On obesity and shades of gray.... versus black and white "religious" thinking

[nadinbrzezinski]

Well I know this always leads to flame wars, so lets make this clear. This is not the intent of this post, but I know I should know better. And before this is over, there will be plenty of flames and quasi flames, Like global weather change this is controversial, partly because of American's scientific ignorance.

So first things first, for the shut your mouth up and exercise mouth crowd.

Yes, I have adopted a fad diet... which is as old as humanity. It is called eat when you are hungry, and don't when you are not. If that is a fad diet, guilty as charged. Oh never mind that fad diet is also recommended by people who should know better that have initials after their names such as RD, MPH, and others. I guess they don't know either and Ian McKenna just made the whole concept easier to understand for the masses.

I am also on the overweight category and you know what? I am fine with that... and so is my doctor... and in the course of this post you will learn why we are peachy keen.

Now that this is out of the way...

If ten years ago I met any of you and you told me... it is really simple.. .shut your mouth and do exercise and it is all about calories... I would have whole heartedly agreed with you. After all that is common sense knowledge. And this is where obesity experts, again people with MDs, PhDs, and MPHs behind their names were as well ten years ago. Yes, it was thought to be that simple. Oh and for younger adults, with absolutely no other medical conditions that may explain weight gain... yeah that works m'kay. But for some reason looking at WHY diets fail means we are looking for excuses. Never mind some of us are asking WHY? But that is a bad thing.

Still I had questions about this being this simple for years, and it had to do with who or what I met as I grew up. By the way, before you accuse parents of bad eating habits, our food offering when growing up was fruit, vegies, some meat, beans, tortillas and potatoes. Things like cake, ice-cream, cookies et al were things offered to us ONLY as treats for oh Birthdays, and sodas were only available when we had guests for dinner. In fact, when compared to kids in this country we ate pretty healthy...

Yet one of my mom's friends she was grossly overweight... as in obese... so was her daughter, and one of her two sons and her husband... yes their food habits at times left a lot to be desired, but no matter what... daughter finally lost after getting a band... and their thin son had an easy time eating the same things and not gaining. So that was always puzzling to me. And this is well before the age of fast food in Mexico... I realized years later that not only was I looking at an expression of the fat gene in a human cohort, but also the psychology behind it. Could this woman and her husband benefit from Brookhaven? Yes, but like many of these people there is more going on with their bodies... And the discovery of that fat gene and all the other discoveries on serotonin values in the brains of the obese when they eat... tells me that shut your mouth off and exercise is too simplistic. And again those people with Phd, MD, MpH and other silly initials have come to the same conclusions, and it is not that simple.

Then I had a personal experience that forever changed my view of this popular pearl of wisdom and sent me on a quest to find as much as I could about this. As I have posted before I gained 50 pounds in three months when eating 1000 calories \ day. No the doctor did not believe me either until she saw the food diaries. That and as I said, the human studies, stage three did not have weigh gain as a side effect. Lucky me, I got it... and like me many other patients... now it is a very well known side effect of Avandia. I also have this lovely lower function thyroid.. and it does run in families... them genes. So losing weight without meds is impossible and we are just learning that perhaps doing Zynthroid is not enough... T3 and all that jazz... so another thing that told me... it is not black and white. Oh and after talking with a few experts both my doc and me concluded that my set point most likely moved up, and insulin resistance will make breaking through the plateau very hard... Oh I know, do more exercise and shut your mouth... will not work. I already exercise and I am eating what the doctor recommends, abut 1300 Kcals a day... so no, I will not follow the advise of religious fanatics online, m'kay? Good.

Now some of us have told you guys what is the emerging research into things like oh pesticides and how they react with the human body and hormonal levels... I know that it is easy to go, but the laws of thermodynamics... and of course you are correct except that the human animal is not a calorimeter and the different elements in this machine are so different from individual to individual that just shutting mouth off and getting on the exercise machine are not enough any more to explain why diets fail for 95% of individuals who go on a "diet." And I don't care if that diet is the latest fad, one supervised by doctors, or making changes slowly... though the latter has the best chances of success and yes studies have been done.... for those of you who claim otherwise... look into any dietetics journal. medical journal et al. Their rates of success rise slightly... but failure rates are still spectacularly high...

There is more... many of you refuse to read the science. Nor do you know cornerstone ongoing NIH funded, multigenerational studies, like Framingham... No that is not a diet... it is a study. Try to learn the difference m'kay?

Now I will say it... for some of you this is so threatening that my god, this is like dealing with global weather change deniers! It's been this way for ever and we humans could not have any effect on our bodies through the chemicals of the green revolution. I mean organophosphates do not concentrate across the ecosystem and they do not and cannot be affecting us... :sarcams: Yes, you strike me as global weather deniers. period.

There is more. Being able to look at the obese and say they NEED to shut up their mouths, and exercise and if they fail... well that is a moral statement, and a statement of belief. Now I do not expect every body to read the Journal of Endocrinology regularly, but whether you believe this or not, obesity is at a crisis point and research is pointing to multiple causes for this. And we are also finding out that yes, there is a fat gene... and yes in an age of plenty it is highly maladaptive... we are also finding about all them hormonal changes and I could go on.

But you know what was the most important lesson?

I will never again point to an obese person and say... well if he\ she shut his \ her mouth off and got on the elliptical... and you know why? I am sure people did when I got to my highest, and there was NOTHING I could do about it... and eating less was even less feasible... that was the lesson. While I am sure some folks are in the category. I simply don't know if they are obese because they eat a normal caloric load and their body is doing things that they have no control off... such as a dead thyroid, or medications. I simply do not know.

Now I know some folks here do that. And you know what? I do wish you a walk on my shoes... the humble and crow pies would be just peachy for you... Unfortunately this is the only way some people learn...

Sad.

[geckosfeet]

1. Type 2 diabetics have similar issues. Their bodies are not efficient at using insulin

to metabolize blood glucose, so it is mostly stored as fat no matter how many (few) calories they consume. The answer for them seems to be low carb diets (<40g a day) and watching calories.

I am reading this now and it is quite interesting.
The Type II Diabetes Diet Book

Someone on DU posted that they tried it out and had some success.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Oh trust me I know that

I "won" the genetic lottery at multiple levels.

<----- Diabetic type two

So do pre-diabetics... (and I hear the background Pre what?)

