving the "wrong" answer to 3). That is perfectly consistent. So people who believe that weight is typically within the control of people should NOT automatically be cast as "fattie-haters" (or whatever terminology is used).

[panader0]

1. I weighed 185 when I graduated from H.S. (6'2")

and I kept that weight until I hit about 48. Now I'm about 200 pounds, mostly beer gut. I still work as hard as ever, so I think it's a metabolism thing. I just don't burn the calories as much as I used to.

[Triana]

79. When you hit your 40s, metabolism crashes...

...*BOOM!* You quit burning calories nearly as efficiently. To maintain your weight after that, you HAVE to exercise or just know that you'll gain weight after that point. I'm not advocating that people should or shouldn't do anything about that but them's the facts.

[meow2u3]

99. That's the reason for the 'middle-age spread'

I, for one, eat the same way at 45 as I did at 25. No one told me until it was too late that my metabolism would slow down to a grinding halt and I would blimp out.

[Yollam]

157. The metabolism doesn't "crash" in middle age. However...

It's not a sudden "crash", it's just that the weight sneaks up on you when you're not looking and it feels like one. With every decade that passes over the age of 30, people's calorie needs decrease by an average of 100 calories a day. So it would be very unwise to eat the same at 45 as you ate at 25. You would be taking in at least 150 extra calories per day, which would cause a monthly weight gain of about 1.5 lbs.

Unless people want to spend a ridiculous amount of time on a treadmill, they need to accept the fact that as they age, they will have to gradually, but continually adjust their portion sizes downward. It sucks but it's a fact of life.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Yes, Yes, No

But in a caveat to the third question, it might be good for society to step in in cases of parents with food addiction that lead to morbid obesity and ill health and other problems, just as society is able to step in for other drug addictions when children might/are at risk.

[hfojvt]

140. I remain unsure about #1

Is a person's weight within their control?
Mine never was. I spent about ten years trying to gain weight - eating more than I wanted and working out. I never had very much luck. Although I kinda got fat at 142 pounds and my shorts got kinda tight, but I easily took that weight off in a few weeks. I'm still about at my college weight without watching what I eat at all.

[Rabrrrrrr]

168. But that is not the question. The OP nuanced it.

The question is "in the MAJORITY" of cases.

Of course there are exceptions, but, in the majority of cases, people have control over their weight.

[hfojvt]

170. I saw that

but I have no knowledge of "the majority of cases" and there may be many with similar anecdotes. People make the same assumptions about my skinny body - that I have control over it and could have a "normal" studly body if "I just worked out and drank some protein shakes". Tanj, if only I had thought of that when I was doing those chin-ups, push-ups, sit-ups, jogging, biking, swimming, begging dad for years to buy a weight set and lifting weights all through college, not to mention sawing, hauling and splitting wood with hand tools and working other physical jobs. And still I look like a 1970s Spider-man instead of Captain America or Thor.

Heavy people seem to have similar dieting woes. I am not about to say it is easy or simple without seeing a study or walking the walk myself.

[uppityperson]

3. more cals in than out= cals need to be stored somewhere.

If you decrease calories out, and keep the same calories in, the excess will need to be stored. Realize that muscle increase and water retention can also increase wt, but these aren't fat.

#1 is more involved. In a perfect world, we would all have just the right amount of good food coupled with just the right amount of physical movement coupled with just the right job, right happiness, right health, etc etc etc. So, yes, a part of wt control can be under a person's control, a part may not be.

[Yollam]

40. People overestimate how much can be burned with exercise.

I'm a 200 lb 36 yo man, 6'2". They tell me that my resting metabolic rate should be about 3000 calories, IE, I should stay at the same weight if I eat that much. But in actuality, although I could easily eat that much, I would gain weight if I didn't exercise to compensate. My chosen exercise is bicycling. If I take a moderate speed bike ride, 10 km over the course of an hour, I will have burned 585 calories - theoretically. But not everybody can ride a bike 10 km. A lot of people can barely manage a 20 minute stroll, which would only burn 84 calories for a man my size, much less for a smaller person. So exercise is seldom enough to keep weight off, and the propaganda that lifting weights will turn your body into a calorie-burning machine is just that - propaganda. Few people are able to make the investment of time and effort it takes to build up to the level where the difference is all that significant, so the only realistic way to deal with overweight is moderate exercise and reduction of calorie intake, which is easier to do if you eat a lot more filling, low-calorie vegetables.


I got to be 100 lbs overweight, and I had never stopped exercising. I was just eating too much, and the food I was eating was fattening and nutirient-poor.


There are big differences in individual metabolism, thyroid being most common culprit for slow metabolism. I burn calories slowly, but I can get away with eating enough that I'm reasonably satisfied. I can totally imagine what it would be like to have your body telling you you need to eat when you can't possibly burn the calories. Some people's systems are just out of whack. And smaller people and women have a harder time losing weight, from what I've seen. It must be a struggle.

[Triana]

80. smaller woman here...

...and it's a CONSTANT battle. Esp after 40. I could 'let it go' but I chose not to. But that's not an easy choice either. It involves regular exercise and constant watching the diet - and taking your vitamins regularly. Even with all that, I sometimes still gain a few pounds -- but usually when I'm eating more than I'm burning.

Vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, lean protiens, less (or NO) refined, white sugar, or white flour are the secrets. Try to avoid the 'empty' calories. (chips, snacks, alcohol, sugar, candy, cakes, etc). Occasional treats or a drink or two is OK but not on a regular (daily) basis.

Either way, it's a pain in the ass. Guess it all depends on how big you want your ass to be.

[meow2u3]

100. Poverty has a lot to do with weight gain

Poor people usually cannot afford nutritious food, the price of which is deliberately jacked up so health nazis have an excuse to discriminate against poor, fat people.

Vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, lean protiens, less (or NO) refined, white sugar, or white flour are the secrets. Try to avoid the 'empty' calories. (chips, snacks, alcohol, sugar, candy, cakes, etc). Occasional treats or a drink or two is OK but not on a regular (daily) basis.

It's good for you if you can afford it. But someone like me, on a fixed income and food stamps, coupled with the price of food constantly skyrocketing, can only afford cheap food, which is filling but not nutritionally rich.

[Triana]

101. now this is a moral issue the GOP ought to get behind...

...instead of worrying about who screws who and how, and about gays marrying. Everyone ought to have access to nutritious, healthful food, no matter what their income. That is one of the most basic of human rights, one would think.

[unpossibles]

109. this is only true in some ways

fresh vegetables and grains are not that expensive, unless you're buying them from a small health food store or from a restaurant. Do you honestly think that a bell pepper is more expensive than candy or sugar? Everything the poster listed (Vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, lean protiens, less (or NO) refined, white sugar, or white flour ) is fairly cheap. The empty calorie list is very expensive.

I never understood that argument. As a matter of fact, probably the strongest initial reason I had to become a vegetarian and lose weight was because I could not afford meat or to eat out, and could not afford a car and rode a bike for 2 years. I'm not saying you have to do anything extreme, but produce, grains, and the like are far cheaper than meat, cheese, and processed sugary foods.

[xmas74]

152. But some of the poor have to rely on food pantries to

feed their families.

Have you ever seen what is offered at a pantry? Rarely do they offer fresh fruits and veggies. More often they offer meals in a box, outdated chips and candy that has been pulled from the shelves.

What is offered is food for the body but none of it all that nourishing.

[philosophie_en_rose]

167. A bell pepper IS more expensive than candy or sugar.

Local price of one bell pepper - $1.50 to $2.00.

Candy - 50 cents to a dollar.

Five pounds of sugar - $1.50.


pound for pound, vegetables ARE more expensive than junk.


It's an investment for those of us that can afford it, but vegetables can be very expensive.

[unpossibles]

183. a green pepper costs $2.00 where you live?

wow. I can usually get 2-3 for a dollar here.

But even at $2.00, with essentially zero nutritional benefits, is the candy bar still cheaper at $.50?

All I am saying is that I went for several years not being able to afford to buy things like candy and junk food and beer because I was poor, and I saved a lot of money buying fresh food as much as possible. Yes, I also bought some really crappy past-date boxed macaroni & cheese for 10 cents a box, but as much as possible I tried to get as many fruits and vegetables as possible.

I'm not saying it's easy, because it's not, but I am so sick of the argument that people can't afford

[One_of_8]

119. Partially agree

I know that when money is tight, I can't afford to buy the organically produced fruits and vegetables I prefer; but have to hope for the best and buy the lesser expensive produce. Better quality does cost more.

But I also have a very healthy soup I make on "stretch your dollar" weeks, which is a basic vegetable soup. I make a full pot and then I have it throughout the week. It's a base of chicken broth, with onion, carrots, zuchhini, cabbage and elbow noodles. Very filling, easy to make, and cheap.

Beans are also a very nutritious food and source of protein. They are also inexpensive too. So there are options out there that are both nutritious and relatively inexpensive.

[Le Taz Hot]

134. I have to disagree with you there

I can make one chicken last for several meals (baked chicken followed by chicken pot pie from scratch). That pack of chicken nuggets (Yuck!) lasts, what? One meal? One bag of carrots can last through 20 meals easily. I purchased a bread machine for like $35.00 and because I can regulate the ingredients that go into the breads I make, (no white flour, white sugar, etc.), I can make a loaf of bread for about 35 cents. Basically, learning how to cook and making things from scratch is MUCH MUCH cheaper in most cases.

As for the weight thing, the above posters are correct, a lot of it is correlated to age. At almost 51, I eat FAR less now than I've ever eaten. I almost never eat junk food or sweets. I exercise more than I've ever exercised in my life (walking - it's one of the few things I can do with asthma) and at 5'0", I'm fatter than I've ever been. (sigh) AND after eating healthy for like 30 years, my cholesterol is 142 (grrrr!). Sometimes, boys and girls, it's just a case of age and/or heredity. But I know if I gave up I'd be gigantic, so the fight goes on.

[conflictgirl]

166. But you have to have TIME to do that

People who have to work two or three part-time jobs to get anything close to enough income don't have time to make food from scratch. People in inner cities and are unemployed might have enough time, but in those neighborhoods there is rarely fresh produce in the supermarket and what is there isn't all that fresh and is often overpriced.

My husband and I were living on poverty wages for many years. We didn't live in an inner city and I only worked part-time (we have 3 kids and couldn't afford day care for all of them) and we were able to get by on a very low food budget. But it did take a lot of time, and without either that time or the local access to fresh food, we wouldn't have been able to do so.

[Le Taz Hot]

186. I'm really not trying to ignore your points

and as someone who has lived in poverty a significant part of her life (like, now!), I do understand. I have a full-time job during the week and do part-time work from home in the evenings and on the weekends. The chicken I mentioned goes in the crock pot in the morning. With the breadmaker I spend 10 minutes putting in the ingredients and let the breadmaker do the rest.

Growing up in L.A., I also understand the difficulty in getting fresh veggies in the inner city. But, there are certain staples most grocery stores have that tend not to deteriorate quite as quickly such as carrots, potatoes, beats, turnips, & parsnips. As for the rest of the fresh veggies, I am fortunate (some say woefully misfortunate) in that I live in the Central San Joaquin Valley and there's fresh, affordable veggies most of the year. I get as much cooking done on the weekends as I can and just freeze the rest. Really, I'm far from Martha Stewart. It's been out of economic necessity that I've learned to eat healthy and cheap (enough food for 3 adults on less than $200.00 a month).

[Matariki]

156. "the price of which is deliberately jacked up

so health nazis have an excuse to discriminate against poor, fat people"

you're kidding right? i hope?

[kineneb]

162. Just got my free commodities for June

list of contents:

2 pkgs. hot dog buns
1 pkg. hamburger buns
1 bag powdered mashed potatoes
1 pkg. spaghetti noodles
1 jar peanut butter
1 can green beans
1 can refried beans
1 pkg. of 4 vanilla pudding cups

This is a typical example. In November they actually gave us a frozen ham. Please notice the complete lack of real vegetables or fruit, and the large quantity of starchy foods.

