One problem I have with the "obesity debate" we continually have here on DU is that it assumes

[Mike 03]

that only overweight/obese individuals dispute the "calories in calories out" explanation for being overweight.

I have been underweight my entire life, and even I have come to dispute the "calories in/calories out" explanation. In a sense it is true, but it completely ignores how endocrine disruptors in our environment alter the way that hormones become dysregulated and destroy normal metabolism.

Let me make it clear: I have no dog is this fight, other than that my parents have fought being overweight for years, and I've seen my mother face the scorn of people who detest seeing fat people.

I'm not saying that many people are not overweight because they eat too much. A lot of people do eat too much, and get no exercise. All I'm saying is that there are other factors involved, and it's hard for me to believe that anyone who even checks a website like medical news today on a regular basis could even still be questioning this at this point. There may be viral or bacterial components to obesity. There are genetic factors involved.

Questions remain.

It's extremely arrogant to stick to that "calories in/calories out" equation. And this is coming from someone who used to believe this entirely, chastise fat people for eating too much and not exercising enough, and used to post exactly those sorts of pompous posts.

This was my recent post to someone who thinks it is just an issue of math and calories:

"I used to be in your camp, but my view has shifted as I've begun to keep up with the medical studies that are coming out now.

It's fun and smug, for those of us who have always been thin, to reduce obesity to simple math. But it's becoming clear that something more is going on."

[Warpy]

1. Thank you for that

Oh, it's really tempting to hate obese people. They're slobs, they smell funny, they are pigs who refuse to limit their diets, they eat fast food, they eat the wrong food, they're lazy... and the list goes on for a depressingly long time.

It's not just math. Recent research has turned up adenovirus that reprograms cells to become additional fat cells. Metabolism can be affected by much more than just thyroid hormones. Lots of medications cause overweight. People with underlying medical issues who try to go on deficiency diets just end up getting sick but no thinner.

There is no permanent solution for obesity. Even the drastic measure of gastric surgery only supplies a temporary solution. 90% of people who lose weight by any means will gain it all back and more within 5 years.

Something else is going on besides lax morals leading to sloth and gluttony. It's high time the temporarily thin realize this and drop the smugness and hope for a real treatment.

After all, inside every skinny person there's a fat one being squeezed to death.
:evilgrin:

[we can do it]

12. I Had a Truly Huge Friend Who Was In Pretty Good Shape

She could walk in deep water at a good pace for an hour and she was super strong and a riot as well- looks do not matter....and its important to impress that you can feel better at any size when you get regular physical activity.....people on prednisone blow up like balloons, for one, though it may be a lot of fluid gain.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. After all, inside every skinny person there's a fat one being squeezed to death.

Ain't that the truth!!!!!!

[Sal Minella]

2. My stepmother ate enough for three people and remained skinny all her life.

If I had eaten like she did, I would have weighed 600 pounds.

At family gatherings, we learned to just keep the conversation going after everyone else was finished eating while she kept downing more helpings of whatever was within reach. And she looked like she lived on birdseed.

[paulsby]

3. calories

are based on heat measurement in a bomb calorimeter

there is not a 1:1 relationship with exothermic reactions in the body.

GIVEN that, it is clear that for the vast majority of the obese, it is behavior based. iow, what and how much they eat.

if you dispute that, then please explain why some countries (such as USA) have much higher obesity rates than others even when comparing like demographics (equalizing for age, gender, and race).

i have been a personal trainer, and i am a competitive weight classed athlete.

the science of losing fat is not rocket science. it is very difficult because it is painful, uncomfortable, etc.

it is not conceptually difficult to lose fat. it is not hard to understand how to do it.

i have to do it before every contest fwiw.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Check your stats again

Mexico beats us in the obesity category and people in the Southern Pacific, (Islanders) will gain weight faster than even White, I have to be specific, of northern European origin, Americans will

And lets not go into the Hopi studies, or Asian national studies, or African American Studies

Or studies related to insulin resistance in any and all these groups... and I could go on

I wish it was that simple, I truly do

[Tartiflette]

77. Are you sure?

I was skeptical of your claim that Mexico had higher obesity rates, and a quick google search revealed nothing to back that claim up. Wikipedia claims Mexico to have the second highest obesity rates in the developed world AFTER the US, and this appears to be borne out by a quick read of the most popular articles with statistics provided on the subject. Could you provide a link to your source?

[chimpyisstillsatan]

4. at the length truth will out

Is it arrogance when I can use Newtonian Physics to calculate a ballistic arc? Is it arrogance to dispute the possibility of perpetual motion machines because thermodynamics says matter is neither created nor destroyed? Is it arrogance to use calorimetry to study metabolism and show that, indeed, it is "calories, in calories out?"

The great thing about nature is that it doesn't give a crap about whose feelings get hurt. The cool thing about science is that you can propose a hypothesis and test it. No emotion necessary.

Quite conveniently:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ifM5-JYkZqK5TRXvsL40X89Frm2Q

"Eating heart-healthy, low-calorie foods and exercising is the key to losing weight regardless of levels of protein, fat or carbohydrates, a new study has found. The research, funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health, seems to argue against blanket use of diets that do not necessarily limit calories but call for eating certain foods such as vegetables or proteins, at the expense of others.

The NIH study of 811 volunteers, 38 percent of them men and 62 percent women, aged 30-70 and either overweight or obese, looked at diets that have been popular in the United States in recent years, even as the number of obese Americans has soared. The "Preventing Overweight Using Novel Dietary Strategies (POUNDS LOST) study found similar weight loss after six months and two years among participants assigned to four diets that differed in their proportions of these three major nutrients," said researchers.... study published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine."