[Christa]

2. Thanks for sharing

:hug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Oh you welcome and I do not expect it to change any minds

sadly, among the personal responsibility, eat less- exercise more, crowd.

[unc70]

5. Have you been tested for adenovirus-36 antibodies?

Your sudden onset rapid gain of 50 pounds could have been triggered by a lot of things. The adenovirus has be a significant factor in obesity since it jumped from birds to mammals in the 1970's.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. We know it was med related

and it is a very common secondary effect of Avandia... which means either the test group for the tertiary human trials was exceptional or somebody fudged some results.

:-)

And we now know that is going on as well.

[Hekate]

6. You are brave to tackle this subject yet again. I wonder if any minds will ever...

... open as a result. Since I can't bear to read the words "The Laws of Thermodynamics" applied to human physiology one more time, I'm going to content myself with a KnR for you and bow out.

:hi:

Hekate

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Oh com'on we are just calorimeters :-)

and I had to. Especially after the very special thread over the last two days... usual suspects and all.

Oh and on edit, they will only change when they do indeed walk in those shoes, mine or millions of others...

[Hekate]

15. I am actually at the point where I have begun to wish "them" ill. They refuse to learn...

... and will only learn from bitter experience. Their lack of compassion compounds the problem.

Hekate

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. I found myself doing that yesterday

:hi:

Even asked if they want the crow pie warmed up or a la mode? I will gladly serve it.

[Scout]

31. fat is so demonized, i had a smoker tell me they wouldn't even try to

quit smoking because she'd gain weight ... i told her "but, you can lose weight, you can't grow new lungs" ... and the stupid bitch said "I'd rather have cancer than be fat." I told her i hoped she got her wish....

[Jazzgirl]

48. Now that is some sick shit Scout.

I quit back in '89 for two years. I gained 20 lbs. I started smoking again in '91. I always have had some kind of lung weakness but it really manifested itself back in '99 when I was doing a lot of traveling. I also developed blood pressure issues but found out Claritin was a big reason for a lot of that. Anyway, a couple of years ago I had so many problems I could barely walk 5 steps without stopping. I was still smoking though....secretly. Nobody knew. I only smoked at home....alone. It almost killed me. I was off so sick for a week I couldn't get out of bed. I made myself go to work the following Monday because I had no more sick days and just couldn't afford it. I had to wait until after rush hour because I knew mentally I couldn't handle the heavy traffic. I made it to work but 8 days later I made it back home. I was so bad my boss took me to a Care Now facility and when they looked at me they said "we can't help her. We've already called 911". I haven't had a cigarette since and don't miss them. I didn't gain a lot of weight this time either. You will gain a little but if you monitor your eating habits you can keep it to a minimum. Besides, the alternative of NOT BREATHING is much worse. :-)

[Shell Beau]

50. That is so sad, but it is so true. I bet a lot of people

are scared to quit smoking because of weight gain. Quitting smoking is hard enough, and the lovely side effect can be weight gain. But it doesn't necessarily have to be. People are so scared to be "fat" that they'd rather shrink down to nothing with cancer. Obviously those people have never had cancer (nor have I), or they wouldn't say that. It is easier to say "I will deal with that then" than to be "fat" now. So sad indeed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. It is sad, but that is the current reality in the US

and photoshop has not helped either....

Ye shall be anorexic-ally beautiful...

I know Reuben's ladies were a little on the overweight side... but damn I love them, far more than a super model today, especially after they are done with the airbrush in photoshop...

[TicketyBoo]

56. I had my mother-in-law

look me in the eye and say, "I'd rather die than be fat."

I don't know if she expected me to go jump off a bridge or what.

[anneboleyn]

79. My sister-in-law has been obese her whole life. The comments people make to her face - unbelievable

She has starved herself for years on every diet imaginable. Yes her thyroid is a problem but no doctor has helped her solve it. She also has ovarian disease, which causes weight gain.

She has endured the most cruel, evil comments imaginable her entire life. Nicknames all her life and shouts from strangers passing by in cars to go on a diet, you fucking pig (not kidding). Relatives and "friends" have continually ridiculed her, insulted her, told her, when she was a child, that she would go to hell for being a "glutton" as God despises gluttons (not kidding on this one either), and she was denied candy when all of the children were taken to an amusement park. Every child was given one candy treat except for her. She has also been denied pieces of birthday cake, etc. by relatives and "friends" "concerned" about her. The shit is unbelievable.

[TicketyBoo]

136. Fortunately,

I was quite slender as a child. Started really gaining in my late 20s after my mother passed away and my dad developed Alzheimer's disease. I'm sure that stress had something to do with it, but 10 years later they found out that my thyroid was dead. When the doctor tested my thyroid level, he said he'd never seen anyone with a thyroid level that low. Diabetes now, and insulin makes you hungry all the time, so it's a delicate balance. One day at a time.

I feel for anyone who is fat as a child, though. Kids can be so cruel. As an adult, I worry more about my health than my looks.

Tell your sister-in-law to holler back at those imbeciles, "If you don't like the way I look, look at someone else!" I mean, who of us is perfect? Nobody outside of the air-brushed pix we see in magazines. Even the "beautiful people" need help to look that good.

[anneboleyn]

77. I know a number of young women who smoke so they won't gain

weight. The religious language of "health" that clouds the anti-fat bias in this country is often a thin disguise for good, old-fashioned hatred of fat people. I know many late teens and women in their early twenties (I am a former university prof) who smoke like chimneys because they are terrified of gaining weight. Look at all the Hollywood actresses that smoke. These young women also continually starved themselves, eating as little as possible just to avoid passing out.

[CreekDog]

20. i posted something in that thread about counting calories and making small changes

i still think it's good advice, but that's not to say that it will work that simply for everyone.

however for those that can lose weight doing as I suggested, then it's worth trying.

if it doesn't work for various reasons, the wrong thing to do is heap judgement on the person.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7016970&mesg_id=7028669

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. So you know lifestyle changes do have better results

the ones that are done are usually done side by side for chronic diseases

http://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/20/4/205.full

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T1B-4D8V8SH-1D&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1097844001&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1ffef5c6d56d7ad3ca796f8d02f1c164

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090204121508.htm

But we still have a horrid success rate... though it is better. So it drops from 95% to 82-83% last time I checked.