When we had to use the food pantry, the box contained similar foods, but did have some carrots, onions and apples and a pound of frozen turkey burger.

We don't eat fast foods, they cost too much and Hubby is not allowed them on his special diet. He is allergic to beans and is not allowed any nut products. As a dialysis patient, he is supposed to eat a high protien diet, which we find difficult to afford on his disablity payments.

The food budget of the poor is subject to adjustment if some disaster occurs. It is often the only part of the household budget where there is any "give". If something breaks, and money is needed to fix it, then the food budget takes a hit.

[Le Taz Hot]

187. THAT is discraceful!

Thay can't possibly call that a menu! I'm sure glad I pay all those taxes to help the less fortunate. :mad:

[kineneb]

188. no taxes involved

The boxes are put together by a local non-profit "gleaners" group. They get what ever they can from the USDA and local grocery stores. They do their best, but as you see, the pickings are rather slim.

And from what I gather, the USDA donations will stop as of 2007, courtesy of the Little Emperor's welfare program for the rich.

We starve, while the rich really do get richer. Sigh.

[Quantess]

174. hot dogs and top ramen...

(yuck) are very inexpensive, but are devoid of nutrients. Same goes for boxed mac-n-cheese and white bread. Pasta is cheap, and yes, it's fat-free, but it is packed with calories and has few vitamins. Ground beef...fairly cheap source of protein but usually high calorie. I don't touch it because of the mad-cow scare. Peanut butter is nutritious but makes you fat. Same goes for cheese sandwiches.

Other cheap "food":

totino's frozen pizza on sale 10 for $10.
Frozen pot-pies.
"fruit" pies (the generic version of Hostess')
nissin cup'o'noodles
frozen hash browns fried in margarine

I won't let any of this crap, on the list above, enter my body.

Iceberg lettuce is inexpensive, but it really has no nutritional value, and then when you douse it with creamy ranch dressing it's fattening, too.
Spinach, on the other hand, is very nutritious and low-calorie, especially with a low-calorie raspberry vinaigrette dressing, for example. But spinach is relatively expensive, compared to iceberg lettuce. And, the low-calorie raspberry vinaigrette dressing typically costs twice as much as the fatty ranch dressing. So poorer folks end up having iceberg with ranch if they feel like eating salad, if they can't afford the spinach with vinaigrette. Poorer folks can forget about the mushrooms and bell peppers.

However, eating tons of fruits and vegetables is something I can't live without, so although I'm cash-strapped myself, I somehow find the money. I also take vitamin supplements daily...now that gets expensive!

It's absolutely terrible that many people can't afford to eat right, though they wish they could.

[kineneb]

191. sometimes one eats what one can get

My friend has $35/month for food and depends on the free commodities she gets. She has taken to being very creative with canned tuna and rice. But her food choices are very limited due to her budget. Perishables are a treat for her.

We have somewhat more in our food budget, thanks to donations from my Mom. Without her help, we would be getting a box from the food pantry every month. Our food budget is getting squeezed from two sides: 1. the cost of gasoline going up (needed to get Hubby to dialysis), 2. the increasing cost of food due to transportation costs. I have planted a garden to suppliment our diet, but it cannot replace everything from the grocery.

Food insecurity is real, folks.

[sendero]

111. I don't know whre they got that number...

.. my own calculations would have your basic caloric needs at much less than that.

Even if you are 200 pounds of solid muscle, 3000 is a stretch. Fat weight needs no sustaining calories, only lean weight. If you have a typical bodyfat composition (which means you are neither ripped or fat) it would in the mid to upper teens and you would need about 2400 calories to sustain your weight. Unless you have a job that entails prolonged vigorous physical activity every day.

Of course, it IS a lot more complicated than just "calories in, calories out", due to activity levels, health issues, nutritional composition itself (how much protein, carbs, fat) and a lot of other stuff.

[PWRinNY]

123. All calories are NOT created equally.

There are some foods that you can eat that will actually require more calories to be burned to process them. Protein calories. Whole grains. Certain vegetables, like broccoli. If you eat fruit rather than drinking juice - all these things actually rev up the metabolism, so you can actually eat more calories and lose fat while gaining muscle. You don't have to starve, in fact, you should eat more - the key being to eat the right foods.

Smaller portions, more frequently, and stop eating 2-3 hours before you go to bed. Eat breakfast every day without fail, and that will jump-start metabolism.

Moderate exercise, consisting of short intense bursts of weight training, alternating with short intense bursts of cardio will raise your RMR (resting metabolism rate) so that you burn more calories even when you are sitting here typing away at DU. :)

I've had GREAT success, personally, with a whole foods, meat, fish, veggie, fruit, reduced carb/whole grain diet (Atkins, and that is NOT an all-meat diet like some people think it is), and this type of exercise.

What's also essential is water. A lot of it. Take your weight, multiply it by .5, and drink that many ounces of water every day. For example, if you weigh 150 lbs, drink 75 oz water per day. And not "enhanced" water, like Crystal Lite and iced tea/coffee, but REAL FILTERED WATER or spring water. The other beverages may be consumed in addition to the water, so long as you don't overload on sugars from juices, sodas, etc. Vitamin/mineral supplements are also important, because unfortunately, our soil doesn't have so many vitamins and minerals anymore as it used to.

[BlooInBloo]

127. Ah - did not realize that cal1 could be different from cal2 - thanks!

Oh - and instead of "Take your weight, multiply it by .5", could you have just said something like "take 1/2 your weight"?

LOL

:)

[PWRinNY]

133. LOL

:) Well glad it was easy to understand anyway.

[realisticphish]

4. Well, what is control

It's not an absolute control, that's for damn sure. No overweight person thinks, "hmm, I want to be fat."

I believe that weight IS a problem of the mind. But the mind is complicated, and telling someone to just stop eating is not productive in any way.

[BlooInBloo]

5. (shrug) Then maybe people can't REALLY control ANYTHING, eh?

That's the fundamental problem with that point of view, imo.

I mean, c'mon - if you can't control what you put in your mouth, what CAN you control?

Even if you wanna bitch about that rhetorical question, ya gotta admit you see the "pull" of it, dont'cha?


And when bitching at me, please don't lose track of my 3rd question, and my answer to it.

[Richard Steele]

9. I was going to answer your questions, until I saw this response #5.

I haven't read the thread you linked, so perhaps I simply
lack the proper perspective to truly understand what you are asking.

But, upon the face of it, your post above gives me the impression that
you are NOT simply asking in good faith;
but, rather, laying rhetorical traps as an excuse
to flame anyone who differs from your own unspoken,
predetermined opinions on these matters.

I truly hope that I have misunderstood the situation here,
and that we can actually discuss the issues you raised in the OP.
These are VALID questions you raise, and important ones.

[BlooInBloo]

16. (shrug) You're more than welcome to think what you like...

... and say what you like...

I saw no flame in what I said, but rather only the drawing of reasonable conclusions upon the hypothesizing of someone else's view. That's a standard way to test out alternative theories.

I'm sorry if theory-testing = flaming to you.

[Richard Steele]

50. Thank you! I really appreciate your permission...

to think for myself.
And your gift to me of 'free speech' is just awesome icing on the cake!

I have had my doubts about you (many and varied, they were)
right from the day you signed up at DU.

But you just removed all doubt with a single post.

Very few people ever do that.
I shall forevermore regard you as "special".

[BlooInBloo]

76. OH NO!!!! dicksteele has made his FINAL decision about me!!!!

:rofl:

The things some people think are interesting enough to say...

:rofl:

[Quantess]

34. Interesting statement: Control.

People with eating disorders very commonly feel that their weight is the one thing in their lives they can control.

I say-- of course people can control their weight, within normal limits. If someone says they can't help but be obese, then they are lying to themselves. It's a cop-out.

Some bodies are born to be thinner, some bodies are born to be plumper, but I am convinced that nobody has to be morbidly obese. Obesity is a self-inflicted condition. I'm not talking about a flabby roll here and there. I mean, nobody needs to be dangerously overweight!

Do people think that fit, slim, in-shape, people sit on their ass and eat all day? I get the feeling that some clueless fat people think so. Please give in-shape people a little credit for their dedication and hard work. I'm a creampuff compared to how I was a few years ago, although I'm still in fairly good shape. But, I WORKED HARD. I ran about 20 miles a week. I carried my groceries home for several blocks. I lugged a stack of schoolbooks back and forth to San Francisco State U every day. I rode my bike to work. Is anyone surprised to hear that I looked great?

Lately, I'm a bit more self-accepting of a little flab, so I don't exercise as hard. But I still eat really well and I move around a lot. Exercise can be very enjoyable. Try it sometime, if it's been a while. The first 5 minutes are the least fun, but after that it feels great.

I was a chubby kid, because I loved food...all kinds of food. I just wanted to eat and eat, not because I was in emotional distress or anything, I just loved to eat! I didn't know what was fattening and what wasn't back then. My favorite foods were ice cream and pizza. Luckily for me I also love fruit and vegetables too, so that's what I now pig out on, as an adult.

[Quantess]

39. oh, and,

Bloo in Bloo, I'm fairly sure I agree with you on this topic.
The questions are not directed to you.

[BlooInBloo]

77. It's all good - bring the heat!

:)

I just wanna make sure the factual things I believe are actually true.

[AlienGirl]

43. Not all skinny people work hard to be skinny

I can sit on my ass and eat all day, and not become obese. Before my metabolism got wonky from a period of starvation combined with damage to my thyroid gland, I could sit on my ass and eat all day and stay *slim*. These days, regardless of calories-in and exercise, I remain within the range of "average" (that is to say, fatter than is considered beautiful for movie stars and models, but not unhealthily fat).

Tucker

[Quantess]

47. Oh, shut up already!

Just kidding.
When I was in great shape, I was slim & trim, but not skinny. I've never been skinny. If I sat on my butt and ate all day I'd be 30 lbs overweight in about 6 months.

Muscles do a lot to make women look attractive--not the heavy weight lifting muscles (IMHO in my humble opinion), but instead, the frequent use of low-to-medium weight bearing exrcise, which gives tone and endurance. AND, a great fat-burner!

[realisticphish]

68. of course no one HAS to

but people seem to take a very simplistic view of the mind. Some people think the mind is a giant on/off switch; you either want to be thin, or you don't (or you're lazy, or whatever). There are deeper things going on, and telling them to get up off their ass and run is frankly insulting. Do you think you're telling people something new? "Hey! I had never thought about the fact that exercising makes you lose weight! Holy crap!"

And there is not one giant eating disorder. Yes, anorexia and bulemia are thought to partially come from an idea of control. But that doesn't mean that ALL disorders (or even a lot of anorexia and bulemia cases) feel control. Clearly, overeaters do not.

[Quantess]

178. Well, I think you read things I didn't write.

If you would please re-read what I wrote, you will see that I did not say "get up off your ass and run". What I actually wrote was: some fat people are not realizing that fit, in-shape people work hard to get that way. (edit: spelling)

[Quantess]

179. And,

I have sensed resentment (not these days of course because lately I look like the average creampuff) from fat people, for having nice muscle tone and fitness. As if, a magic wand made my body that way. Like, I was some bitch just because I was in better shape than they were.

[wickerwoman]

61. Eating *can* be compulsive.

Many foods have drug like effects on the brain and they're exactly the ones you'd think they'd be: chocolate, cheese, caffeine...

I was watching the West Wing episode a few days ago where Leo talks about his alcoholism and says "The problem isn't that I want one drink, it's that I want ten." I've had the exact same experience with food at different points in my life. It's not that I want a cheeseburger- it's that I want a mountain of cheeseburgers so I can drift on a sea of casomorphines. As a matter of fact, keep the meat and the bread. I've literally had dreams involving binge eating cheese and doughnuts.