[cliffordu]

19. don't fuck with thermodynamics....

Not just a good idea. It's the law......Yep, yep...

[whoneedstickets]

28. Exactly....We could solve the worlds energy crisis!

If we could figure out how someone could gain weight not eating! That would be better than fusion!

[seabeyond]

5. i get to eat a hell of a lot more than others, and not all healthy. my oldest

can eat whatever he wants, whenever he wants and still teased about too skinny.

MY problem with the obesity threads on du.... WHO THE FUCK CARES and NOT ANY OF ANYONES BUSINESS AT ALL and it isnt ALL of who a person is. if a person is so very shallow to lok at a person over weight and that is all they see of that person, shame on them. they are the ones with the problem. not the person overweight. give me the person overweight ANY day of the week over someone so very fuckin shallow and mean and arrogant and little

[we can do it]

9. I Have Problems with Judging People, Period

I really don't care what you look like. I really wish good health to all (well then there's bushncheney)......I don't like it when people offer facts or help (like suggesting exercise and healthy foods help everyone) they get called bigots or otherwise reamed. It makes no sense.

[seabeyond]

10. do you think a person battlin or even not battlin, but jsut being fat NEED

someone around to tell them "facts" or "help" on how to lose weight. do you think they have gone thru out there life, and someone says, you know, if you would cut your intake and exercise, you would lose weight and they say... wow, really. man, hit me up side the head, didnt have a clue. was clueless. thanks man.

or do you think the person offering this help or facts is really merely and only being condescending and judgmental. what business is it of that person to tell the person how to take care of themselves. how arrogant to think just by offering that person will nagically go take care of themselves. problem solved,. what a mircle worker.

that isnt what it is about


IF a person came to you and ASKED for suggestions, help, facts... then i am right there with you. otherwise, it is intrusive

[we can do it]

11. Yeah Kinda Like That

There can never be a discussion using facts- not insults- on this topic. Everyone who is trim isn't that way because of genetics any more than anyone who is fat (your word) is that way because of genetics.....I was fat and come from a big line of fat people- I've changed how I approach food and activity levels and want others to know its possible for them. I do get tired of people saying "oh you must have good genetics"- no man, I care enough about my health to do something about it besides blame others or throw a hissy when the topic of how to be healthy comes up......some people don't believe it unless its someone they know.

how about this- you are happy and set in your way and people keep pushing stuff at you all the time (fast food, junk food, greasy meat, you really don't need to go workout- you did the other day, sit and watch tv on and on.......
and,yeah it happens all the time, so get off your horse

[seabeyond]

21. and you didnt know what to do about losing weight. you were really clueless

until all of a sudden you did it? there werent a whole lot of other things going on with you that allowed you to stay fat until you decided you wanted to do something about it.

it is that very attitude of yours that riles me so. it is the person that stopped smoking that then becomes the most obnoxious in their know it all. WHEN someone wants your advice, then you can share your experience and THEN be helpful to a person, otherwise youa re an irritant that causes more damage than good.

[we can do it]

34. Yes I Was Helped By Others and I Help Others You Don't Know Me You ASSUME

Take your poor me attitude some where else. Where exactly does someone find good advice on health? on tv where they push ineffective miracle cures-thighmasters-diet pills? If this was about politics and you gave people info or corrected false info -it would be ok....if this was about a treatment for cancer that was making people sicker, it would be ok.....if we told others there is lead in a certain toy, it would be ok....to meand many others, its not about appearences - its about trying to help people be more healthy.....eat right exercise its simple- not easy and it takes dedication

[seabeyond]

36. again.... when you are asked, share. otherwise you cause more damage than help

btw... pretty damn arrogant to tell me to take my poor attitude elsewhere. who the hell are you to demand.

an example of attitude

[we can do it]

38. Not quite as full of myself as you are you attacked ME

I said first off, looks don't matter to me - I don't go walking around telling people I don't know anything. You keep assuming and you are again incorrect.

[seabeyond]

24. rush limbaugh did that too when he lost weight. the exact same attitude as you

see where he is today.

[Gemini Cat]

14. I agree.

There are lots of people who will decide what's best for others and will gladly say what's best for others and not understand why they received a fat lip for their service!

I am not heavy, however if I were heavy I'd get seriously pissed if I constantly got unsolicited advice and/or comments regarding my weight.

Pretentious judgmental behavior always gives me the red ass.

[seabeyond]

23. right there with you. not having had to experience people telling me how i should look

for them.... even i can see how irritating and uncouth and ill mannered it is. and it is all in the pretense of "concern" for their health.

[we can do it]

35. Who Cares What You Look Like and Why Are Idiots Like That Important To You?

you are taking this the wrong way - work it if you want to if you don't who cares.

[seabeyond]

37. we arent talking about me personally. we are talking about people that are so offended seeing a fat

person that they must in some way insult demean and all sorts of these cause they have to look at someone overweight.

there is no other reason for this hostility to fat people, but that people are offended by having to simply look at them.

it is NONE of their business.

it doesnt interfer with their life

it has nothing to do with them

those are the offensive people

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Actually from a national health perspective people who are grossly obese

affect me... how? Increase in the cost of medical care due to diseases caused by the condition, regardless of cause

Just like smoking

It is a little less so since there is no second hand component to obesity (unless you look at eating habits learned by young children, which by the way the NHS in the UK is looking at)

So to say that the obese don't have an effect on me, is not technically correct... alas I just got got into the very technical aspect of it... wait for it, it has a name.. national health statistics and life expectancy.