<------- I may be one of those "success stories" but I have not been on any diet (well beyond counting carbs, diabetes and all that) for years. Yep, I already hit the magic number of five years.

:-)

[CreekDog]

33. To the extent that behavior alone can get the job done, long term v. short term is better

If everyone is gaining weight back after losing it in the short term, then some sort of lifestyle change is going to be key.

That's why i was suggesting small changes each day along with constant monitoring of weight. one shouldn't get fixated on daily weight changes of a couple pounds as failure/success, some of it is just going to be noise, water retention, etc.

However, if those days you weigh 2 pounds more, you were extra careful to be responsible, that 2 pounds you gained would turn out to be an abberation and your reaction would keep it from being permanent.

To me the key would seem to be:

1) monitoring your weight, consumption and exercise daily
2) learning what combination of those factors results in the weight loss that you want
3) understanding that you aren't going to win a battle against hunger by not eating, instead, understand what you can eat and what will help satisfy the hunger and stave more off as well as possible and without doing too much damage.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Correct, and even then

the longitudinal studies over the course of 1, 3, and 5 years still have a high failure rate... that is what is actually astounding to researchers. Why I am pointing this out. There is something more going on in the background.

Now anecdotally since we started doing mostly organics and absolutely no HCSF... our hunger levels have gone down...

And I talked with a couple doctors I know locally and they have had the same anecdotal experience. HCFS and other artificial sweeteners SEEM to have an effect on hunger. So I think we should look there. If we removed a lot of the crap perhaps the success rate would go up... from the still dismal rates

I am sure the chemical industry will hate anybody trying to put in for the funding to do a study like that.

[CreekDog]

38. Well our *set* points are likely higher than our ideal weight

either for genetic, disease and/or chemical reasons.

and nevermind that all kinds of medication that so many people are on (out of necessity) such as certain anti depressants and high blood pressure meds seem to make it more difficult to lose weight or keep it off.

so science has got to catch up with all this and give us a better way.

in the meantime, if folks can keep their bodies healthier for just a little while until science catches up, they will be in a better position to take advantage when the time comes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Absolutely, and when they get the first clinical trials

for diabetes stem cell (though at this moment it seems to be directed at Type I) I think I will volunteer if I qualify... not only for my health but the future...

Played lab rat before... wait where is the cheese?

[bobbolink]

125. But the question is... do you really think this is new to most people?

Do you think it hasn't been "suggested" to them before?

It seems to me like so many things.... we have these automatic responses, and the "targets" hear them over and over.....

[Scout]

138. you are right

i've lost 50 pounds in the last 18 months ... when i was stuck at 42ish pounds lost, and asked for advice from friends, i can't tell you how many said "watch your portion sizes" ... i wanted to shake them and SCREAM in their faces "HOW THE FUCK DO YOU THINK I'VE ALREADY LOST 40 POUNDS"!!!!!!

you cannot simply just (continue) to cut calories and portion sizes. i was working out with a personal trainer, and was told that i wasn't EATING ENOUGH--that my body would not start to burn the fat i had until i was consuming enough calories for it to know that i wasn't in famine mode.

i'm so fucking sick of these assholes, most who have never had a weight problem, giving advice to the fat. if you've never been fat, i don't care how much you work out or what you eat--if you don't HAVE a weight problem, you probably wouldn't be fat even if you didn't work out and watch what you eat. i know many non-fat people who DON'T work out and DON'T watch what they eat.

so if you aren't fat and have never had a weight problem, shut your god damn ignorant yap (hey, maybe put some food in it! if you ATE something once in a while you might not be such an irritating asshole) and go fuck yourself.

sorry bobbolink, i'm not going off on you! i just ended up in rant mode... :blush:

[redqueen]

9. K&R... you reminded me of this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7032552

I've seen aerobics instructors who are overweight, yet all I have heard about them from the "shut your mouth and exercise" camp is that nobody would want to go to a class taught by someone like that.

Depressing.

[Nikki Stone1]

10. Nadin, a friend of mine was on some antidepressant and put on 40 pounds

without changing her eating one iota. She went off the meds earlier this year and is now back to her size 8 body. Weight gain as a medical side effect is very common.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I know it is

but our usual suspects will watch your friend on the street, or me... and point and sneer and go over how we stuff our mouth up with bomboms and never, ever exercise. I mean I am a slob! And so is your friend.... and that is where the moral statement comes in.

Hell I lost those 50 pounds over three years....

:-)

And I will even share numbers, I went from a BMI of 36.5 to a BMI of 28... Why my doc and I are peachy keen.

Hug your friend for me please.

[Nikki Stone1]

17. Well, I'm glad the thing got solved.

Weight is far more complicated than just eating too much. Some people (and animals!) seem programmed to have more weight on them than others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Oh yeah tuky was eternally thin

while connie is a little fuller in her feathery figure...

:-)

[pitohui]

39. nikki a friend of mine gained 100 pounds on prozac

he cannot go off the meds because his mental illness is too extreme, every time he tries, trust me, it isn't pretty for anyone

better to be fat than sticking a gun in my face, thank ya verra much

[sybylla]

93. Had a friend who went through the same thing

Puffed right up on anti-depressants and other anti-psychotic drugs. Within a month or two of going off them she lost all the weight and has kept it off in the years since.

But you know she had people in her life telling her she should do something about it when she had absolutely no control over it.

[Political Heretic]

134. I was treated for anxiety disorder and gained 50 pounds over 1.5 years without changing diet or ex.

The difference is, the medicine does what it is supposed to do - give me social and emotional quality of life, so I'm quite comfortable living as a happy buddha! :)

[handmade34]

12. important that you share this

this too;

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/foodshed.html

"These weight problems do not simply stem from a lack of willpower, according to Dr. Tenley Albright, director of MIT’s Collaborative Initiatives program, which uses systems analysis to study broad social issues. Albright is a Harvard-educated surgeon who, two years ago, helped organize an interdisciplinary group of about 10 researchers, from MIT and Columbia University, specifically to analyze the causes of child obesity. Aided by a grant from the United Health Foundation, the team scoured medical and economic data, and consulted with medical researchers, economists and policy-makers, before releasing an initial October 2008 report.