I know damn well on a conscious level that I shouldn't eat certain foods but I sometimes do it anyway. So how do you account for it? Stupidness? Laziness? Lack of willpower? I have a graduate degree. I'm quite successful professionally. I've achieved all of my life goals so far- quite a bit more than many of my thinner friends and contemporaries. In every other area of my life, I have a great deal of self-discipline. I've been on diets for 15 years and am pretty up to date on the field of nutrition. So what would you call someone who knows that they're doing something self-destructive and then goes ahead and does it anyway?

Would you say to an alcoholic that they just lack willpower? I mean, if you can't control what you drink, what can you control? I'm not saying that compulsive eating is an addiction to the same degree that alcohol, cigarettes or drugs are, but then most alcoholics don't have to walk past dozens of bars and liquor stores every time they go outside.

I don't think you're a "fat hater" but I think you don't understand this particular jones- just as I don't understand alcoholism, smoking or heroin use. They just never really appealed to me. But I think this attitude (fat people lack self-control) is exactly what people used to say about alcoholics until the science showed that that wasn't really the case. I think it's a way for people to feel superior (I have self-control and she doesn't) and to turn obesity into a character flaw- something which is sublimely unhelpful for people losing weight. Nothing like adding a heavy helping of shame to an already difficult task. I'm sure it's not your intention to be disrespectful of fat people, but you are repeating an argument whose lack of humility and fundamental finger-pointing nastiness is quite frustrating to people struggling with their weight.

[Yollam]

158. I used to get the same bliss off of nachos.

My pastime on Friday nights was to get a bag of tortilla chips and a can of nacho cheese and much on them until the cheese was gone, and top it off with a couple bottles of Asahi Beer. It was great, I was stuffed and happy. But when my weight was peaking at 275 and I started feeling bad, I took a hard look at what I was eating. I thought it was okay to do the nacho thing because I ate an otherwise sensible diet with an occasional sweet, and I exercised a lot. But when I looked at thee labels of the snacks, I realized that at one sitting, I was eating over 400 calories of JUST CHEESE, and 700 calories of chips, plus another 300 calories from the beer. That's 1400 calories (enough to live on for a whole day) in addition to 3 full meals. I put myself on a very strict regimen that cut out sweets, diet drinks, chips, etc. until I reached 200 lbs. Now, I allow myself the occasional chip, ice cream or cookie, but I ONLY eat the amount specified as the serving size. Like that can of cheese I ate all at once had 8 servings! The bag of chips I ate more than half of was 12 servings! Sticking to the correct serving sizes makes a huge difference.

And look at an item like a Cinnabon. If you are into such gloppy, goopy sweets, you should at least be honest and acknowledge that a mess like that is equivalent to about 5 of the cinnamon rolls we all grew up with. Split it up with a family of four if you must eat it. A cinnabon is way too much sugar and fat in one sitting for any human body.

[realisticphish]

67. so...

you DIDN'T want an answer?

Apparently me answering your question is "bitching at you"

my bad :shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

78. I used that phrase predicting....

... the sort of derisive answers some people commonly give (I saw in the other fat thread).

That's sort of a microcosm of my OP, in fact. That a lot of folks treat answers to my 1) and 2) as though they were an answer to 3). They aren't. They're independent questions.

Shorter BiB: I welcome any answers you got.

:)

[One_of_8]

125. Can I ask how old you are?

I could be way off base, but you sound pretty young, or at least young enough not to have dealt with slowing metabolism.

Also, are you male or female? Again, I could be wrong, but I would guess male. Men to tend to lose weight more easily than women, because they have more lean tissue, which is metabolically active. Thus, I think a lot of men wonder "hey, what's the big deal? Just eat less and you'll lose the weight." But it isn't that simple.

If you really want a discussion, great. But if you just want to bash fat people, please don't waste my time.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

13. Metabolism is complicated too

Yes calories in/calories out applies to everyone but no 2 people will burn them the same. Numerous studies that have been done on people and animals where food intake and activity levels were controlled demonstrate this. When you overfeed, everyone gains but some gain more and some less. I think that's what's happening here in the U.S. Many of us are overeating, let's face it. Maybe not all the time but who doesn't at least occasionally scarf down too many french fries? But some are lucky and have hummingbird-like metabolisms. I work out like a maniac practically every day or else I'd probably only be able to eat 1500 calories a day and I like food to much to do that. I maintain a weight that probably won't get me into Hollywood but is widely considered "normal". I see heavier people at my gym who work out every bit as hard as I do. I don't believe they are ordering buckets of chicken on the way home so I tend to think that they might have a more sluggish metabolism or that they have yo-yo dieted themselves into a state where their bodies are resistant to weight loss.

[BlooInBloo]

18. Nevertheless, on the metabolism issue...

... There's still the fundamental truth (if it's a truth): you can't NOT metabolize (and hence turn to fat) what isn't there in the first place.

Isn't that *literally* correct? Or have I gone wrong somewhere?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

22. Okay

You are probably *literally* correct. And the point where that is the case might be 1000 daily calories for a certain person. Why don't you live on 1000 calories a day for a while and get back to us on how effortless it is?

[BlooInBloo]

23. Honest answer: I'm not fat. I got no dog in this race.

EDIT: I was just hoping to get clear(er) on what the actual facts of the matter are, and then deal with any relevant value judgments separately.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

25. Neither am I but I'm a woman so my dog is ALWAYS in the race

No matter what. I have never been close to what is considered obese but it never ceases to amaze me how the entire community feels entitled to comment on my eating habits/food choices/minor weight fluctuations/body shape etc. I'd like to not think about my weight, but fat chance (pardon the pun) when the Weight Police are on patrol 24/7.

[BlooInBloo]

26. I'll take Devil's Advocate for $200 Alex! :)

(only because I'm not certain what the response to the following should be)

But in all fairness, the "entire community" makes comments about ALL SORTS of aspects of people's lives (smoking, spanking, speeding, blahblahblah). Why is "the fat thing" SOOOOO special as to deserve exclusion from this commentary?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

33. Well, in my case....

I have never been fat, for one thing. So the comments likely have more to do with my perceived attractiveness than with any concern for my health or well-being, or the safety of others, as would usually be the case with the other behaviors you cited. And frankly, I'm not interested in dating the vast majority of people out there so I'd appreciate it if they kept their worthless opinions about my fuck-ability to themselves. But that's not gonna happen any time soon. That probably doesn't directly answer your question but it's my experience.

Also, I'm a smoker and I actually don't get too many comments about it. I hate to say it, but it seems that a slim woman who smokes is more socially acceptable than a fat one who doesn't.

[Quantess]

41. "skinny" people are somehow okay to bash

It's not right.

No one should ever say "you would be prettier if you lost weight" nor "you would look good if you gained a few pounds".

[mrreowwr_kittty]

44. I agree completely

I guess a good comeback might be something like "You'd be more fun to hang out with if you weren't stupid."

[Quantess]

57. LOL!

:evilgrin:
"i can lose/gain weight, but you'll always be ugly"

[Quantess]

45. 1000 calories can be done

if it means a vibrant, physically active life, versus sluggish decay in a morbidly obese body, damn right I can live on 1000 calories a day! People of by-gone eras have done it. People in these modern times eat too much and move too little!

It's a persons' choice, whether they want to cut back on calories until they (literally) can get back on their feet.

[Nikia]

105. 1000 calories usually does not lead to a vibrant, physically active life

It leads to being weak. It is not healthy even if a person has some weight on them already. If a person is not able to exercise when they are restricting like this, a person who holds onto their fat well will most likely lose most of their muscle mass before losing significant fat.

[Yollam]

173. That's not necessarily true.

1000 calories a day with a well-balanced diet would be enough to sustain good health in a woman of small stature. A more average-sized woman would need 12~1300 calories. A man can live on anywhere from 1500~2200 calories depending on his stature with no adverse effects (other than possibly feeling unsatisfied with the smaller portions. )

1000 calories is pretty much a floor for the smallest of people - it's not a good long-term calorie intake for most people's needs. But that doesn't mean that most Americans don't eat too much. In most non-famine countries around the world, a typical calorie intake would be about 1500~1800 calories, and people get by just fine on that. A typical American intake for women is about 2500 cal. and for men, over 3000. That would be seen as gluttonous in most countries.

For example, when I first moved to Japan, I was surprised at how small everything was.* The drinks in restaurants are like our kiddie sizes, and so are the meals. Needless to say, most people are much thinner here, and it's easier for me to stay thin here, too. When I whip up a batch of toll house cookies and give them to Japanese friends, they always wince at how rich & sweet they are. They prefer the less intense Japanese-style sweets and cakes.

Even the donuts here at "Mr. Donuts" seem to have twice as much air in them - very light, so that I suspect they have half the calories of a Dunkin' donut.


Oh, but there are exceptions to the thing about Japanese being thin.





*Yes, I understand that Japanese are generally not as tall as Americans, but they are catching up. The average young man here is now about 5'10", and the average woman about 5'5". Hardly liliputians... The difference in average body size is not nearly as pronounced as the difference in serving sizes.

[Nikia]

193. My dietician disagrees

I am recovering from anorexia. Maybe the bad effects of low calories diets are too personal to me. I am allowing myself to eat more because it is making me stronger, more energetic, and able to think more clearly. 1000 calories per day didn't do that for me. Even at 1500 calories, I continued to lose weight.

[politicat]

153. Yes, you have gone wrong in fact.

At stage 3 and beyond of starvation, the body will turn anything it can get its grimy little paws on into either carbohydrates or fatty acids - the supposedly undigestible cellulose in lettuce and cabbage, our own muscles, water. The body starts storing water because the capillaries shut down, causing cellular breakdown, causing cells to be metabolized (sort of) into energy/fat and causing edema. So the end stages of starvation are actually characterized by weight GAIN (through cellular and intracellular edema) just before the kidneys and heart shut down. I've had severely starved clients with eating disorders actually manage to digest psyllium (the stuff in metamucil), a plant that is supposedly undigestible. Under severe starvation, the acidity of the stomach drops to close to pH neutral, allowing humans to basically do what grass-fed cows do - use gut bacteria to recover calories from otherwise undigestible fiber. So you're oversimplifying by a grandiose degree when you say that one cannot metabolize what's not there. The body is really good at metabolizing what is not supposed to be there.

In starvation cases, the caloric input of a test subject that ran 400 calories a day with significant levels of fiber (the case was replicating a famine situation, so cabbage and other greens were available). The subject's caloric output was about 1600 calories a day, but without significant weight loss. Fecal production basically stopped (1 BM every 10 days or so, and insignificant), while urine production soared (to about 3.5 L per day). Where was it all coming from? Had to be either the cellulose in the cabbage or the water the subjects were allowed. You tell me, but something was being metabolized to produce the energy and it wasn't body stores (no weight loss, remember?). The likely source was the undigestible cellulose fiber. (The layman's version of this data is in The Great Starvation Experiment, by Todd Tucker; the actual data is from the The Biology of Human Starvation, Ancel Keys, UMinn, 1950; UCoBoulder has a copy and I went and looked into the book after reading the lay book and later studies.)

Unless you have a doctorate in nutrition, I don't expect you to even begin to understand the complexities of human food and nutrition. You look like you're trying to score points for your prejudices rather than looking at the science, so I've probably just wasted 6 or so minutes of my life writing this.

[IselaB]

24. I agree with this

Most fat people, I think, have a complex, unhealthy relationship with food. It's not that they are less resistant to basic appetites. For most fat people, there is no longer a relationship between being hungry and eating. Fat people eat for other reasons, and that's the problem.

Maybe those people could resist these other, emotionally complex impulses to eat with sheer willpower. But it's still not the same thing as having the willpower to resist simple hunger. It takes the "willpower issue" to another whole level. And maybe willpower isn't enough.

Should fat people be treated with less respect? I'll tell you this: In terms of respecting you, I'd rather you be fat than be a Republican. I'd rather you be fat than be hateful. I'd rather you be fat than be selfish and inconsiderate. If being fat is a failing, there are many far greater.