[seabeyond]

60. and this is even more offensive then the holier than thou.

this.... simply disgusts me. this person.... is the one i wouldnt even interact with, simply walk away, that is how worthless i feel this attitude is.

i have absolutely no respect what so ever for the person that has this approach and i will always stand with the one that a person that uses this tactic goes after, regardless, hands down.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. I was technically obese, but as a former medic I care about POLICY

and having read plenty of studies on the effect of obesity on personal health and health care systems

How exactly does this policy stand bother you?


Why?

At the policy level we need to have these discussions on how HEALTH CONDITIONS, obesity is a disease, affect overall health outcomes in a population

Why does that bother you?

By the way, while NHS was looking at this, they found this particular family, they can't loose.. they all keep gaining. They tested their genome

They know why. They have so many expressions of the FAT gene, called FTO, that NHS wishes they had a genetic intervention for them

[northofdenali]

44. I agree with you, mostly.

I have to qualify that "mostly". My husband had a heart attack 2 years ago. About 8 months prior to the attack, he asked me if I felt he was overweight. We're very honest with each other (he got really picky about my hair color a while back) and I told him that yes, he was, at least 25 pounds for his build and height.

He was in pretty good shape, otherwise, but couldn't resist the dinner table or drive-thru mocha stand or the doughnuts at work.

He asked me to monitor what he ate; I immediately went to a low-sodium, low-fat diet (I can eat anything and I stay at 115 pounds on my 5'7" frame)because I'm basically the only cook in the family.

He lost about 15 pounds, slowly but surely, then had his heart attack. The cardiologist has since told him that the attack would most likely have killed him, had he not already changed his diet.

So, although he asked, I had already made up my mind to tell him that he was going to eat less and do more. I don't think that's being intrusive; I love him more than life, and all of his family has had heart problems beginning at age 45.

Just sayin'! :hi:

[seabeyond]

46. dont you think he knew? but this is different from what i was talking about with the poster

would you do it with anyone else besides your husband or child. would you even do it with your sister or mom without them coming to you.

i am not talking about you. i hear what you are saying and i had same situation with husband, not fat, but high cholesterol and we did a 6 month of me cooking for him that would meet the diet. didn't lower it at all. heredity. but i hear what you are saying and good for you.

as i am frying up chicken legs for dinner, lol. just thought it a bet ironic

[seabeyond]

50. fried chicken.... i guess this is my point. my family can eat fried chicken

here adn there cause none of us have weight issues. he eat healthy mostly. i do almost all the cooking, with little to no take out. we can implement moderation moderation moderation in our life, whereas there are others that process the food differently than we do.

i can respect the desire to not allow a cop out, but i also can really do without those of us that dont have a struggle to shrug off anothers and be flat out mean and ugly.

[Lyric]

6. I have started taking issue with the science and "math" itself.

Since our explanations for how calories are burned don't seem to be universally true, I think we need further study. Apparently, human biology is more complex than we're giving it credit for being. Perhaps calories are *not* burned the same way in every person, and we've been wrongly assuming something as a universal that is actually just a variation.

It's worth looking into, at least.

[Statistical]

25. Even if calories are not burned equally calorie in -> calorie out still holds true.

Sure take two people with similar weight, muscle mass, and body fat.
Have them do the exact same routine, same amount of sleep, same enviroment.
One may burn more calories than another.

This doesn't change the simple (and scary for some people) fact that
calories burned = calories consumed = no fat (energy) stored or burned.
calories burned > calories consumed = fat burned as energy to make up defecit.
calories burned < calories consumed = calories stored as fat (energy).


Obesity is a relatively new problem.

A thsound years ago the idea that someone (especially someone poor) could die from eating to much would have been a joke.
A hundred years ago it was virtually unheard of.

Even 40 years ago obesity was relatively rare.

In the last couple decades it has exploded off the charts.

Despite all the pills, and surgeries, and fads, and diets the simple truth holds:
calories burned < calories consumed = calories stored as fat (energy).

Different people will get different amounts of usable calories from same food.
Different people will burn different amounts doing the same activites.

However for each individual the rule still holds true.

[undergroundpanther]

43. In ancient cultures there were fat people

Until recently, the furthest worry from most human hearts was too much body to bear. Calories were scarce, physical labor was hard, and most people were as lean as greyhounds.

"For the millions of years of our evolution, there wasn't much food around, so our bodies are designed to keep from losing weight," said Dr. Fitzgibbon at Northwestern. "When we start to lose weight, our metabolism slows and our appetite increases — we burn less and we want more."

But the body is not nearly as efficient at shedding excess weight. Some evolutionary biologists believe that the difficulty of getting enough calories is one reason why humans have a preference for rich, fatty foods — if there's a choice between a marbled hunk of fawn thigh or a handful of rice, our sinewy ancestors did well to go for the meat.

That may be one reason some of the earliest depictions of human beings are fabulously fat. A number of the famed Venus figurines, palm-size statuettes carved between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago, depict women with corpulent thighs, buttocks, breasts and bellies, and estimated body mass indexes well over 30.

http://www.foodmuseum.com/exfatCulture.html

The obesity "epidemic" was not a problem long ago.It was desirable to be fat until certain beliefs made it become a 'sin' or status symbol to be 'thin'..