The group’s conclusion: Obesity is widespread due to our national-scale system of food production and distribution, which surrounds children — especially lower-income children — with high-calorie products. “The problem lies not just in a child, but the whole environment around a child,” says Albright. “To end obesity, we need to produce healthier, more accessible, more affordable food.” As Albright notes, 90 percent of American food is processed — according to the United States Department of Agriculture — meaning it has been mixed with ingredients, often acting as preservatives, that can make food fattening."

I was just having a discussion with my partner this afternoon after seeing clips on CNN about obesity affecting health care... it is absolutely not black and white and we need to address the realities of corporate exploitation and our unhealthy food system. Yes, I believe we all can help each other be healthier, but much of what is going on is very complex. We didn't just wake up a couple of decades ago and decide to have an epidemic of obesity in this country. Food systems, processing, corporate marketing and production, personal habits, culture, changing traditions, etc. all play a part.

nadinbrzezinski, no flaming from me, your post is good

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Interesting and this brings us into the priorities of the

cheap food policy that Nixon started.

Thanks for sharing.

Now on an aside this household does mostly organic now... yes more expensive... (and it should not) as well as locally grown produce.

We are finding that keeping our weight in check is that much more easier... now that we are putting less chemicals in.

:-)

Fully anecdotal... as well I am aware.

[lukasahero]

13. There are shades of gray

but your post seems a lot more interested in telling other people to shut up than discussing them. You know best and everyone else (who hasn't had your epiphany - yet) is an idiot. Your attitude is unlikely to win you any converts, "m'kay"?

Just for the record, Jillian Michaels has hypothyroidism. So do I so I know how it's possible to gain 15 lbs while exercising and dieting. I also know that there is a ton of information out there on how to take responsibility for your own health, how to find the top thyroid docs and how to get the medications you need to get the condition under control. Once the condition is under control, a healthy diet (note: not fad) and consistent exercise do work to take off the dangerous weight associated with hypothyroidism - the weight we carry around our middle, the kind that contributes most to heart disease.

Unlike you, however, I didn't have to get this disease to consider that every overweight person might not just be a lazy food-pounding machine - I already knew that everyone has their own story and I've no reason think less of them just because they look different than I do. So, while your attitude here is all self-righteous anger, perhaps you could be a little less condescending as you admit it was you who judged overweight people in the past and try not to project your guilt onto others.

I agree with you that there are toxins in our water, our food supply and even the containers that we drink from every day. I don't agree with you that this makes us helpless to control our own health. I feel bad for those who cannot afford to eat better and wish that there was some way to get them quality food instead of the stuff that's killing them. That's not a judgment, that a call to my conscience to think of what I can do to help.

And yet, I also damn well know some people who take no responsibility for their health and then I have to pick up the slack at work when they call in sick again and again and again. That's a judgment and I feel no remorse making it.

And ftr, I know all about the Framingham Heart Study. (Not diet - HEART study.) My slender, healthy-eating, exercising husband had quadruple by-pass surgery 2 years ago. His cardiologist is part of the study team.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Get of your damn high horse

...

M'kay... you obviously has missed the at times epic flame wars on this site. If you were aware of them, you'd know exactly why I took the tone I took.

And guilt, ARE YOU NUTS??????

But some folks will only stop doing that when they walk in your shoes and mine.

Do a search of the site and come back later, m'kay?

[lukasahero]

21. OMG now THAT'S funny

Pot? Meet kettle.

I've seen the epic flame wars. And I see that your tone here is exactly the same as on those threads. Beating people over the head and calling them stupid is not the way to win a debate.

And "m'kay" is the most condescending, obnoxious way to dismiss people imaginable. It's simply rude. And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

Trust me, you and I don't walk in the same shoes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Well those who keep insisting on the black and white

one size fits all, it is just calories in and calories out... I will say it. they ARE STUPID... why I called them global weather change deniers...

So there.

And if you are in that category... I just called you stupid. If you are not, then I have not.

Oh and being nice does not work either. Showing emerging science does not work either. So there.

:banghead:

[lukasahero]

28. "So there"

I just can't help but be entertained by the degree of civil discourse we've aspired to...

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Yep, whatever dude

[Ms. Toad]

42. There is a difference between saying calories in = calories out

which is a scientifically accurate statement, and insisting that everyone burns calories at the same rate (and that it is always possible to burn enough/eat little enough to be able to safely lose weight by lowering caloric intake or increasing exercise).

I happen to be unable to eat more than around 1300 calories a day without gaining weight. That doesn't mean that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply (calories in = calories out), what it means is that for some reason my body (diabetes, medication, etc.) is more efficient than most. The burn rate can vary tremendously from person to person. My spouse (same height and weight) burns around 2500 a day.

The simple reality remains, though, if my caloric intake exceeds what my body requires to operate, my body will store the excess as fat - whether those are calories 1301 + for me or 2501+ for my spouse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. The problem is that it is NOT scientifically accurate either

and you alluded to the reason why.

In your post.

If all calories were equal... then a calorimeter would work... they are not... and that is because of how different bodies are efficient in different ways.

Calories in, calories out is a black and white, one solution fits all, throughout your lifetime solution. It ignores all other factors.

Why researchers are no longer using that... they still recommend lifestyle changes and nobody is telling people DON'T try... but at least the science community is asking WTF is going on and why your body is that much more efficient.

Of course this is way too much inside baseball.

[Ms. Toad]

55. Calories are equal.

It is the calorie efficiency of each body that varies.

A calorie is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree centigrade at atmospheric pressure. The number of calories in any given quantity of food can be (and is) routinely measured to verify the nutritional content of foods. If you eat 3500 calories more than whatever your body needs to operate (whether that is 1300 or 5000 a day), you add a pound (roughly). What varies is how many calories it takes any individual body to perform a given task. That can be very different from person to another person, and over time within a person.

My beef is not with the assertion that different people need different quantities of calories to perform their daily tasks - but with the assertion that somehow, for some people, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. The laws of thermodynamics always apply, it is just that bodies (like car engines) vary in their efficiency. The same gallon of gas is not going to take every car the same distance - it will not even take every car of the same type the same distance. Gas efficiency varies within the same car type, and between cars (a sub-compact is generally more efficient than an SUV). Similarly, calorie efficiency varies within the same body type, and between different types of bodies. Some 125 lb bodies are very calorie efficient, and their owners can eat almost nothing without gaining weight (that would be me). Other 125 lb bodies are calorie hogs - their owners can eat everything in sight and not put on a pound (that would be my spouse). And, generally, neither one of us can eat as much as a sumo wrestler can - just like with heavier cars, heavier bodies can generally eat more calories without putting on weight.