[wickerwoman]

6. 1.) To a point yes, 2.) No 3.) No

1.) I would say that a person's weight is under their control to the extent that their life is under their control. If you have enough money, your life is more under control and you have more control over your weight (you can afford "healthy food", going to the gym, time off to destress in ways other than eating, etc.). If you don't have enough money, you have less control over both your life and your weight. That's why the poor in America have such staggering obesity rates.

2.) On a thread a while back someone posted a formula which is much more accurate than calories in - exercise = weight gain or loss. I hope they post it again, put it was something like calories in +/- metabolic rate - exercise + stress +/- medications +/- genetics +/- histamine levels +/- age +/- the kinds of calories +/- (a lot of other things) = weight gain or loss. The fact is that people use calories in different ways. Eating an equal amount (in calories) of spaghetti will make me fatter than eating the same number of calories in meat and vegetables because insulin resistance means I can use the calories from the meat and veggies but I can't use all the sugars so they convert into fat. The truth is nobody totally understands how metabolism works but it is not as simple as a person who eats more than another will gain more weight. Why else could I eat a 12" pizza by myself when I was 18 without gaining weight and now if I eat 2 slices of the same, I'll bloat up like a balloon?

3.) Obviously no.

[Mojorabbit]

7. Medication

Steroids for MS exacerbations equals a 10lb weight gain for me. When I was younger it would melt right off. As I age the weight stays on. I think as most people age their metabolism slows down some.

[kittykitty]

11. I have MS,too. I agree Solu-Medrol does put on weight, and I think

some of the other drugs I take do too. I just read that Neurontin can cause weight gain. I jsut looked up all my drugs on "Good Pills, Bad Pill" and they are all judged to be ineffective! I wonder if I should just quit them all and save money. I do think Baclofen helps with spasticity.

[wickerwoman]

38. My dad gained 150 pounds in 2 months on Neurontin

and he hardly ate anything- no breakfast, salad for lunch, a 6 or 8 oz steak and a baked potato for dinner and that was it.
So much for calories in = calories out. And if he quit taking the medication he was in so much pain he couldn't sit upright for more than 10 minutes at a time.

[Mojorabbit]

46. My doctor told me that I needed to eat 5 or 6 times a day

small meals. I only eat once a day(dinner). He said your body goes into a kind of starvation mode and turns food to fat for storage cause it is not sure when it will get another meal. I don't have much of an appetite though and cannot make myself eat so many times a day. I am twenty five pounds overweight.I was on neurontin many years ago and gained weight on it too.

[pookieblue]

169. I stopped my neurontin because I didn't want to gain anymore weight...

haven't told my neuro that yet.


She had to fight me about the last round of steriods. But in the end, I knew that I needed them, because I was in bad shape.

I also, don't eat that much. sometimes will forget to eat anything all day. I don't have an appetite at all.

My Doc also told me to eat four or five small meals a day. that me NOT eating might actually hurting me.

I'm about 40lbs over my prefered weight. According the Gov't standards I'm obese but I weigh under 200lbs. And no one ever believes that I weigh as much as I do.


btw, my sugars are good, my choloestral is good, my blood pressure is good.

my only health problem is this MS.

[ProfessorGAC]

69. Really??? To Mojo, TooI

I have MS and have gone through Solumedrol twice. Both times my metabolism got so cranked up, i ate like there was no tomorrow, and i LOST 3 pounds, and i'm 5'9" and only weigh 160!

It's weird that the two of you had the polar opposite experience!

I must be a freak!
The Professor

[crimson333]

107. made me gain as well

I gained 60 lbs after getting solu medrol for a year for my M.S.

nothing i did would stop the gain.

[pookieblue]

165. count me in as a MS'r.

and I have trouble getting the weight off that I gained from all the meds.

Simple fact, I don't eat a lot. and I try to eat healthy.

BUT I can't exercise like I used to. I try to walk everyday if "Ralphie" is behaving. but jogging is out.


(btw am I the only one who has given their MS a nickname?)

[crimson333]

171. just don't tell me

it is MonSter. I can't stand when people do that

I have no nick name. I have had MS 22 years and am on disability. The only time I think about it is last week, when I lost my balance and fractured my ankle ;)

[pookieblue]

182. no, not MonSter

It's Ralphie...

don't know why that name...it just came to me.

then again I am one who has a cat named Spot.

[ProfessorGAC]

181. Weird

I really am a freak. I seem to be the only one that didn't. And, i've gone through it twice!

Not only is the disease capricious, but the treatments seem to be too!
The Professor

[Iniquitous Bunny]

159. Corticosteroids (like solumedrol, prednisone, etc.) will make you gain.

It's a fact. They also raise your glucose levels. Often people need insulin coverage while on these medications. Some meds for psychiatric disorders can raise your weights significantly. Also, women on hormonal forms of contraceptives can be affected to varying degrees.

[pookieblue]

184. and I have been on all of those at one time or another

The Roids that is.

Also was taking something for Seizures but not anymore.
and I stopped taking the Neurotion on my own.

Still taking the AD's and the Pill.

[seabeyond]

8. that is talking science 101. emotion and the body so connected

under someones control you ask. there are a lot of emotional factors that soemone eats. you can say that is under their control, if they are aware, or at the right time to address it. food does the same for people that alcohol and drugs do.

also on the calorie in and out. a state of happiness in the body burns calorie at a greater rate. adn though i have no scientific evidence, i swear guilt influences too.

and people will say that they are concerned for health. that it isnt indicitive of their worth as perons, parent, community member, customer, but lets all be real. it is like bush opening statement about gays, how we must be accepting yada yada yda. people talk about how they dont like the sin but love the sinner. that is bullshit. i have heard enough various people around me, a very strong number of normal size people talk about fat people. and it is not nice, or accepting, or respectful. just as every conservative says the most hateful about gays. then i am told oh no, they are suppose to be respected in community. treated like all others. hypocrisy and a lie. truth be told they are not. and every person that claims they dont do it, dont descriminate against the fat..... not buying it. i know otherwise. i know my world is a hell of a lot easier because i am not fat. and i know i am treated differently because i am not. i will at least admit it.

[Toucano]

10. All people are to be treated with dignity and respect.

Obesity, however, is a consequence of a civilization's success. It has more to do with the 21st-century lifestyle than with individuals' self-control, character, or discipline.

I think a lot of fat folks are made to feel like it's a character issue or a will power issue, when it really isn't. That's disrespectful.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. It IS very much a class issue

The wealthier you are, the thinner you tend to be. In Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed, she described how difficult it was for her to eat healthy while posing as a minimum wage worker. If I recall correctly, she eventually gave up trying to obtain and prepare nutritious meals and started eating fast food like her temporary compatriots. I think that is part of the disrespect toward overweight people. On a visceral level, we associate obesity with poverty. Naturally, poverty is a sign of poor character as we are conditioned to believe. So it is not surprising that people, even those who are heavy themselves, disdain fatness.

And with women we've got the sex/status object thing to contend with where you see that the more successful the man, the thinner the wife.

[bobbieinok]

32. I have heard that in some parts of Africa a 'heavy set' woman is

greatly admired ...... b/c she is much less likely to starve to death when there is little food available .....

[mrreowwr_kittty]

36. That used to be true here

Supposedly, poor women were thin from working hard on the farm or in the factory so plumpness was a sign of wealth and leisure. Now it's reversed. Poor people get terrible food and few chances to exercise while the middle class and wealthy can afford organic food, gym memberships, or personal trainers.

[undergroundpanther]

60. you bet it is..

Check out my thread on poverty and obesity in the poverty forum..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=230x445

[Marie26]

84. Oh yeah

It's amazing when you see the difference between the "beautiful people" in upper-class urban areas, & the dumpy, overweight people in Midwest towns & blue-collar neighborhoods. "Thinness" has become as much of a status symbol as a Mercedes or Louis Vuitton purse.

[LittleClarkie]

12. 5' nuthin, 212 lbs

Does that change anyone's perception of me? I'm shaped sorta like a Buddah.

[Digit]

14. I dunno, but here are some of my observations

I attended a class recently where they brought in some chocolate muffins and oatmeal raisin/nut cookies. I can't eat chocolate, and I don't eat raisins or nuts if they are contained within cookies. (it is a consistency thing with me-weird, I know)

I was the heaviest of this small group of women. I did not have even a crumb.
The tiniest woman, who was no bigger than a whisper was the one scarfing down as much as she could.
Even at the end of class, she went BACK to the goodies to eat what was left!

I would guess she is about my same age, so who is to say what is the cause.

I was tiny at one time, that is until I had my child 21 years ago. Then my metabolism changed.
If I go out to dinner, I have to end up taking half of my food home as I cannot finish it in one setting. I never eat desserts...how can you have any room? I don't ever go to fast food establishments. Okay, once every two/three months or so I will get dinner at a Boston Market since I can get some decent veggies.

I don't eat sweets from anywhere unless I make them from scratch since I cannot tolerate HFCS (high fructose corn syrup). Since I live alone, I don't bother to make myself a batch of cookies!
Oh, and sodas are a NO GO, since they all have HFCS.

It has to be more than calories. Pit me against others out there and I will surely bet I am taking in less calories. Once again, I live alone, so I know what is in my fridge and pantry.

As an anecdote, I will say I have noticed that when people are offering sample foods in grocery stores, they NEVER ask me to sample the goodies. I wonder if they think I am going to take over their entire display or something. It is usually something junky, so I don't want to sample it anyway, but I guess they don't know that.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

48. Have you had your thyroid checked?

That can cause unexplained weight gain regardless of calories, if your hypothyroid.

[Digit]

49. Not lately

I don't tend to be cold, which I think might be a symptom of hypothroid.

I stopped gaining years ago, but just can't lose the weight I gained with my daughter.

I appreciate your input just the same.

[politicat]

98. It's not just thyroid, BTW...

Or at least, not by numbers. There are about 200 enzymes, hormones and chemicals that control metabolism, and thyroid is just an easy one to test. Cortisol, adrenals, and the neuro-reactors in the brain are at least as important to metabolism, but they're much harder to track and check, and therefore the blame hits the thyroid. And if your thyroid numbers are okay, doctors won't believe that you're not sitting on the couch gulping twinkies 24/7.

[phylny]

66. I was of normal weight until puberty, when I "thought" I was pudgy

(5'6" and 135 pounds, and I thought I was fat. What I would give....)

I gained about 60 lbs during my first pregnancy, and no, I wasn't eating everything in sight. I lost most of that weight, and gained "only" about 40 lbs. with my second pregnancy. Lost ALL of that with the help of Weight Watchers. My third pregnancy, I gained 50. Again, and I'm not being dishonest, eating nothing out of the ordinary - certainly not chips and cookies.

Since then, 14 years ago, I've been unable to get down to a weight that's acceptable for me. Not by a long shot.

I've done WW again, tried low-carb, tried everything. I saw a Bariatric doctor and did his "shakes" where I never even cheated and didn't LOSE WEIGHT.

I'm thinking of trying Nutrisystem. It's literally the ONLY area of my life that's screwed up.

Oh, and I never sample the goodies at the supermarket ;)

[serryjw]

17. Yes, Kinda, Of Course

2) Remember you can't have the same calorie intake at 25 v 45 years old and not expect to gain weight. Your metabolism slows down and in the case of woman they go thru menopause, which puts weight on.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Sigh. "metabolism" is accounted for in the phrase "calories out".

I thought that was clear - my mistake.

EDIT: And the phrase "cals in, cals out" itself was intended as shorthand for "whatever complicated formula similar to that posted somewhere in this thread doctors/biologists have come up with, which at a gross level of resolution appears as a conservation-of-calories law".

I'd hoped to avoid saying the longer version. Dammit.

[Kali]

20. there is some new info coming aout about

weight and sleep disorders, apnea in particular. Related to metabolism.

[BlooInBloo]

21. apnea = snoring?

[kalibex]

27. Apnea can correlate with snoring...

But it mainly means you STOP BREATHING...even if only briefly. :scared:

-B

[BlooInBloo]

28. OOOOOOH - gotcha - thanks!

[undergroundpanther]

59. Skinny people can have sleep apnea.

It's not unheard of.