[Nay]

7. As a fat person myself, I have no desire to be cruel to myself or

others over weight, and I have certainly never treated overweight people badly. But it seems to me that the simplest experiment to find out what percentage of people would lose weight on the proper food in proper amounts and with a moderate amount of exercise is to:

Find several hundred or even a thousand overweight people (ones with and without medical/thyroid issues, various ages, etc.) who agree to be confined for a period of 6 months and be totally supervised with respect to food intake. A kitchen would be on-site where food is prepared, calorie-counted, and delivered to the individual. Naturally, the fridges would be locked and all that stuff--no midnight raiding! And participants would be monitored to make sure the prescribed exercise was done each day. There would be a doc on site, of course. Thousands of people would volunteer for such a study, so I have no idea why it hasn't been done. It's not much different than what that Rice Diet clinic does in NC. We could settle once and for all the issue of whether there really are people who can't lose weight no matter what they do.

Obviously, it won't help permanent weight loss if people get released at the end of six months and buy six bags of Doritos for the drive home, but it WOULD settle the question of exactly how many people really can't lose weight on 1400 cals (for example) and how many are just fooling themselves.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Brookhaven Institute, they did that

and their diet is 1200 calories

They also deal with the psychological issues.

As to studies... NIH has done them in a way, many a times

Their bugaboo is not the loosing part. Anybody can. The bugaboo is the 95% failure rate in maintaining that weight over five years.

That is the problem

Loosing ten percent of your body weight is easy... keeping it off, and not even gaining more is the problem.

Plenty of literature on this...

the only "success rate" and it is just better, involves lap band surgery, which I should add is a small group, since eligibility for lap band is rather limited... you need to be very heavy

Yes I did look into it and even at my heaviest I did not qualify. ... I should add, even lap band patients gain back,

[wildflower]

8. Thank you; you might be interested in this article:

"13 Things You Never Knew About Your Weight": http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/13-things-you-never-knew-about-your-weight/article108186.html

[Mnemosyne]

13. Excellent article, wildflower, thanks!

:hi:

[wildflower]

17. Thank you! Please pass it on!

I'd love for everyone to read it; it's one of those resources that demonstrates how complicated the issue of weight is.

[AZBlue]

27. Great article!

Thanks!!

[Triana]

15. age and declining metabolism are a factor

one can watch calories, exercise - and STILL gain weight - because their metabolism is grinding to a near-halt. Women, especially, who have that pesky extra layer of lard on them for the baby thing.

[etherealtruth]

45. You can say that again

I have never had problems with any extra weight .... ate what I wanted and in what quantities I wanted ... lo and behold the onset of peri-menopause has brought a thick middle and twenty pounds.

[unblock]

16. i've noticed that the "calorie in, calorie out" camp never tests the calories in your crap.

i have never been overweight and i can easily eat a diet that would cause most people weighing considerably more than me to put on even more pounds.

i'm not particularly active, so i have to presume that i crap out a fair amount of my calories.

similarly, there's considerable variance in how many calories different people burn from similar activities -- even sleeping.


i'll grant that the "calories in, calories out" model is true, but only if ALL caloric ins and outs are completely measured.

if not, it's meaningless.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. You may also be blessed with genetics

the fat gene is real and some folks have more copies of it than others

THat makes people store fat that much more efficiently

The calories in out folk don't understand this either

[Maru Kitteh]

18. Thak you so much Mike. It takes a truly wise person to be open to be open einough

to changing one's ideas. Even in the face of new data, many are loathe to give up the sacred cows that pasture their personal views.

Thanks for your compassion.

[dustbunnie]

20. It bothers me that women eat 900 calories worth of food a day and get boob jobs.

It bothers me because the 900 calories is starvation mode and women only end up getting more overweight once they crack and eat too much for a month. Then they starve again, and for what? To fit into a dress they'll wear once to a wedding or get someone's love? It bothers me because billions are made off funneling people into fast food mode, television apathy, diet/purge product consumerism.

I think it's more than being smug, or reducing obesity to simple math.

People gain weight for all kinds of reasons... among them, age, childbirth, medical probs, and yes, oh my gosh, really bad eating habits, drummed into us from childhood.

Why not confront one of the most politically motivated reasons to keep people from being autonomous and lucid? Fill their bellies with utter shit! That'll shut them up. I always wonder why there are soooo many spots open for pepto bismal commercials. Probably more than cold medicines. Keep people writhing with abdominal pain on their couches while they push buttons on the remote.

Women are fine at 140 - 160 - 180 lbs. Depends on one's structure, bone density, and muscle mass. And yes, fat. I hate that women buy into garbage diet fad-cults and ruin their lives with the constant fluctuations in weight and self-hatred, while buying more and more diet products. My grandmother was overweight, very large woman... but at least it was an HONEST overweight. She was happy within herself.

I don't like that people should be silenced about the whole weight thing, since it IS within the political arena at this point. Plus, if we're ever going to become a Universal Healthcare country, get used to it. Other countries with it have PSA on teevee, telling people they need to eat better, lose weight, because preventative care rules.

I just don't understand why people who are overweight because of medical probs get so incensed when anyone mentions getting or being healthy in some thread. Or even people who've decided they are happy at the weight they are, which perhaps is a little over than what Hollywood deems to be the norm. Why not just say, I'm happy at 140 lbs, (which would help women a lot more than decreeing, make no threads as it's insulting) or even, I'm happy at 180.

[dkf]

22. Someone once told me that I give off a lot of heat and I'm

always cold. I've been wondering if that helps me burn off calories and keeps my weight down.