Whether calories in=calories out it is a "solution" at all (black and white, or otherwise), it is a scientific reality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Once again, since they do not work the way they work in a calorimeter

they are no longer seen to be equal when entering the human body.

To simplify this... 1 KCal in a calorimeter will act as a 0.5 in one body and 2 in another. So all those recommendations of 2,000 KCals \make are kind of suggested for a generic male... not for the individual. And yes, they thinking ten years ago was... they are all equal.

And that is my point and no, it is no longer a scientific reality.

Here is a wall. Let me go bang my head :banghead:

And have a good day... I don't think going to the Journal of Obesity, or any other relevant journal speaking of Leptin cycle for example will make any difference.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

[Ms. Toad]

62. The recommendation of 2000 kCal /day is meaningless

for guiding an individual person in how much they can eat without gaining weight. It is merely an average (a bunch of people - some of whom will require 3000 calories a day, and some of whom will only require 1000 calories a day, and a whole bunch more in the middle). The average (2000 Kcals a day) is a good predictor for the people whose bodies are of average efficiency. Averages, by their nature, are not good predictors of outliers. There will be people with vastly more efficient, or more inefficient bodies for a variety of reasons.

You can bang your head all you want - you can't make a calorie act like a half calorie in one body and two in another any more than you can make a gallon of gas act like a half gallon in one car and 2 in another. A gallon of gas is a gallon of gas, and it will take your individual car as many miles as your individual car can get on one gallon. Period.

What varies is how efficient your engine/body is - which is dependent on a variety of factors (health, medication, age, weight, etc.). You are correct - even your Leptin cycle can change your body's efficiency. That doesn't change the basic equation that calories in > calories out = weight gain. All it means is that there are times your body is more efficient than others (your calories out will be lower during times of greater efficiency). If your body efficiency varies over time (like, for example with the medication you are taking) in order to maintain a steady weight, you may need to vary your calorie intake (or exercise level) to match your greater or lower caloric needs. The reality is, for anyone whose body is very efficient, regulating weight is very difficult or impossible - you need a certain number of calories in order to get all of your nutrients, and to feel relatively satiated. Anything less than 1500 calories is extremely hard to maintain over the long haul.

But - what doesn't change is that if you consume approximately 3500 more calories than your body needs (YOUR body - not some generic "average" body), you will store those calories as a pound of fat. If your body only needs 1000 calories a day, the 3500 extra will accumulate very quickly and similarly you will add that pound very quickly (and find it hard to take off). If your body needs 3000 calories a day, you will probably struggle to keep from losing weight.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. you keep making our point and don't even realize it

sad.

[Ms. Toad]

68. I am not making your point.

The point I am making is that basic physics does not vanish in connection with weight gain/loss. Calories in > calories out = weight gain. I jumped in at (at least) the second time you asserted that physics doesn't apply to weight gain/loss. Physics does apply - period.

What always has to be taken into account in the real life process of weight loss is how efficient your body is, because a very efficient body will make a lower "calories out" number. That means it takes fewer "calories in" before you get weight gain. What an efficient (or inefficient) body doesn't do (which you have repeatedly asserted it does) is change the basic laws of thermodynamics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Yes you are, by the way I quoted some RESEARCH

on the pathogenesis of obesity... sorry if I am using big words. Nowhere in there is calories any more.

It used to be, to about ten years ago.

Calories as a construct are losing their cache any more.

But that is ok... we will still use them for other reasons, but in the coming decades you can start to bet on things like BMR and GENETICS becoming the in thing, not calories. Try to catch up.

So will be "designer diets" for different ethnic groups and how different humans use different foods...

Have a good day. I know that calories in, calories out is how you can conceive of this... and that's fine, but not accurate.

[Ms. Toad]

71. There is a difference between whether something is a useful

way to look at something, and whether it is false. My only argument with you is that you are insisting that basic physics is false - and that is nonsense.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. The construct of calories for the human body

given the hormones and other things is wrong. Now if you chose to use the construct of energy, not calories, in cell metabolism, you'd be far more accurate, And that is what we have been telling you.

It is at the mitochondrial level that this has changed.

Now people doing research into this talk about energy, not calories, and they do not talk of it the way you do. It is at the Basal Metabolic rate, which is RESTING metabolic rate, and that is your base energy needs. And what they are finding is that the needs are INDIVIDUAL, You can make a general statement that will work in an average of a population, and why they will keep using calories, But specialists are not using calories anymore... and if you want to be technical about it, the mass of what you need every day depends on your hormones, your Basal Metabolic rate and your activity level. Here is the trick. IT CHANGES day to day. So to say that you need 1300 calories per day is not exact.

Nor is calories in calories out, but to be more exact, an average of your energy level per day... and that is where they will not move from using calories, which work as an approximation. But just an approximation. This approximation is good enough for government work for the MAJORITY of the population that is healthy, no side issues... and young. Once you get into silly shit like Insulin resistance, Adult Metalobic Syndrome or a slew of metabolic problems, calories lose their usefulness. They also lose it in the other extreme, see Michael Phelps.

So if you want to talk about energy, be accurate about it... because it is not as simple as calories, and calories out.

By the way, this is the cliff's notes of where things are moving.

[Ms. Toad]

82. A calorie is a unit of energy.

Did I ever say your energy needs did NOT change day to day? That the needs are not individual? That insulin or other things don't effect your caloric efficiency (closely related to you Basal Metabolic rate)? Or even that the basic caloric physics is the best way to look at it?

All I have said is that no matter how you determine "calories out" (minute by minute, average over the day, Basal Metabolic Rate + activity energy), the basic relationship still holds. There may be a lot more useful ways to look at it - no argument there. My sole argument is when you insist that the basic physics statement of energy use (and storage of the excess as fat) is false.

I'm all for finding new and more helpful ways of looking at weight control - but just because there are more helpful ways of looking at the issue doesn't change the underlying physics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. I know that and it is not used by researchers any more

that is the damn freaking point.

Any other questions?