Remember that sleep apnea occurs in thin people as well; the airway can close during sleep for a number of reasons, not just excess weight.

[Kali]

30. no, but snoring very often accompanies apnea

apnea's typical symptom is the sleeper stops breathing (many, many times per night) and eventually wakes and gasps for air. Apparently there are all sorts of things getting damaged while you are supposedly resting. Contributes to heart and kidney disease, obesity, depression, chronic pain and deadly car accidents.

Basically two types, obstructive - almost always snorers because it has to do with the palate and tongue falling back into the throat and central - where the problem is nuerological in origin.

[undergroundpanther]

62. I got apnea and I

don't snore. Go figure. The Cpap machinme it's like trying to sleep with scuba gear on.

[Kali]

82. Yeah it is, fortunatly for me I love to snorkel AND I am a highly

motivated user (cpap) I knew I had this problem and I am a HORRIBLE snorrer to. I was so sick of feeling tired all the time, getting fatter and fatter and disturbing the sleep of other people when traveling/sharing a hotel room. I had to get creative to even get "diagnosed" and treated because I am one of the uninsured masses, so I got into a study. It has been a remarkable change, wish I would have known twenty years (or more!) ago about the relatively simple solution.

[Iniquitous Bunny]

160. Apnea is lapses in breathing.

Oxygen levels drop and people do not properly cycle in their sleep. Not only is it potentially dangerous, but it leads to chronic fatigue. There are treatments and ways to diagnose. For more info: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sleep-apnea/DS00148

[alittlelark]

29. Thyroid and blood tests are all I know.....

115 lbs at 5'7 is ABNORMAL. The assistants gave me accolades.....


I have a nasty case of Hashimotos Thyroid disease.

I grew up in the 'triangle labs' Sandia, Los Alamos, WS......... I was in every lab there, cuz my daddy (Nuclear Physicist))took me there.


His Thyroid burned out 25 years ago..... mine is doing weird things... My Endocrinologist is at a loss.


I don't know why I responded......... it's what it is.

[StellaBlue]

35. I have Hashimoto's, too

Was very skeptical at first, as I don't feel I have any 'symptoms'. I have been on Synthroid 10 weeks, no weight loss. But I am only about 15 pounds overweight, and it's due to lethargy.

[bobbieinok]

31. there is quite a bit of research that it is much easier for men to lose

weight than it is for women

[conflictgirl]

37. The answer to questions 1 and 2 is both yes and no

This is such a complicated issue and I don't think there's one answer that applies to everyone. Why, for example, can my friend drink three cans of regular Coke a day and weigh less than 100 pounds, while if I have even one can a day, I gain large amounts of weight and my blood sugar goes screwy? Why can some people take Prozac and not gain any weight, while others gain 50 pounds from it?

I've been in the position of gaining weight due to not exercising and just plain eating too much, so I know that happens a lot. But I also have gained weight due to medication side effects, and I have PCOS which creates a tendency for me to gain weight easily especially around my middle.

I think that some people have some control over their weight, and for some people the adage "calories in=calories out" is true. For example, it's difficult to get exact figures on how many Americans take antidepressants, but estimates range from 10-30%. Most of those medications list weight gain as a side effect, and the weight gain can be extreme. Other common meds that cause weight gain are steroids (taken by people for everything from eczema to arthritis) and birth control pills. It's often difficult to take the weight off once you've gained weight from meds.

Many people (myself included) believe that some of the newer commonly-used food ingredients - especially high-fructose corn syrup and other ingredients in processed foods - are in large part responsible for weight gain. In one period of time I was carefully watching my calories and never consumed more than 1400 in one day, but most of those were from processed food. I *could not* lose weight and it really bugged me because I knew my caloric intake should've meant I would be losing weight.

I also think that the increased consumption of soft drinks is contributing a lot. I have seen a lot of stats on this over the years and even consuming one soda a day increases your risk of type-2 diabetes several fold. And similarly the consumption of soft drinks has gone WAY up, both in frequency and amount consumed. Regular pop contains high fructose corn syrup and for some people artificial sweeteners lead to increased appetite because the brain doesn't register being full. So people who gain weight from drinking a lot of pop are in control of whether or not to drink it. But it still doesn't explain how some people can drink pop all day and not gain weight, whereas for other people a habit of just one pop a day can cause weight gain.

Yes, some people are in control of their eating and exercise habits and could lose weight if they tried, and for many the "calories in=calories out" adage is true. The American lifestyle in general isn't one that lends itself well to remaining fit. But the playing field isn't level anymore. Between medications that cause weight gain and major changes in the way people eat, a pretty sizable number (no pun intended) of people are going to be overweight even when they exercise and eat an appropriate number of calories.

[Skittles]

42. here are my answers

I've never been fat and yes, I think in most cases it can be "controlled" - and yes it is calories in, calories out....but, do I fault fat people? No. Know why? Because I struggle with a nicotine addiction....how fair is it for me to say WHY CAN'T THEY JUST STOP EATING SO MUCH when I know how hard it is for me not to light up?

[Kali]

88. This one allways gets me

Most addictions can be helped by staying away from the substance or circumstances surrounding whatever the addiction is. Food and eating are sort of needed to LIVE. Being a control freak in most areas of my life, I have occasionally wondered if I "chose" a food addiction as being one of the absolute worst to have? Since it's impossible to go cold turkey (ha ha) with food. I also recognize a strong genetic component to my size - most all the women in the old pictures are pretty heavy-set. Add in apnea and that is at least three factors for me.

I think as usual, there are multiple and complex factors and the simple answers rarely are simple to implement.

[_testify_]

192. I'm with you

Try to quit smoking by purchasing cigarettes 3x a day. Guaranteed to fail. It is the worst addiction to have, because you have to make the right choices so OFTEN.

I quit smoking a year ago. The only time I'm remotely tempted is on line at the 7-11, buying something else. I have to make a choice not buy smokes, but compare that to having make that choice all day long.

[laundry_queen]

51. As a person for whom

overeating is a physiological issue, I think that particular component has been missing in all these 'fat' threads.
I have severe insulin resistance. Unfortunately, it runs in my family. Insulin resistance means my body has no problem MAKING insulin, but the cells just don't respond well. So my body has to make more and more insulin to keep my blood sugar levels down. I'm not diabetic, not yet, but it is a prediabetic condition. However, the amount of insulin coursing through me is tremendous and leaves me ravenous a lot. Insulin is the 'hunger' hormone. In a normal person, eating a meal will cause a corresponding rise in insulin, which will act on the cells to absorb the energy (Sugar) and then sugar levels will slowly drop as the free insulin in the body remains, and when the sugar gets low enough and there's enough insulin still free, hunger is triggered. In my body, when I eat, insulin is released. The cells don't respond to the insulin, and so are starved and release an SOS to my body to release MORE (and MORE) insulin. IN the meantime, my blood sugar rises quickly and in an attempt to get it under control, my body releases yet MORE insulin. The insulin level finally reaches a saturation point where it can be used by the cells, and the cells, ravenous, use up all the sugar in the blood quickly, causing it to crash and leaving enormous amounts of insulin in the body. Which the insulin, being the hunger hormone and being present in extra large quantities, triggers ravenous hunger.
Eating anything high in carbs or sugar exacerbates the problem. Also, the more weight gain, the more the cells become resistant to insulin. It's a vicious circle.
Unfortunately, in a lot of a medical circles, insulin resistance, (which is somewhat related to hypoglycemia) is not widely recognized as a 'condition'. It is known that people who have it are at high risk of developing diabetes, but as of right now, there is no screening that could help identify people who have it.
I have no doubt, there are many people out there who have some form of this and have no idea. They eat a high carb meal, with little protein (or fat) and no matter how much they eat they find themselves STARVING within the hour.
It is not an emotional type of eating. Nor is it easily controlled by willpower. When your body is giving you the signal that you are STARVING and MUST EAT NOW, it's difficult to ignore.
Of course, a well rounded diet, high in veggies and protein, as well as eating very small meals, more often, can help. As does losing weight (which is made more difficult because of the condition itself). Exercise also helps the body to utilize its insulin more effectively. But while these are all good recommendations, it really is THAT much more difficult.
For myself, I've been working my butt off (well, I wish it would come off! lol) for over 3 months now. I've lost a whopping 6 pounds. That's weight training, doing 40-50 min of cardio everday, and completely swearing off junk food. I don't measure my portions but I do know what serving sizes look like (3 domino sizes of cheese = 1 serving, etc) and I try to stay within that. But it's hard. Sometimes I have to eat 8 times a day to stop my stomach from growling from hunger. I keep my snacks SMALL (veggies, an apple, 1/2 serving of yogurt). But still, it's a struggle. Everyday. And I wish I didn't have to justify myself like this.

[treestar]

52. It has a lot to do with metabolism

It is not well enough understand to be the basis for puritanical moral judgment.

Even if it could be said to be entirely due to the person's choices, they aren't really hurting anybody.

This country's culture is always puritanical about something. Notice being fat was not so horrifying when sex was evil and terrible. It's like we had to have something to replace it after the sexual revolution.

[Avalon Sparks]

53. I'm convinced dieting makes you fat.......

I am convinced dieting makes you fat.

I know in my case my weight has gone up and down since I was 12 years old.

This is what happens....

I went on my first diet of restricted eating at age 12. I lost about 10 pounds... as soon as the diet is over I gain back the 10 pounds plus 5 more and stayed that weight until I dieted again.

Lose 15 pounds... gain back 20 - stayed that weight until I dieted again. And on and on...

This has been a pattern with me for the last 30 years.

As soon as I stop dieting the weight comes back on so quickly with 5 extra pounds each time- even if I really haven't stuffed myself or over eaten to the extreme. After restricted eating - just going back to what most would consider normal eating packs the pounds right back on me. Like my body can't wait to get back to where it was and add a little extra for insurance or something.

What has convinced me that calories in/ calories out cannot be completely true is that once I've gained the weight plus 5 pounds back - I will stay that weight no matter how much I eat, or when I eat until I diet again. The longest I have stayed the same weight has been about 4 years. The 4 years I went without dieting at all.

I don't understand how that's possible, but I know in my case it's true. Each time I diet I end up heavier than when I started.

I honestly think that if I had never gone on a restricted eating program I would only be a few pounds overweight instead of where I'm at now.

I am an expert at dieting, still even in my 40's I can lose weight by severe calorie restriction (less than 1000 calories a day) and moderate exercise. But even with moderate exercise if I just basically start eating again - let's say 1500 to 2000 calories a day the weight comes roaring back until I hit 5 pounds over what I was.. then I plateau and I swear I couldn't gain another pound to save my life until I diet again.

I think the majority of people that are very overweight are probably experts at dieting and gaining it back plus more. I'm surprised I don't see this talked about more.

[Kali]

94. too bad trying to gain weight wouldn't cause

one to go back to original minus five pounds when one went back to regular eating - ha ha

(joking but wonder if anyone has looked at this - I know what you describe is pretty well established/accepted in med. community and is one reason I have never fallen for dieting, I can see that doesn't work)

[Nikia]

137. It's because your metabolism falls during restriction

Your body wants to stay at your set point so it slows burning in response. It may also send signals making you feel more lethargic so you are less active or send signals to make you more hungry so that you will eat more. Bodies want to stay at the same weight, but if the choice is being lighter or heavier, the body usually chooses to be heavier. This is true for most people and mammals in general.

[undergroundpanther]

54. Fat is NOT a moral issue

Fat is not a moral failing,it in no way says a person is weak,inferior,weak willed,stupid,or less of a human being.

Fat is part of the human condition.Some get fat others don't. It is not always a simple case of calories in..

TYhere are medications thast cause weight gain,there are conditions that cause it,there are situations emotional reasons and every BODY is different. And everybody deserves human dignity and to live free of abuse and stigmas.