[JuniperLea]

42. Is your body temperature higher than 98.6?

Mine is naturally 96.8. I had scarlet fever as a child and ever since then my body temperature has been low. I always feel warmer than everyone else. And when it's very hot out, I'm incapacitated by the heat. I takes a lot fewer calories to run my machine, that's for sure.

[AZBlue]

26. Thank you!

Very wise post!

[whoneedstickets]

29. The problem is that the the math is right, but its hard...

..no it isn't difficult to calculate... but its hard to pull off..

For a typical female who needs 2000 calories per day it is pretty easy to overeat by 10% (2200 calories) since 200 calories is about one extra can of soda. If you did that every day for two weeks you'd have taken in 2800 extra calories. That's almost a pound of weight gain! (3500 kcals = 1 lb). Eat that way for a year and you've put on 20- 25 lbs!

With Halloween candy, Thanksgiving, the whole holiday season, Valentines, Easter and the fourth of July, its not hard to find a month where a few 1000 extra calories aren't just a desert tray away. Even a small surplus over a long enough period = extra weight. If that extra weigh results in depression, less activity etc. then things get worse fast.

On the other end, the math is really hard to sustain. A caloric deficit of 10% for a long period will drop lbs but taking in 1800 calories is tough. You either have to watch everything you eat or you're bound to fail... repeat depression, eating etc..

The ANSWER is to manage your caloric intake and get exercise. 30 minutes on an elliptical machine can burn 300-400 calories. Add in some resistance training to build (YES build, this is REALLY hard for some folks to get) LEAN body mass and that will increase your resting metabolism. 30 minutes of aerobic exercise and 20 minutes of vigorous weight lifting (this is progressive resistance training) will burn nearly 500 cals!

That is enough to give you a nice buffer on your calorie intake allowance and still come out sub-10%. Plus the weight training will increase bone density and tendon and joint strength.

I've lost almost 20lbs since figuring this out myself. I started keeping a food diary. Counting calories and maintaining a 500cal/day deficit (that's 1 lb/ week).

For 90% of overweight people this math is THE answer.

[eridani]

40. You don't know what the hell happens to anybody with 30 minutes on an elliptical trainer

--other than yourself. Restricting calories and exercising is in no way shape or form the answer, because you have absolutely no control over how many calories you actually burn. Reduce caloric intake and increase exercise, and you adapt by needing a lot fewer calories. If there is a lag time for the adaptation, you can lose weight easily. If the adaptation happens almost instantly, you can't.

Not knocking aerobics and weight training--both have at various points in my life improved my quality of life. Never have they resulted in any significant weight loss, not even when I biked 500 miles in Europe and occasionally hauled 70 lbs of fully loaded bike up a flight of stairs.

[whoneedstickets]

62. What are you smoking?

There have been literally hundreds of studies measuring the caloric demands of exercise. Initial studies were done by the military in order to determine the caloric needs of soldiers.

Here is one site:
http://caloriecount.about.com/activities-sports-ac15

Don't let FACTS scare you! Knowledge can be power.

BTW here is the eliptical facts: moderate level 150lb person 340 calories in 30 mins.
http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-burned-elliptical-trainer-a613


Oh and all that instant adaptation and caloric reduction nonsense is just BS rationalization. Your body will only shut down that way under starvation conditions -- not triggered by a 10% caloric deficit. I promise you, chart fastidiously what you eat, count EVERY calorie, stay 10% below your daily caloric needs and exercise daily and you will lose weight. If you don't you're not being honest in your intake measure.

[eridani]

63. And they all demonstrate that YMMV within ranges around average values

Physiological feedback control mechanisms are unique to individuals, and can never be altered by willpower.

[whoneedstickets]

64. More BS you tell yourself to avoid reality....

Humans can't violate laws of thermodynamics. Mass can't be generated from 'nothing'.

[eridani]

65. The reality is that the laws of thermodynamics apply to CLOSED systems

We are not closed systems, bomb calorimeters, or bank accounts. (and most people would rather have real lives instead of making fulltime careers out of weight loss.)

In the real world, there are active control systems which reduce the amount of energy used involuntarily for many of the body's autonomic functions--in other words resting metabolism fluctuates a lot. What is going on is not adequately captured by a "snapshot" test. Average RMR measurements do not capture real life fluctuations. There are also significant energy excretion systems which are active. A simplified (no feedback loops indicated) version of overall calorie balance is the following:

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

C = calories eaten
N = non-absorbed calories excreted in bowels
S = calories stored
I = calories calories used involuntarily (muscle maintenance, involuntary motion)
H = calories used for heat generation (Mitochondrial ATP uncoupling for heat generation has been indentified as one of the major energy utilization systems of the body and could account for 20 lbs-50 lbs/yearof weight gain for people whose basal temperature is under normal, which is the case for many.)
V = calories used voluntarily (exercise, for example)
E = calories excreted in urine (Examples: fat converted to glucose in the liver and excreted in the urine, incompletely burned triglycerides which are excreted in the urine, and albumin excreted in the urine)

It should be noted that there is "manual" control only on C and V. People who think of human metabolism as a bank account or a bomb calorimeter are willfully ignorant that these other variables adjust automatically within an active control system. All readjust when some of them change.

When C and V are changed 'manually', there may be permanent alteration to the control system, as in long-term dieting.

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

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

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

Decreasing C (dieting) has been shown to cause a long-term decrease in H and a long term increase in S, and to prevent I from increasing when V is increased. Millions of dieters have experienced this. Obesity researchers have verified this.