BASIC METABOLIC RATE is used... because it CHANGES through the days, years and hormones. THAT IS WHAT YOU NEED TO CONSUME TO STAY ALIVE and it CHANGES, Why they have moved away from generic Calories statements. And they are moving to OTHER ENERGY UNITS, and they are trying to move away from this ONE SOLUTION FITS ALL. WHICH IS CALORIES IN CALORIES OUT THINKING IS WRONG.

IS this now clear? Otherwise I think we are done.

:banghead:

[Ms. Toad]

91. I have made no assertion about what researchers use

regarding weight management - my ONLY point is that whatever they are currently looking at does not render basic physics false.

There is a difference between arguing that some other viewpoint is more useful (which may well be correct) and insisting that physics fails (which is nonsense - whether or not that particular physics principle is a useful tool for this problem).

You can freely assert that some other way of looking at the issue of weight management is far better than looking at it from a calories in/calories out perspective and you will get no argument from me.

When you will get an argument from me is when you insist that calories in > calories out = weight gain is a false statement. Just because it may not be a useful tool does not make it false.

[Silent3]

108. There has to be some maximum efficiency.

First of all, let me say I share your impatience with people who think weight loss is as easy as "Hey! Exercise and stop eating the twinkies, fatso!".

But it's also true that the human body, even if humans don't "work like calorimeters", can't violate the laws of physics. If a person gains weight it's not because their bodies are magically generating new mass. If you could weigh all of the material going into a persons body, and weigh all of the material going out (not easy to do, because things like oxygen, carbon dioxide, and evaporated moisture would also have to be tallied) all weight loss and weight gain would show up in those tallies.

If a person is to remain alive, the food they eat must contain at least as much caloric energy (and much more, since even the fattest person isn't a 100% converter of dietary calories) as the energy that person expends to stay alive. When energy input is less than energy output, reserves must be tapped (typically fat, hence weight loss) or the person will sicken or die.

Unless a person's biochemistry is so screwed up that vital tissues are sacrificed or vital functions reduced or shut down before fat reserves are tapped, at some point some reduction in calories and/or increase in physical activity has got to lead to weight loss. (Of course, other problems can occur if the food consumed, no matter what the quantity, lacks necessary vitamins, amino acids, or micronutrients.)

What some people are failing to realize is how unpleasantly meager that quantity of food might be for some people, and/or how strenuous the exercise might have to be, to achieve goals much more easily obtained by others.

Further, some people (but probably not as many as would like to imagine themselves to be) are probably healthiest at a weight higher than what fashion or actuarial averages would dictate.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. Once again, my question (and that of leading scientists)

is what is changing human bodies, what is changing BMRs making bodies that far more efficient.

That is the question.

We know with age people have more efficient BMRs, and need less calories, but this is not normal.

That is the question.

As to the tables, rumor has it that the tables will probably be revised... suffice it to say that has been a rumor for a long time and the revision would be one two percent, nothing spectacular. Been in committee, sis has told me, for a long time. She is a dietitian.

But for those who don't realize what this means, is that the range for my height weight would move up by an astounding four pounds.

:-)

[Scout]

74. Calories are equal?

So, all OTHER things being equal i will be the same weight and just as healthy if i consume 1200 calories a day of chocolate as i am if i consumer 1200 calories a day of apples?

Calories are equal, after all....

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Oh silly you, facts and all that

We had a good example of what happens with extreme nutrition. Our parrot ate enough calories... during his seed addiction, your chocolate equivalent. He almost died from malnutrition. Oh he was really close to it... and thankfully after we finally went radical and threw the candy away... he started eating OTHER stuff.

[Ms. Toad]

83. Same weight, yes.

I was not addressing the issue of health - as I am sure you well know - merely the repeated assertion that somehow basic principles of physics are no longer valid because people are learning more about the variety of things that determine the "calories out" for a given body at the relevant point in time.

But your basic question is sort of like asking which weighs more - a ton of feathers or a ton of lead. Both weigh the same - and with respect to the chocolate and apples, both contain the same energy (calories measure energy, so 1200 calories of apples contains the same amount of energy as 1200 calories of chocolate), and both will give your body the same capacity to do work (whether that work is lying around in bed merely keeping your organs function, or running a marathon).

Now - at the nearly irrelevant level - chocolate is probably more easily digestable than apples so you might need to eat a few more calories of apples in order to account for the extra energy required to digest the apples.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Basic principles that are more complex than just that

for the science community.

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead: ad infinitum.

Somebody pass me a tylenol for the damn headache

[Ms. Toad]

88. I am part of the science community,

And the fundamental underlying physics principle is just that simple.

Calories in > calories out = weight gain.

Determining "calories out" is a complex calculation - I have never suggested otherwise, but it is a number that can be determined and if you consume more calories than that number you will gain weight. The fact that there may be other, more useful, ways to look at it does not alter basic scientific reality.

Nothing you have said even hints at any scientifically based challenge to the fundamental principle of physics. You are merely looking at one piece of the relationship (how much energy (calories) a given person uses) and insisting that the fact that an (or the same) average number doesn't work in that slot for everyone makes the relationship broken - which is just nonsense. That is like saying that the statement: if I take in more money than I spend I will have money left over is false because merely because some (most) people don't spend at an average rate. Variation in my individual spend rate (or caloric burn rate) cannot alter the basic relationship.

All that anything you have suggested does is impact how we think, on an individual basis, about what an individual's energy (caloric) needs are (i.e. what is the number that represents calories out). It doesn't take "calories out" out of the equation. Even the articles another poster pointed to in an attempt to prove that physics no longer applies both expressly and implicitly relied on the basic principle that if you consume more calories than you you use, you put on weight.

Again - I am not, and have never argued, that the underlying physical relationship is the best way to manage weight or to understand why one person can eat everything in sight and be skinny as a rail why others do little more than look at food and put on weight. In fact, I will go so far as to say the basic underlying physics does not even address individual differences. Doesn't make it false - it is just that it is indifferent as to what the burn rate is, or what might impact it.

But however you look at the very complex why (and what is the best way to manage it) question, the simple underlying physics cannot change. It doesn't mean you have to use it if it is not a useful tool for you, but it doesn't stop being true just because you no longer find it a helpful tool - and that is my only argument with you - your repeated insistence that because you no longer find it a useful tool that it is false; that somehow because it is no longer a useful way for you to look at things that when you burn a calorie of fuel (energy) you no longer get a fixed amount of work out of it. That is just magical thinking, not scientific thinking.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. You got the last word and I surrender to your wisdom

No matter how much research into obesity and the etiology of it says otherwise.