That said.. I can say don't know about anyone elses body and why they are the way they are.NOT MY PLACE TO JUDGE AND DIAGNOSE them..
I don't know why diets work for less than ten percent of dieters.And why diets fail for the majority and most cannot keep the weight off for longer than 2 years.Neither do doctors.They guess.They study they try to figure it out and they haven't yet. Everyday there is another sometimes conflicting health message hyped to the hilt.
http://www.onthewhole.info/2005/04/new_cdc_study_d.html

I know fans of science like to believe they have simple answers but in a world like this nothing is simple..
http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/792.html

I also know health used as a mesuring stick standard of worth and moral standing can lead to some pretty sick social idealogies like fascism and eugenics

I do know this . This chronic belittling,humiliating and dehumanizing of fat people at every turn DOES NOT HELP.

[Bridget Burke]

70. Calling people Nazis is a bit judgmental....

Some medical conditions--& some medications--throw things out of balance. I don't judge others by their weight, especially when they obviously have good qualities. Fixating on one's weight is not a good quality, whether it's fretting about staying size 2 or fretting about being size 22x. Why not just get on with your life?

But, for most people, watching our diet & exercising keep us within a healthy weight range. By "watching our diet" I don't mean "going on a diet."

By the way--what's wrong with being a "fan of science"? I'm not a Creationist, either.

[Rosemary2205]

55. No, No and No

1. In the vast majority of cases morbid obesity is a result of lifestyle and/or emotional messages learned from the cradle on. While "technically" a person "can" overcome the emotional damage that created the food addiction, and/or lifestyle behaviors - the success rate for the morbidly obese to maintain a thin weight long term is incredibly dismal. Nature created us to eat and conserve energy. Not starve and run until we puke.

2. Calories in and calories out is SCIENTIFICALLY true however, science does not exist in a vacuum. A morbidly obese person with a BMI over 50 walking at 4mph on a treadmill will burn roughly 2/3 the calories of an athletic person with a BMI of 25-30. Mainly because the morbidly obese person has spent years f'ing up their metabolism without realizing it. A morbidly obese person, can, in fact, eat the same number of calories as an athletic person, work out at the same intensity and time, and the morbidly obese person will continue to gain weight where the athletic person will maintain weight.

3. I won't bother with the last as we agree.

[BlooInBloo]

74. ROFL! Apparently "no" really DOES mean "yes" sometimes!

On your first two answers at least... I wonder why you were SOOOO loathe to simply say "yes"?

Also, why do you write as though the field of choices consists ONLY of fat and something like anorexic? Maybe you don't actually think that way, but you sure WRITE like it's that way: "Nature created us to eat and conserve energy. Not starve and run until we puke."

[Rosemary2205]

102. Your lack of understanding

is simply a sign that you have no intimate experience with morbidly obese people and their weight battles. My humble advice is to widen your circle a bit to educate yourself.

[uppityperson]

103. Why are you so rude?

people answer you in depth and you insult them.

[BlooInBloo]

113. Because it looks like defensive obfuscation to me.

EDIT: spelling in subject.

[JackDragna]

56. Answers.

Yes, most people can control their weight. For the second part, calories in, calories out is accurate: it's just a matter of where "out" ends up being. Some people convert nearly all the calories they intake outside of those involved in maintaining their basic functions into fat. No, fat people shouldn't be treated with less respect.

[deFaultLine]

58. Check out...

Something called Metabolic Syndrome X. The easiest way to think about it is to simply look at the fat distribution. If you store it in your thighs, you are probably fairly healthy. If you store it around your mid-section, then you are at risk for a whole host of problems. Women should have a waist/hip ratio of around .7 and men should be around .85 for optimal health.

The fact is that much of what we eat shuts down our body's ability to function. This is one reason why some foods will slow us down. Foods with high trans-fat content, such as what you find deep fat fried at fast food restaurants, will really screw you up. The fries will probably cause you to gain weight while the hamburger won't. Counter-intuitive, but true,

You also are onto the fact that constant dieting tends to slow the metabolism down.

Finally, a lot of evidence is piling up about the need for vitamin D. The 400 IU that many of us took isn't enough to keep us fit and healthy during the winter and recent recommendations have quadrupled the recommended intake...and it should probably be higher.

I will be posting more about this topic as time goes on.

[Quantess]

65. Yes, and,

I believe strongly in eating huge amounts of leafy greens, and other vegetables and fruits. Fill up on vegetables. They make you feel full with low calories and high fiber.

[deFaultLine]

96. Ah grasshoppah!

You have touched upon one of the "secrets" of healthy living. Eat more fruits and vegetables.

[Random_Australian]

63. Random_Australian!!!

1) Self control can be overridden a lot easier than most if us think - in fact, I should suspect that if your nutrition is poorly, or for any other reason your brain does not think that your body isn't getting all the things it needs, then it will reduce self control (or any other thing that stands in the way of getting food), which instinctively leads us to bad food, processed stuff and what not, which does not have the required nutrients, so the cycle repeats.

In other words, self control is formed by the brain - if it is not useful to the brain, it will be reduced (unless certain circumstances are met). However, if this combines with unhealthy cognition, such as dislike of self-image, fear of social evalaution et cetera, the brain gets stressed, and that changes body chemistry which, in general, makes a person fatter. (more in #2)

2) Weight gain is influenced by many, many things. Metabolism is always a main factor, but there are many things that affect both the metabolic rate, and how the body stores and burns the various compounds it makes from the energy.

Calories out = calories burned = Efficiency coefficient * {Sigma} k = 1 to n (Type k av rate(k)*time (k)) = Total work done + Total Heat Energy emitted

which means these things are important:
A) From what source in the body is the energy taken from?
B) How much excercise they do
C) How cold it is
D) Their metabolic efficiency

But remember, if you use the wrong parts when you take your energy, the body will 'think' you are not getting enough food, and increase the desire and percieved reward of food.

3) Under no circumstances is a human to be treated as anything other than a human.

Just my $0.05

[undergroundpanther]

64. Anyone remember THIS???

CDC Study Overestimated Deaths From Obesity

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 24, 2004; Page A11

Federal health officials said yesterday they had overestimated in a high-profile study the number of Americans dying from being overweight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/11/24/AR2005033110261.html


• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced last year that obesity kills 400,000 Americans a year. A CDC study last month reduced that estimate to 26,000. For now. Were the earlier numbers hyped? CDC concedes that estimating obesity-related deaths is an "evolving" science.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-05-04-number-edit_x.htm

[raccoon]

71. Prescription meds can cause weight gain.

How much of obesity in Americans is caused by prescription meds, I don't know, nor does anybody else. But with so many people taking so many meds, my guess is it's a lot.

You seem to have an unusual degree of interest in this topic.

Some have mentioned here and there on DU, that while it's no longer considered acceptable to bash members of ethnic minorities, it's still considered acceptable to bash fat people.

It's also still considered acceptable to bash Southerners and Southern states. You see it here on DU frequently.

I guess it's human nature that everybody needs to feel superior to somebody else.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

72. From a fat guy (who is slowly becoming less fat)

1) I am in control of my weight. I became fat due to overeating and sloth. My overeating could loosely be tied to dissatisfaction with my life...but only loosely as I still have some dissatisfaction and am successfully losing weight.

2) I believe for the vast majority of cases it is 'cals in, cals out'. My metabolism was slowed by my inactivity and has come around a good bit with increased exercise.

3) I have found that if I let my 'fatness' be the defining characteristic in any situation that I was treated with less respect. If decided to remember that my 'person' was more important to put forward than my 'fatness' thing seemed to change.

sP

[NicoleM]

73. Honest question about fat:

What's it to ya? If you're going to treat me the same as everybody else, why do you care whether I'm fat because I sit on my ass eating bonbons all day or because I have a metabolic disorder?

[BlooInBloo]

75. ROFL! Um, because I like to know the truth? Sheesh.

So defensive and touchy.

[NicoleM]

81. THAT was touchy??

Wow. It was a question, same as yours.

[BlooInBloo]

83. ROFL!!! "What's it to ya?" It's just a question (dripping with innocence)

You kill me.

[Marie26]

85. Are you sure you're asking

this honestly, or is it because you've got some issues w/fat people? The questions seem innocent enough, but the later replies are making me wonder.

[BlooInBloo]

87. (shrug) You're welcome to your own thoughts.

I have no issues with fat folks.

I just wanted to separate the *factual* dimension from the *moral* dimension as best I could, and then try to get clearer on the factual side.

Why - do YOU have issues with fat folks? As long as we're all accusing each other, I mean...

[Marie26]

90. Good to know

There's a moral dimension to weight? Do tell! I've got no issue w/fat folks one way or the other. I basically just like to see everyone treated w/dignity & respect.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Marie26]

95. Really?

I'm trying to catch you being mean? I said it's good to know that you're asking these questions honestly. Now you are being nasty, though, as you have to other people who questioned the motive here. And that's what made me wonder. People generally aren't that touchy w/o a reason. As I recall, you posted in other threads about fat people awhile back, which makes me wonder, why all this interest from a thin person? I don't see how the "moral dimension" of how people treat overweight people has anything to do w/the "factual reasons" people become overweight, so it's hard to see how those two separate issues could become complicated. But whatever. IMO, it seems like you started this thread not to ask questions, but to provide answers & debunk people who say obesity isn't the person's fault. Nothing wrong w/having an opinion. But maybe it'd be better to state that opinion flat-out in the OP rather than disguising it as an innocent question. Just IMO. Flame away.

[One_of_8]

126. Moral dimension?

WTF are you talking about? Here's a question for you: Do you believe that sometimes, it is morally wrong to be overweight? If so, when is it wrong? And why is it morally wrong?

[BlooInBloo]

129. "moral dimension" = my question 3)

Which I separated from the "factual dimension", which I put in my 1) and 2).

I have no idea why people have so much trouble with that. I suppose it's tied up with people wanting to treat anyone who asks questions as a "fat-basher".

[Beausoir]

110. Oh bullshit! Spare us. You're simply trying to rouse the fat-bashers.

You've already made up your mind about your own special brand of "truth".

Give it a rest.

[BlooInBloo]

118. Bizarre. Fat-bashers need no rousing from me. Whatever.

[raccoon]

86. I can't believe you would even have to ask that question.

"3) Regardless of one's answers to the above questions, should fat folks be treated with less respect as parents, as cocmmunity members, as customers, as people than any others?

I'm under the impression that the answer to this is "no". Good luck getting me to revise this one."

Arrogance on that last statement, aren't you?

Would you DARE to ask:

"should folks of (insert ethnic group here) be treated with less respect as parents, as cocmmunity members, as customers, as people than any others?"

Your insensitivity and arrogance boggles the mind.

[BlooInBloo]

89. No accounting for taste I guess.

I completely fail to see what's insensitive or arrogant about the statement.

[raccoon]

92. Somehow that doesn't surprise me. nt

[BlooInBloo]

93. Thanks for reprinting it tho - I missed the typo! ("community")

[politicat]

97. Complex chemical questions you're asking there...

There was an experiment in the 40s on starvation, and one of the things learned is that no, the body can do really strange things to ensure survival. So, no, weight gain or loss is not always under any single person's control. There are lots of factors that go into weight maintenance, from food intake and what types of food, to exercise and liquid consumption, to how much sleep the subject is getting. Case in point: I consume about 2200 calories a day, which lets me lose weight with my activity level. I'm 5'2". My husband is 6'3", 260 pounds, and consumes about the same in calories. We both bike to work and do our own housework, yard work, etc. Very physically active. And yet, he gains weight on what should be a weightloss level of calories for him. The major difference is that I sleep far better than he does, thanks to sleep medication, while he rarely, if ever, reaches a deep sleep. So it's not really possible to say yes, if you over-eat, you will get fat and yes, if you restrict your calories and eat less, you'll not get fat. It depends on metabolism and a lot of factors that have nothing to do with the food you put in your mouth. But it IS a complex question, and a degree in bio chem and nutritionist training is useful.