There is a national registry of people who have lost significant weight and kept it off for five years or more. They are the ones who successfully keep their caloric intake at 1000-1500 over an extended period of time, get large amounts of daily exercise and ignore the misery. One woman, asked why she succeeded in maintaining weight loss when most others failed said "It's what I do." The "failures" are those who decide that they'd rather have real lives. You know, skipping exercise if your kid needs some school help, or there is an emergency town meeting about a nasty chemical spill, or if you need a couple of more classes for your degree, or if you get hurt and can't work out.

[whoneedstickets]

66. Make any excuse you want...

..but you don't need to eat 1500 calories (unless you're a 100lb woman). I was a 240lb guy, I've maintained a 2250-2500 kcal/ day intake including an average 500kcal/day exercise budget (some days I eat 2700+ calories). That's about a 15-17% caloric deficit and have lost 20lbs in 10 weeks.

Yes, humans do vary, some have pathologies that radically alter metabolism, but the vast majority of overweight people got that way from over-eating and under-exercising over many years. Only by under-eating and exercising can you reverse the trend but it will take as long to lose the weight as it did to gain unless you really get active. Some 'adaptation' may occur but not the kind of science defying nonsense you are claiming.

[eridani]

67. So, explain what was wrong with my equation

And yes, you do need to eat no more than 1000-1500 calories, and minimum 10 hours of exercise a week. That's according to the National Weight Loss Registry, which records the habits of the few who keep significant amounts of weight off successfully for at least 5 years. You wouldn't be eligible because 20 lbs isn't significant weight loss by their standards. I know a couple of women who lose that much in the first 4 days of their menstrual cycles.

The vast majority of overweight people have thrifty metabolisms and got that way from living in an industrialized society and refusing to live like the semi-starved subsistence farmers their ancestors were. Moderate exercise and calorie restriction produce insignificant weight loss in fat people, though quality of life improves a lot and medical indicatore improve. It is flat out impossible for fat people to reverse the trend without taking far more sever measures. Not really "impossible," of course. That only applies if you have a normal life with family and career commitments.

I biked 500 miles in Europe for a couple of years, and never lost a single pound. And if you want to get snotty and tell me I just should have eaten less and made the experience into a miserable chore instead of fun recreation, then you can just go stick it where the sun don't shine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. That answer is correct and state of the science forty years ago

we are increasingly finding that things are quite not that simple

And trust me, wish it was.

[treestar]

30. It isn't even just the thin - it's the fat who want to lose weight

And can't face the idea it might not completely within their control.

As long as you believe it is all your own fault, you can believe you can control it.

I went on a diet and started exercising quite a bit - I lost 40 pounds, but after that, have still been stalled and unable to lose more. And I'm still doing the exercise and still following the diet. Or at times don't follow it because it doesn't work, and then don't gain anything. Though I am terrified of gaining it back, because it seems that is what so often happens. But even scarier is the fact there is only so much I can do to control it.

As you get older, it just gets harder and harder not to put on weight and harder and harder to lose it.

[Skittles]

32. hey treestar

stop obsessing over that scale and realize that exercise is good for your bones, heart, lungs, mood. Keep at it and f*** what the numbers say. Yes INDEED.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. First lesson, diets don't work

here is my experience

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5170241&mesg_id=5170241

Oh and hugs, changing that outlook is liberating. What do you mean I can have ice cream? Chocolate, chips?

Trust me, a good thing.... I just naturally reach for the small apple most of the time these days

[eridani]

73. Of course you can't control it. You can control the decision to keep exercising

--(and I bet you've found it has a lot of benefits regardless of weight loss), but you have not even a smidgen of control over what effects continuing to exercise will have on your body.

[Skittles]

31. it's never right to be hateful to someone because of physical appearance

period

[localroger]

33. I've noticed food/diet discussions do this everywhere

Even on tech sites like slashdot there's no faster way to start a flame war than to take a stand for any specific diet. Perhaps it's because food is such a big part of our lives that people become very defensive about their dietary habits and their reasons for keeping them.

[seabeyond]

41. give me a pill three times a day. at 47 i have eaten enough of everything

that nothing excites me anymore, or i just gotta have. tired of it all. tired of messing with it, cooking it and trying to come up with ideas in serving it. enough

a simple pill three times a day works for me.

[surrealAmerican]

39. The calories in/ calories out equation is the heart of the matter ...

... as far as individuals are concerned. The thing is we have a societal problem with obesity not because of some sort of moral failing, but for a few simple reasons:
1. The food supply in this country is mainly highly-processed junk.
2. Our towns are mostly un-walkable.
3. Most jobs involve very little physical activity.
4. Few people have time to cook "from scratch", even fewer know how to.
5. Nutritional education is largely non-existent.

[Geek_Girl]

48. I don't think it just calories either

But quality of food as well as genetics.

[SoCalDem]

51. Like an old married couple, DUers know all the "buttons" to push

there are some who know how to generate heat, but not light..and truth-be-told, there ARE some issues that are "taboo" because no minds will every be changed..no matter how earnest the discussion, no matter how OFTEN the discussion, or how incendiary the discussion..

1) smoking
2) breastfeeding
3) obesity
4) race
5) religion

etc etc etc etc..

It "may" still be safe to discuss the weather, but no doubt there are a few here who will be "poutraged" about something that's said, and who will launch into invective.

[mudesi]

54. The Laws Of Physics Disagree With You

Yes, it is a simple math thing. There is not "more going on".