I guess all them pointy head researchers are just damn WRONG!

:banghead:

[Ms. Toad]

92. Not wrong - they are just not addressing the issue that

I have been challenging your assertions about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. No you haven't, you are still using old thinking on

how this works... and denying how complex this is. After all all calories are equal... give me my 1300 in chocolate please.... and some red wine.

(I guess the visit to the ER due to comma will be fun too) I mean all calories are equal and humans are calorimeters.

But I do bow to your wisdom. You are correct of course and it is simple, calories in, calories out... that's it... :sarcasm:

[Ms. Toad]

107. Then please provide me a link to any of your current research

which asserts that calories in > calories out does not turn into weight gain.

You wont' be able to find any reputable papers that say that, since respectable scientists understand that physics doesn't just vanish, or become false, just because different ways of exploring why there is such variation in how many calories we need to get through the day are being developed.

As to your chocolate comment - reading comprehension would be a good skill to develop. Have I ever asserted that calories are equal in any aspect other than the quantity of energy they provide your body (or the consequences of taking more in than you use in terms of weight)? The answer to that would be "No." The entire focus of everything I have said in this discussion is on the basic principle - that a calorie is a fixed quantity of energy. You take in more than you need, and the excess energy will be stored as fat for your body's later use.

You want to eat only chocolate, but limit it to the quantity that provides fewer calories than your body needs - be my guest. There are all sorts of unhealthy diets out there that produce results - all based on the principle of limiting something (which has the effect of limiting calories) - whether it is Weight Watchers, South Beach, Grapefruit, etc. You don't typically come out the other side of the diet terribly healthy. Just because it is possible to lose weight that way doesn't mean it is a smart choice - but knock yourself silly with your chocolate if you like. As long as you are limiting your calories to less than it takes to run your body you'll lose weight (at least until your body goes into starvation mode and you require a new, lower quantity, of calories (energy) to function).

[Silent3]

112. No one is saying that the physical effect on the body of all calories is equal

A gallon of gasoline has a whole lot of calories, but drinking it won't make you fat, it'll kill you.

However, there upper and lower boundaries to what can realistically happen. No matter how fattening some type of food is considered, you can't put on a whole pound of weight as fat from eating one pound of any kind of food -- our bodies simply aren't that efficient in converting calories to fat. (I can't find an exact figure on that efficiency, only that the human body is only about 18-26% efficient in converting dietary calories into mechanical energy.)

I suppose it's vaguely possible that one type of food might contain something that increases the overall efficiency of converting other foods consumed at around the same time into fat, so that in a sense it might be fattening in excess of its own caloric content, but even if some food like that exists, it can't make you gain more weight than the total convertible calories your overall diet makes available. Conservation of energy applies, conservation of matter applies.

The money analogy the other poster used should be helpful, especially if you add to that analogy that the idea that the human body doesn't have anything equivalent to an interest-bearing account. The equivalent of different sources of calories being processed differently would be like having some of your income in the form of coupons that are difficult in varying degrees to get some merchants to accept, and which might not be honored at full face value, and are never honored at more than face value.

No matter how basically "thrifty" you are, no matter how much you cut your spending, no matter how good you are at saving, you can't cut your costs to zero. At some point there's got to be a pay cut large enough or an expense large enough to cut into your savings.

[nadinbrzezinski]

114. And nobody is saying the cost is down to zero

what we are saying and recent scientific research is pointing to this, is that something is happening in the environment that has changed how bodies work.

If you are truly curious look at how organophosphates, some of which are in the foods you eat, change hormonal levels.

This is leading edge, and explosive...

Now if you do not believe me that this is a world wide problem, look at the World Health Organization

Now I knew nobody would change anybody's mind here. In reality some of our global warming deniers are still denying this is happening. Well guess what? This green revolution is probably at the same level. and truly unintended consequences. SOMETHING is activating fat genes, and diet alone is not the only explanation. We are up to 1 Billion world wide. That is one seventh of the world's population. This is teh HIGHEST rate of obesity in the history of humanity, at least recorded. You explain what is going on, (people are trying by the way) since it's exploded in a generation.

And no I don't expect to change minds. Magical thinking and all that, and as I said in the OP... the world is not heating up either... :sarcasm:

[Silent3]

115. What does any of what you're saying there have to do with what I said?

The tone of what you're saying is "No, you're wrong! You aren't listening!", but the substance of what you're saying has no content that refutes anything I said.

No matter what you think may or may not be changing in human bodies and how they function, it's not that they no longer obey the rules of physics.

Suppose I give you as totally proven that "SOMETHING is activating fat genes". Do you think that hyperactive fat genes are capable of producing something from nothing, producing more caloric output than they are given for input? Do you think that nutritionists are hot on the trail of something that would revolution our understanding of basic physics?

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. Ok in few words

OUR BODIES ARE CHANGING and something is activating the Fat Gene in at least so far 1\7th of the world's population. THAT IS WHAT IS CHANGING the question of WHY.

Perhaps I should write this in Spanish... or Hebrew... Chinese perhaps?

I truly am ready to give up... apparently asking WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON IS TANTAMOUNT TO SAYING THAT WE CAN EAT WHATEVER WE CAN. NEver mind it is not.

[Silent3]

119. I wasn't trying to answer any such question...

...about why "OUR BODIES ARE CHANGING". I'm not sure I agree with that premise (not denying it's possible either), so I'm under no obligation to explain it. And it's certainly not like you flat-out asked such a question in any of the messages I responded to for you to be getting angry as if I'd ignored a direct question.

So, are you upset because you think people are evading this important question of "WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON ?"? I'm not answering because I can't answer it. I don't have an answer for you there.

In the meantime, I'm making a different point that you don't seem to want to address about human bodies and what the laws of physics have to say about calories, exercise and weight loss or gain. There are some things that are true, that have to be true, no matter what happens to our biochemistry, no matter what genes are activated or deactivated.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. And scientists are no longer treating bodies just as calorimeters

and calories are not all equal.

I guess I am done... after all yes the laws of thermodynamics work around the world, but that was never the point of the OP, or for that matter current research.... the point was... oh never mind I give up...

As I said in the OP nobody wants to talk about this, and no, not you... but I should have learned a long time ago. NEVER ever post leading edge info on this site that steps on way too many toes...