Medical science doesn't really understand obesity yet, and we do not have a solid grasp on the metabolic processes that govern weight. UCLA is doing a lot of metabolic studies right now, and they've put their results lectures on their website. www.uctv.com (and search for understanding obesity.) Two people on the same diet, doing the same amount of exercise can have radically different metabolic rates depending on their genetic legacy. (Gross oversimplification ahead:) If your ancestors lived in a land of plenty, where being thin was not an evolutionary detriment, then you probably will lose and gain weight easily. But if your ancestors lived in a place where winter, seasonal drought or periodic famine was common, it's really likely that you got a copy of at least one of the "thrifty genes" which make the body store calories (as fat) when under any sort of stress, such as an increase in exercise (because that is the signal for the long migration), a decrease in calories (tightening the belt for famine), or darkness (winter's coming, and we need the insulation of fat.)

So in answer to calories in, calories out, yes, it is possible to gain weight without increasing caloric intake. Either: be under stress and have the thrifty genes working against you, or be inactive or have a metabolic shift. Activity works to prime the body's pump. For most women my size, 30 minutes of exercise and 2200 calories a day is sufficient to maintain weight. If we stop exercising, we gain weight, slowly. For me, I need about 2 hours of exercise plus manual housework to keep my metabolism running at a normal level. But if I go over that 2 hours, I start cueing my body that we're on the long migration, so I stop losing weight (or start gaining it, if I'm maintaining.) People under stress often gain weight because of the adrenal shifts caused by stress.

The equation should read : caloric intake x (metabolic multiplier N) - (exercise multiplier Y) = weight maintenance. And since there are variables in that equation, it's not going to be the same for everyone. We don't understand metabolism, and we're not learning real quickly.

[BlooInBloo]

116. You tried to disagree with me, but failed.

"So, no, weight gain or loss is not always under any single person's control."

That contains your attempt to disagree with me, and its failure.

[One_of_8]

128. So you did have an agenda right from the start

In your original post you ask:

1) In the vast majority of cases that are typically of interest, is a person's weight under their control or not? PLEASE NOTE: I asked about the vast majority of cases, and not any of the various outlying cases that may exist.

I was under the impression that the answer to this was "yes",

You get a response that says, "no, weight gain or loss is not always under any single person's control."

I thought you were just under the impression that a person's weight was under their control, and that you were seeking other's thoughts on the matter before arriving at a decision. Now however, it is clear that you had already formed your opinion, and really just wanted to mock those who disagree with you.

You say this person failed at their attempt to disagree with you. How so?

[BlooInBloo]

130. It would be insulting of me to treat you as though you cannot read...

... So that's a hard question for me to answer...

i LOVE how you "conveniently" snipped the part of the "my impression..." thought that was INconvenient for your attempt to paint me as flamebait person. That was GENIUS.

[One_of_8]

135. (shrug) From what I can tell

what do you care if you insult me or not; or anyone else on the thread who disagrees with you? I've figured out all I need to know about you from your responses to me and others.

[politicat]

154. What part of genetics don't you get?

What part of food supply is out of your intellectual grasp? What part of enzymatic reactivity is under conscious control?

Answer: None of them. One has absolutely zero control over one's genetic makeup, which allows for hormonal, enzymatic and neurochemical patterning. There is absolutely nothing that any human being can do to control the amount of leptin, cortisol or dopamine production in the body. Dopamine can be inhibited or supplemented for short periods of time, but neither cortisol nor leptin can be effective supplemented or inhibited by any drug known to man. Removing part of the stomach is the only way to inhibit leptin production in the short term, but leptin levels in the body are controlled by multi-gene genetic factors rather than any single gene that can be treated with drugs or genetic therapy. So the body will ramp up leptin production even in people who have had gastric bypass surgery after 10-24 months. (Read MD Jensen's Collection and interpretation of plasma leptin concentration data in humans, Obesity Research,1999.)

None of us as individuals have control over the food supply. Since people tend to actually store more calories per calorie consumed in the form of fat when food is scarce (because they process it more efficiently), and overeat as evolution programmed us to do when food is plentiful, (as thousands of high school rat experiments have shown) humans are prone to adding body weight any time they can. Unless one only eats what one can grow, hunt or scavenge by oneself, the food supply is out of our control. I'm not saying that just because it's there, we *should* eat it, but 200,000 years of evolution have programmed a strong instinct to eat what's in front of us as often as we can. That's a hard cue to unlearn and one that is almost impossible to medicate or breed out. No individual has control of how ancestors managed their food supply, so blaming obesity on the genetic recipient is about as sensible as blaming hemochromatosis on the child of Norwegian parents. (Hemochromatosis is a genetic disorder where the body scavenges iron and stores excessive amounts. It was adaptative in environments with poor iron content in the soil, such as Ireland and the North Atlantic.)

Finally, enzymatic reactivity is far from conscious. A good percentage of the population have enzymatic cues that the consumption of X or activity Y trigger the need for Z. For some people its meat, then sugar, or sex then sleep, heavy sweating and salt, or spinach or chocolate and milk. Protein requires carbs to process effectively, and simple carbs are the easiest to get into the digestive system. Fatigue toxins like lactic acid from vigorous activity trigger the need for sleep. The body requires sodium to keep the heart going and it is lost while sweating; oxalic acid in spinach and chocolate inhibit calcium absorption, so many people feel the need to up their calcium intake after consuming either. These are strong triggers that can be insanely hard to avoid. Will power is great, but not necessarily reasonable. Watch a kid who has genetic hyponatremia sometime - these children require 10 to 30 times the salt a normal adult needs. Their first word is usually salt. Or a child with celiac disease, who will go to whatever lengths necessary to avoid wheat. You can't tell me that these children are going to have the willpower to resist an enzymatic reaction.

You obviously have an agenda and are about as interested in science as my cat. Grow up and get your prejudicial jollies elsewhere. (My only dog in this race is treating people with eating disorders in a scientifically sound, nutritionally functional way. I read the documentation. Do you?)

[Cathyclysmic]

104. That's a question you can answer yourself.

Just people watch. If you have co-workers, watch and keep track of what and how much people eat. In general, people who eat more, weigh more. But, there are exceptions.

[Nikia]

106. 1 and 2 appear not to be entirely true

That are many factors involved in weight gain and weight loss. In mammal studies, it has been found that in general, our bodies want to stay at a set weight and send signals to affect appetite and activity levels as well as adjust metabolically if the signals aren't heeded.
I also remember watching a video in high school health about a prisioner study where they got volunteers to try to gain and then lose weight, recording everything they ate and did. Some people gained or lost weight a lot easier even when their diets and exercise were virtually identical.
Calories in calories out is a simplification. There are other alternatives that the body can engage in other than burning fat when it is low on calories.

[BlooInBloo]

115. Why don't people get this? "cals out" MEANS burning (= metabolism).

That is, metabolic differences, which are personal, is ACCOUNTED FOR by the (shorthand for some complicated formula) "cals in, cals out" tagline. The point of the phrase (unless I've radically misunderstood it) is that there's supposed to be a certain sort of equilibrium, or matching between the "cals in" (typically eating), and "cals out" (one factor of which is metabolic rate).

Has my understanding gone massivle awry somewhere? I suspect so, since it's unlikely that so many people are "wrong" on this, while I'm the only one that's "right"...

[Nikia]

121. Metabolism can adjust or get messed up

Many healthy mammals tend to stay at a fairly constant weight even if their calorie intake goes up or down because their metabolism and/or desire for activity increases or decreases.
Some people have higher or lower set point to their weight.
Stress, lack of sleep, varying illness, age, and other factors can affect set point and how one's metabolism responds.
Personally, I don't know why people some become morbidly obese. Sometimes, it seems that it should be physically impossible, especially in some cases. Really, shouldn't it be impossible for a person under 6 feet tall to be over 400 pounds if they are physically active and aren't constantly eating? It must be that they have a high set point weight and/or a messed up metabolism.

[BlooInBloo]

122. True - metabolism can change. The need to maintain...

... that equilibrium doesn't change tho - right? Or is it ok, from a weight-gaining perspective, to be out of "metabolic equilibrium" (ie taking in more calories than one's body can burn via all available methods)?

As I understand it (ie, please correct me where wrong), if one's ability to burn increases (there are various ways one's brun rate might be increased, such as metabolism, exercise, etc.), they need to take in more calories in order to avoid getting out of equilibrium. And if one's burn rate decreases, one must decrease the caloric intake in order to remain at equilibrium. (Assuming one starts off right AT equilibrium before the hypothesized change in burn rate).

Is that generally correct? Or have I gone wrong somewhere?

That generically how I understand the "statics" of the situation. The "dynamics" involve changing exactly WHAT the equilibrium is, and I have only a very sketchy idea of how that works, so I won't bother writing my ignorance on that down :) .

[Nikia]

143. But metabolism can change in response

If you feed someone 500 calories less per day, they might lose one pound per week. Alternatively, their bodies might burn 500 calories less per day. They also might feel more lethargic and have less desire to burn calories through activity. They might also feel really hungry and break their diet if they have access to other food.
At some point, it is unhealthy to keep decreasing calories even if one can control ones eating. A low calorie diet often means not enough of certain vital nutrients. A person's body may also decrease function of vital organs or even burn vital organs, even if they still do have body fat.

[Beausoir]

108. More poorly disguised flame-bait for the fat-bashers. Great.

[BlooInBloo]

114. Your opinion is common. I conclude from it...

... that it simply isn't possible to ask questions about fatness without being labelled a fat-basher.

(shrug) Okie. Let (my and others') ignorance continue unimpeded. Way to help the cause.

[Beausoir]

150. Uh...exactly what "cause" are you trying to help?

I didn't buy one single word of your "I'm sincerely ignorant and just trying to ask some sincere questions!" post.

Your intentions are less than pure and you better get up a LOT earlier in the morning if you want to try and pull the wool over our eyes.

You could give a shit about fat people. You aren't one. You have no idea what it is like to BE one. You just wanted to do alot of gum-flapping, under the guise of really "delving" into the issue.

No sale, sweets. Move on.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

177. Maybe He Really Doesn't Care About Fat People

Maybe he just wants to know more, without all of the hyperdefensiveness that often accompanies these threads.

Unlikely, I know. But hey, it's worth a shot.

DTH

[BlooInBloo]

190. Is it worth a shot? I thought so, but not so sure anymore...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

124. Really? I Thought It Was An Incredibly Thoughtful And Well Thought Out

piece.

I didn't get the slightest intention of flamebait from the OP, but rather got a tone of understanding and desire for non flamed communication and discussion.

I consider the OP to be extremely respectfully worded and exactly the type of tone that DU threads should be written in. There are too many emotionally radical or ranting threads that go on that do absolutely qualify as flame bait. This is not one of them. The poster did a great job in my opinion, dealing with a sensitive topic.

[BlooInBloo]

132. (blush) Sweartagod I just wanted to get the factual part straight...

Or at least more-or-less straight.

I did learn that there are different "types" of calories tho - that was useful and interesting.

[Quantess]

175. different "types" of calories? Edit-never mind.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure a calorie is just a calorie.

Fat has more of them of course, but it's basically all the same. I suspect some people seriously underestimate how many calories they consume, and seriously overestimate how many they expend. I'm not trying to insult anyone who has difficulty losing weight, or maintaining a healthy weight. It's not easy, I know. And I don't want to seem like I'm judging anyone. It's your body, do what you want with it.

But, calories in = calories out is the truth.

(Upon edit: I just read post #123, which is a very good post! I yield to post #123, for the great info)

[Marie26]

185. I think he was being sarcastic. nt

[BlooInBloo]

189. No, I wasn't being sarcastic. Was the one who said it mistaken? Doh.

[Marie26]

194. D'oh!

I don't know, since I'm not an nutritionist & not knowledgeable about what calories are. Sorry if I perceived sarcasm rather than complete sincerity.

[Beausoir]

151. Bullshit again. Read the OP's responses in this thread and then get back

to me with your strong defense. The agenda is perfectly clear to any simpleton.