We're talking about energy, here. So unless they've shown that fat people are getting their calories from the sun, or that they're burning fossil fuels or have small nuclear reactors in their bodies, they're simply eating too many fatty foods and not exercising enough.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Current state of the art research into the subject disagrees with you

Mike is right, it is far more complex than energy in energy out

I wish it was that simple and forty years ago that was the state of the science

[whoneedstickets]

61. I keep seeing you write this but you have offered NO evidence..

..find me ONE study where significant, sustained and TRUTHFULLY measure caloric restriction combined with exercise did not result in weight loss. IF you can't you better come to terms with the fact that you might be lying to yourself for some reason.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Tell you what, weight loss is easy

here is the trick, find me a five year study that shows a better success rate than we have, (95% failure rate) lap band does not count by the way, they only have an 80% failure rate... and that is surgical intervention

THere is reason we have these failures

But here are the parameters for your articles, national standard

10% or more weight loss
Maintainance of weight up to five years
Exercise is a nice variable, not all studies have them, though they improve success by a couple percentage points

Now here are the elements that are playing a role in this

1.- Thyroid disease is at epydemic rates
2.- Diabetes Type II and Insulin resistance is also at epidemic rates world wide, both prevent weight loss in early stages...
3.- As I said above, we are finding that it is not as simple as just ins and outs

Here you go

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/5/579

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S000282239600096X

http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/nutrition/factsheets/fad-diets.html

BYU is running a study on intuitive eating, which may have far better results

Anecdotally that is the only thing that worked with me, so cannot wait for a five year study or two on intuitive eating

But the disease processes I mentioned above, make the point moot that it is just simply ins and outs

Also I have not even addressed the FTO gene

Here you go

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1141634v1

By the way, the wiki article is more accessible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTO_gene

Oh and here is some info on set point theory

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:VfXVdSEk_sQJ:www.melbourneinstitute.com/forums/Bruce%2520Headey.doc+science+and+set+point+theory&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=safari

I wish it was as simple as ins and outs, I truly do... perhaps it would make things that much easier... but knowledge is important and my sneaky is that as we get more science "diets" will be more custom tailored to patients

[Juche]

87. I thought lap band was more effective than that

My understanding is even after 5 years the loss is still significant, about 50-60% of excess weight.

What would be ideal is if we found a drug cocktail that you could take after you lost weight to maintain the loss. There are studies I've seen where people lose 10-30% of their body weight, then go on a drug to maintain the loss (usually meridia or topamax). however those studies only follow them for 1 year post weight loss, not the 5 that is needed. But in that 1 year weight regain is significantly curtailed.

I would like to see a study where low doses of cytomel, topamax and phentermine (combined) are given to help people lose ~20% of body weight, then taken daily for the next 5 years to see if a person can keep the weight off.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12352278


In this observational study, a new drug treatment regimen was evaluated in five obese patients with a mean age of 39.6 +/- 4.2 years and an initial body mass index between 34.5 and 38.3 kg/m for a period of 96 weeks. The patients showed restrained and unrestrained eating patterns according to a German version of the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire and were treated in an add-on regimen with the combination of three drugs with different anorectic properties that were consecutively introduced in an interval of 16 weeks. First, orlistat (120 mg three times a day) was given as a monotherapy. Sibutramine (15 mg in the morning) and then topiramate (in a dose dependent on appetite suppression and side effects) were added for a total duration of 48 weeks. A 48-week maintenance and relapse prevention treatment period with topiramate monotherapy followed the discontinuation of orlistat and sibutramine. This outpatient treatment procedure was tolerated well, although side effects occurred in all patients depending on the phase of the treatment regimen. After 96 weeks, the mean body mass index was 25.7 +/- 1.2 kg/m. Moreover, a normalization of eating patterns according to the Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire could be noticed. Factor 3, hunger, was significantly reduced. This treatment plan may be highly effective and safe in a subpopulation of obese patients.


Basically people lost about 10 BMI points using polypharmacy and kept it off for a year using topamax. However a year means nothing, we need 5+ year studies. But I do think that polypharmacy using very low doses of different drugs that attack obesity via different channels may be an option that can work for long term weight maintenance.

The problem with diet drugs though is that they can cause a lot of psychological side effects. Mania, psychosis, confusion, aggression, depression. The cannaboid blocking drugs had to be pulled for that reason. Too many people committing suicide.

[eridani]

75. And what if after that weight loss you are still fat?

For any serious notion of practicality, whatever measured regimen you are referring to is impossible to maintain on a lifetime basis. Out here on Planet Reality, people have kids who need non-aerobic help with schoolwork, career advancement classes that it would be seriously stupid to pass up, and get injuries and illnesses that make following any rigid program not possible at all.

Being fat is only an indirect choice. The primary choice is the choice to have a real life, and that inevitably results in being fat if you have a thrifty metabolism and live in a society where most of the ways of making a living are sedentary. If you exercise regularly, you will be healthier and most likely weigh less than you would otherwise, but this is not at all the same thing as not being fat.

[mudesi]

82. She Cant, Because It Breaks The Laws Of Thermodynamics

Less energy intake equals weight loss, period. I laugh at the sheer ignorance.

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Thanks Mike and to a point I see this in a way as the argument between the

pro evolution people, and the creation science people

One group is looking at state of the art science, the other is looking at what they think they know

Me, should take cover for the pelting.

But what I have learned over the years, after doing much readying and personal experience... it is not that simple... though it can be done. You just need to fully change how you do business.. and the first critical change for people who are obese is to stop obsessing about diets... and forbidden fruits.

Now you may be missing one or most likely the two copies of the "fat gene" that most likely I happen to have... thanks mom! Oh and dad.

:-)

[Missy Vixen]

72. There was also a news story less than a month ago

stating that a newer study has discovered there may be a virus that predisposes people to obesity.

A virus. The research is ongoing.

I guess we wait and see, but I hope they will discover in my lifetime that it's not just food. Then again, most of those so smug about their comments here will never admit they are wrong.

[smalll]

74. Well if it's a virus, I hope we find it soon --

so we can give everyone in Darfur, North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc. etc. a shot of it and famine will be a thing of the past. :eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. What is this with the apples and oranges comments

by the way OBESITY IS A WORLD WIDE EPIDEMIC according to the World Health Organization

I am proof positive you knew this

:sarcasm:

[smalll]

79. It's not a "WORLD WIDE EPIDEMIC" if Darfur, Zimbabwe, and Northe Korea count as part of the world --

and again, if it's a "virus" we owe it to the world to isolate it and find a way to spread it as soon as possible. MOST of the world today, on balance, still finds starvation a much larger issue than muffintoppery.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. I guess this is yet another example of the binary puritan thinking that exists here

let me guess, fatties are lazy sloths, and all these SCIENTIFIC studies showing that there is more to it are bunk?

I thought only the RIGHT WING was allergic to science

Thank you for telling me that the left wing is also allergic to science

Just a different branch.

Oh wait, both are part of biology. So I guess on the very broad brush both sides are allergic to science when CONVENIENT.

[Missy Vixen]

81. Gosh, aren't you the fun guy?

Laugh as much as you like, but our doctor brought up the same studies the last time I saw him.

In the meantime, your concern is noted. :eyes:

[Missy Vixen]

86. Here's some research you're too lazy to look up yourself

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2009/02/06/the-obesity-bug-and-other-news-from-nerdland/

Enjoy it.

[CTyankee]

84. is this virus limited to our American shores?

I say this because I never see truly obese people in Italy and Spain when I travel there. Some, mostly middle aged, have a bit more girth around the middle but not the extreme obesity we see here.

Not trying to be difficult here, it is just my observation...

[Missy Vixen]

85. Well, you really told me, didn't you?

Here's a link.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2009/02/06/the-obesity-bug-and-other-news-from-nerdland/

Of course, I'm sure there'll be an explation or rationalization for this as well.

[CTyankee]

88. Now that's funny! You had me for a while tho, vixen.

I had heard some explanations about something in the water here (seriously) in another blog but since I don't follow those things I just ignored it. So when you posted this thing I just assumed it was another theory that had surfaced and so I posed the question I always pose about European people.

I guess I outed you inadvertently. I am too trusting...

[uppityperson]

68. On the plus side, 2 people are now ignoring me over assumptions they made on a post I made.

Said there were 2 words for a poster, but I never did say what those 2 words were, and they, of course, assumed they were bad ones. Probably would have been a good idea to check before putting me on ignore, but hey. Each to their own. People who wish to assume that I am insulting them without writing anything are free to ignore me.

[smalll]

69. No. The big "assumption" going around here is that --

as was stated in the last big fat debate OP, (to paraphrase) - "if it was as simple as calories in/calories out -- diet and exercise -- the problem would be fixed by now."

And that "something more going on" that you claim. Yeah, something's going on -- over the past century or two, food has become relatively cheaper, and the masses have become relatively richer (yay!) -- so the average isn't pulled down by the starving millions (back when we all used to die at 30 years old or so.)

And over the past century or less, America has become way more sedentary (the automobile, the suburbs, the white collar cubicle, cable TV, the internet, the microwave, Hot Pockets, etc. etc.)

Plus, in the wasteland we live in, "bowling alone," very few things fill the void quite as well and as conveniently as super-sizing, big gulps, Frappucinos, and the pizza delivery man.

There are MANY social/economic vectors forcing us all towards extra pounds. Some of us fight the trend, for many and varied reasons (a sincere committment towards health, a longing for longevity, singleness and the need to hope that someday, someone might find us attractive again, or perhaps just vanity -- )

There is no especial reverence or honor due to the non-fatties amongst us. But neither is there any big mystery as to why so many of us are fatties now -- there are social/economic vectors pushing us all towards extra pounds -- and some of us just GIVE IN to it more than others.

---

It IS as simple as calories in, calories out -- as simple as diet and exercise. The problem's not "fixed by now" because gorging on "calories in" with our diets, and skimping on the "calories out" (not getting off our buts) is such a seductive, convenient and easy path to fall into.

[LeftyMom]

78. Unless people have evolved photosynthesis, it is calories out- calories in.

Of course all sorts of factors determine how efficiently one processes those calories in either direction, but you simply can't store what you don't eat. It's a function of elementary science.

[northofdenali]

83. I'm going to stick my nose (and words) in one more time -

NO ONE SHOULD BE JUDGED ON HOW THEY LOOK. People with obesity or being overweight have enough to think about and worry about without being dissed just because of their weight.

I am one of those very fortunate folks who would rather gain than lose - a pretty standard 115 since I turned 18, except during my pregnancy. I admit, when I was young, to looking down on those who carried lots of extra pounds. I learned very quickly that those extra pounds do NOT affect intelligence or ability!!

We are now exploring (for the sweet spouse) the DASH diet. It seems to be working well, the food is great, and the minor changes to oils, fats, and dairy in the diet are fairly simple. You have to join (sigh) and we've just begin the reading/research part, so if anyone on DU knows lots about this plan, please give a shout out or PM me!!

:hug: to all of you who struggle, and good karma.