This is nothing more than flamebait. Period. End of discussion.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

176. Overly Sensitive Much? (eom)

DTH

[mars67]

112. don't want to hurt anyone's feelings BUT...

...Thin people in MOST societies are judged to be more attractive and more desirable. Many studies agree with this assertion (look 'em up for yourself as they are numerous)and it is a result of evolutionary biology. Although many cultures (even when considering various historic periods/societies) differ in what is considered attractive two primary factors are universal: 1. Body Symmetry and 2.Body Mass Index (mass vs.structure). After reading many of the posts on this topic I can't help but think that there are many here who are overweight and feel they must defend their size, diet and lifestyle.I might have been among you at one time. I was, two years ago, 100lbs overweight, had high cholesterol level, high blood pressure, knee problems from the weight and fatty liver syndrome. I decided to make a change and began working out regularly and completely changed my diet. I decided to go vegetarian (later vegan) and work out 3-4 days per week (now 6-7). I began by walking, then jogging, now running/hiking and a weight lifting program. I actually spend much less money on food after changing my diet and use what I save for gym fees (I am a social worker and earn around $28,000 in the great state of GA.). I now have no health problems, lost 105 lbs. and have never been in better shape (my Dr. says I have the cardiovascular system of a well trained athlete!). I look great and people treat me completely different than when I was fat. And you know what, I like it and feel no guilt about this particular societal peculiarity. Nope, none at all. I realize that there are some folks who have medical (physical/mental health) conditions, take medication etc.. which prevent them from losing weight. However, many, many folks here in the States eat too much (and eat high calorie, high saturated fat, high cholesterol diets) and exercise too little. Obesity IS rampant and all it takes is to look around a bit when in public. We are a nation of (increasingly) large people whose health problems are put in check by prescription medications in order to prolong life. I feel that almost anyone,regardless of race, class and budget AND if properly motivated, can take charge of their lives and lose weight (if you are 20 or more lbs overweight generally). The way society (generally speaking) treats overweight people (I have seen the scowls, the snickering and head shaking myself) may be unfair but hey, sorry, it's how things go. Given our society is also very unhealthy/overweight this makes us a bunch of hypocrites but we are also products of our genetic/evolutionary tendencies. Here is a pretty good link about "attractiveness" on Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

[Quantess]

131. Thanks for your inspiring story.

It's about taking care of your body.
People who are obese are abusing their bodies.

[Beaverhausen]

117. Honest questions about bigotry

Is it something that you can't control?

Is it possible to be bigotted about some things but not others?

Should bigots be treated just like any other person?

[ismnotwasm]

120. There is an enormous psychological factor

That makes it more then metabolism and "calories in, calories out."
I just feel if we had realistic standards for people, especially a less harsh beauty standard for women, possibly food wouldn't have the comfort and addictive properties it does.
Also, eating patterns, ancestry (which would be genetics) and metabolic balance all are factors. Some are nothing but uphill battles for people to fight, and I can't-and won't- fault those who weary of the struggle, the attitudes and judgment of others.

I'm 46 and in very good shape. It's a hobby for me, and I enjoy it. It's also genetics and hormonal because I'm "buff" without a gym, I use light weights, yoga and long walks. Easy right? Another would do what I do, eat what I eat, and GAIN weight. I haven't experienced the middle age thing yet, but I did decide to keep a little more body fat than I had been because it looks better on me at my age. Note "I decided" I realize this is extremely uncommon, and it has to do with a variety of physical and psychological factors that make up who I am.

And I find myself telling young women half my age "you are NOT fat" because they aren't. It's disturbing.

What is annoying me right now, is that "fat" is just an external appearance. I've found it tells little about the person inside, except I usually figure they've been hurt and abused at some point by the cruel and judgmental.

[SmokingJacket]

136. I know very few women who are naturally thin after 35 or 40.

Most of the women I know who are thin monitor their food incredibly strictly, exercise a lot, and pretty much never stop being vigilant. Most of us, myself included, work hard just to stay average.

Nature wants us fat.

(I do know a number of naturally thin men, but their numbers dwindle with age too.)

[BlooInBloo]

138. Curious: does that vary by country?

And it should be noted that "nature wants us fat" is NOWHERE NEAR the only possible explanation of the phenomenon. Maybe that is in fact (shorthand for) the true reason, but the argument as presented is a massive non-sequitor.


EDIT: put the word "possible" in, which hopefully clarifies my thrust. Wouldn't count on it in this thread tho.

[Nikia]

141. It is naturual that women gain weight around menopause

It is part of the lifecycle. Women who are in peak fertility are hourglass shape. After peak fertility, it is naturual to change shape, which usually comes in the form of added weight to the abdomen.

[BlooInBloo]

142. Fair 'nuff - there is women-specifc stuff that happens....

... which is a different conversation that the GENERAL conversation I was aiming at with this thread... but still good to know...

I guess that facet of it would NOT vary so much across country, without other factor (eg availability of food) butting in.

[conflictgirl]

161. Yes, and other hormone factors cause similar weight changes

PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome) affects 6-10% of all women. It involves an altered hormone profile, specifically higher levels of testosterone and lower levels of estrogen, higher levels of LH (luteinizing hormone) and FSH (follicle stimulating hormone). These hormones regulate the menstrual cycle and fertility.

The syndrome means that women who have it often have hormone profiles similar to menopausal women. As such, the same hormones that cause menopausal women to change shape and accumulate weight around the abdomen have the same effects on women with PCOS as well.

Not all women with PCOS have the weight gain, and as a syndrome, it's not well-understood yet. But *most* women with PCOS do have the weight gain. Considering that 6-10% of women have this condition, that alone accounts for a lot of overweight women.

[SmokingJacket]

144. Well, certainly, I'm not referring to any scientific studies...

and my use of the word "nature" was kind of loose. Actually, "nature" wants us to be scratching for roots in the soil and occasionally pulling down a mastodon.

I guess what I mean is, our metabolisms are a bad fit for a society that depends so heavily on the car and has food close at hand. A person in a developed country -- especially a woman, I've noticed -- really can't just cruise along, eating whatever, and expect to stay thin. French women aren't naturally thin -- they're totally obsessed with staying thin. You have to be.

So... what I'm saying is a lot of people think you have to actively overeat in order to get fat. And yeah, technically, you do. But the average American diet WILL make you fat, eventually, if you don't take active steps to avoid it.

I think a lot of people get fat just because they're not paying attention and they don't FEEL like they're pigging out -- they're just eating "normally."

[Nikia]

139. Many women over 70 are naturually thin

For some reason, many elderly people unintentionally lose weight in their later years. This has happened with all of my overweight relatives. They have become normal weight by their late 70s
Perhaps putting on weight in one's 40s and 50s helps protect one against later weight loss in that weight loss doesn't mean that they will become emaciated.

[CTyankee]

145. My mother gained weight in her 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s

By her mid to late 80s she started to lose weight and I was worried. She wasn't eating and was moping around in her bathrobe.

At age 88 I got her into assistive living because she had blown up her microwave and broken her coffee pot. I was worried sick.

She was a shell of herself, weighed under 100 lbs. (she was 5'3"). In assistive living she got to be 110 lbs. which was about right for her.

What was interesting to me was that her tummy bulge was reduced by her weight loss but not so much her breasts. I figure that I'll get into a 10 or an 8 pants but I'll still need a 12 in a top. Cuz I got just about everything she had, except her blonde hair (sob!).

[SmokingJacket]

149. My grandmother was complaining about being too fat into her 80s.

I'm from several generations of women who are all built exactly the same, and are(were) always dieting (or in my case, exercising) off the same offensive ten pounds.

(Incidentally, I always lose from the top, and gain on the bottom... double sob!)

[SmokingJacket]

148. Interesting point.

Old age is hard on a person -- a little extra flesh might put a little money in the bank.

[kineneb]

163. reason

As I know from my grandparents: the older person often looses the ability to taste foods that they had in their youth. This means that food simply does not taste like much, sort of like eating straw. Of course, one would loose weight if eating was a chore instead of a pleasure.

My poor grandmother eventually gave up eating much at all. She probably weighed 50 pounds when she died at 92.:cry:

[Quantess]

146. it's true.

Our bodies jealously hold on to fat, for survival. Our bodies think theres a famine just around the corner, because our ancestors had to live through harsh times.

Until recent times, people have had to do a lot of physical work, and food was harder to come by. People had to work hard, and their physiques were slimmer as a result. These days, we have the option to rest on our butts and eat as much as we want. But this is an unhealthy way to live. This is a new problem for humans.

And the weird thing is, at this time in history when most people are overweight, the models are all underfed & bony. :wtf: Normal-weight women used to be considered most beautiful.

Smoking jacket, I'm 35 and fairly slim, and no, it isn't easy. But by battling our weight, We are not only improving our appearances, we are improving our health. Besides, being fat is uncomfortable too.

[conflictgirl]

164. You are right, but there is also a class element at work

Low-income people have a much more difficult time remaining thin. There is less access to fresh produce, less time to prepare healthy food from scratch, and certainly no money to join a gym.

I totally agree with you that our bodies hold on to fat because of ancient instincts that may not be as useful to us now. And the American lifestyle makes it very difficult to be thin. To be thin in this society, you need to have the money to afford healthier food, the time to prepare healthier meals, and the time (and often money) to exercise.

At one point, I was 50 pounds above my "ideal" weight. I lost 30 pounds. Originally my doctor told me if I could lose just 10 percent of my body weight, I would be much healthier. I lost double that -20 percent of my body weight. But I'm still 20 pounds above my "ideal" weight. I am very frustrated that even though I lost twice as much weight as my doctor recommended, it still wasn't enough. Does everyone have to meet the "ideal weight" standard to be healthy?

When I was 30 pounds heavier, I was very physically uncomfortable. However, now at 20 pounds overweight, I don't feel that it's affecting my health. My blood sugar and blood pressure are well within normal. I exercise and eat well, and I just don't see why I need to lose more weight just because some arbitrary chart says I should. :shrug:

[WinkyDink]

147. My question is: What's it to anybody else? Don't like it? Don't look.

[undergroundpanther]

155. And some people

were never taught to keep their bigoted opinions to themselves.. never taught social graces,they just blurt out any old mean ass tripe rattling around in their evil little heads and call it free speech or their 'rights' because underneath it all they are just bigots. Bigots in my opinion deserve NO consideration from the people they are bigoted against. Hate fat people? well fat people have very right to despise your ass totally and humiliate the shit out of you bigot,because bigots ask for it... Hate gay people bigot? Well gays can hate bigots that hate them right back and tear you apart for it....bigots deserve hate because that's what they give. They dish it,they should get it back and then some.There is no excuse for tolerating bigots if they hurt YOU or someone you care about.Hate has to carry a penalty when hate stops carrying a penalty, this world will be hell.
Bigots wanna be a bigot to me? Well you will get hated Right back times ten.Wanna be a bully to me? I'll kick your stupid ass to the curb and mop the floor with your sniveling face.I HATE bullies,authoritarians,bigots and sociopaths.ALL of them.Bullies are social cancer in a human suit.

[WinkyDink]

172. I trust you are agreeing with me? Because my reply is to the OP,

who, IMHO, sounds a tad disingenuous about "just asking".

If, however, you are implying that I am the bigot, well, at least I know you're not from the NSA and thus haven't seen me! LOL!

[undergroundpanther]

180. I agree with you

And yes the OP was not honest about why she was asking..,I agree with that too.

[readmoreoften]

195. Just met with my personal trainer.

I worked out for 6 days a week and ate under 600 calories a day and lost only 3 pounds in 4 months. I went on strict vegan diet afterwards and gained 10 pounds in 2 months. My metabolism is completely shot from years of dieting and overexercising. Yes, it's a case of "calories-in/calories-out" but the calories DON'T GO OUT because my body is permanently in starvation mode.

We're working on changing that by creating a program where I actually eat more and work out less under strict supervision.

I see a lot of really obese people working out regularly in the gym, and many MANY skinny people eating corn chips and cheese cake.