Yes that is my frustration speaking. I no longer post about breaking news (political) around the world, because of that reason. The flame wars over Neda and Iran taught me that. Perhaps it is time to no longer talk about science, thyroid dysfunction et al... or for that matter global warming

Perhaps Palin is a safe subject...

[Silent3]

123. Have you ever thought that it's the way your present your information?

Or the way you respond to challenges that might be the problem?

You brought this "scientists are no longer treating bodies just as calorimeters" stuff up in such a way that you clearly raised a concern for many people that you might be saying something that doesn't make sense according to physical laws. Why not acknowledge the potential for confusion, address it, then move on?

Instead what you've done is vent frustration in such a way that makes it seem like you're being deliberately evasive. "Scientists" (some scientists? most scientists?) may not be treating human bodies as "just calorimeters", but nothing I've heard indicates that they've stopped treating human bodies as systems that obey basic physical laws.

Will you address that, or would you rather just get all flustered about how everyone who questions anything about your post must somehow be threatened or overly challenged by your "leading edge", fiercely trying to protect their toes from getting stepped on?

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. No it is not that

and that's ok... I am done....

I know the shut your mouth off crowd wins... like they always do...

And I have presented studies too... does not matter

It really does not matter.

It really doesn't

This is like global warming. I will make a prediction, when the dust settles yes, something is going on and it is related to the age of oil, like global warming, and people will fight that tooth and nail.

On the bright side, (not really for other reasons) the age of oil is coming to an end... so perhaps the chemicals will stop affecting higher chordates in a generation or two. Then again the end of the age of oil will bring starvation at levels not seen in human history.

But the reaction to this is akin to global warming... and that is the point.

good night... I am done. Truly done... and the frustration comes from people readying their own agenda into the OP. I never said that the laws of physics have been cancelled, and people cannot understand that... for personal value based reasons.

So when morality gets in the mix... well then... I could say the sky is blue, it isn't... and does not matter what is presented or how...

So I am done...

So war on christmas should be a safe subject, or Palin should be a safe subject, or just piling on the ignorant GOPers... (when it is Ignorant Americans)

[Silent3]

127. I could ask you if water is wet...

...and rather than say water is wet, it's as you'd regard agreeing that water is wet would be a defeat of some sort for you, you'd just keep insisting that I'm somehow telling you to "shut your mouth", and that my question about water being wet makes me the equivalent of a global warming denier.

I'm not telling you to shut up about anything. I'm not denying anything in particular that you've said. I've asked for a clarification for how you regard what you're saying in regards to what's known about physics and you refuse to give a direct answer.

Nor do I expect you to answer any more. You'll just rant more about how we won't listen, how we're in denial, how we're trying to shut you down, shut you up, and how through you are.

Oh, poor you, and your pearls before swine! :eyes:

[bobbolink]

126. "Diet is not the only explanation"

I agree completely, and while some of the damnable things being prescribed to change peoples' moods are responsible, I also believe that our high levels of stress is having a large effect.

And we can blame both the highly profitable mind-altering drugs AND the stress on the damnable corporations!

[sense]

58. You are part of the problem

That is not a scientifically accurate statement!! This is exactly the problem....people spouting lies. Do the research, it's been proven false time after time. It's not true. Our bodies are very complicated and we find out more about them every day. I don't understand why people continue to post, and continue to repeat lies about things they clearly no nothing about.

I'm not just jumping on you.....it's a wide spread problem. There are an enormous amount of topics that I'm sure you and others do know something about....Why don't people stick to what they know in their posting and simply learn from the other postings? I learn here constantly, but there are very few subjects I post about. Really, if you don't know, by having read or done the latest research, why continue to contribute to the problem?

It's not simply, very few things are.

[Ms. Toad]

65. No, it is basic physics.

I am not saying weight control is simple. What I am saying is that the laws of physics do not change just because the caloric efficiency of bodies varies for a variety of very complex reasons.

Just like different cars require different amounts of gas to run, for a variety of different reasons, bodies require different amounts of calories to operate, for a similar variety of different reasons. Calories are fuel, pure and simple. If you give your body more fuel than it needs, it stores it as fat for future shortages. If you starve your body (as most diets do) it figures out how to work more efficiently - so it needs fewer calories and your weight loss on a fixed caloric intake drops over time. If you are on certain medication, that may change your caloric intake, as may a whole host of other things.

There is a difference between saying caloric intake/use violates basic principles of physics (which it cannot) and saying that different bodies have different caloric needs/burn rates, for a variety of different reasons (which they do), or that even an individual body varies its caloric needs over time (which it does).

Weight loss/maintenance is a complex biological/physiological/psychological/sociological process. The underlying physics, on the other hand, is simple.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Do me a favor since I seem to be very dense

point to me the physics in here.

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v10/n12s/full/oby2002202a.html

Or here

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/jama;269/4/483

Perhaps here...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/412685

And this is where the science is. It moved beyond calories about ten years ago... that is the last time that calories were that important.

[Ms. Toad]

70. Not going to do all of your work for you, but here's a start

>>Despite the similar genetic predisposition, Pima Indians living a traditional lifestyle in a remote section of Mexico had significantly lower BMI than those living in the more affluent environment of Arizona (24.9 vs. 33.4 kg/m2; p < 0.001). These groups were separated approx700 to 1000 years ago and now differ in terms of both diet and energy expenditure. Pima Indians living in Mexico eat a diet with less animal fat and caloric density and more complex carbohydrates than those in Arizona, and they also have greater energy expenditure from physical labor.<<

Translation: the genetically similar Mexico group ate lower caloric density food (i.e. fewer calories in) and greater expenditure from physical labor (i.e. more calories out) resulting in a lower BMI (weighed less) than Pima Indians living in Arizona.

>>The development of obesity occurs when the caloric intake is disproportionate to the energy expended.<<

Translation: Calories in > calories out = weight gain.

>>The resting metabolic rate (RMR) is strongly correlated to fat-free mass (FFM) in both men and women (10). . . .The contribution of low energy expenditure to the development of obesity was evaluated in several studies of Pima Indians. . . . People with low adjusted energy expenditure were four times more likely to gain 7.5 kg during follow-up than those with high adjusted energy expenditure.<<

Translation: Efficient bodies (low RMR) - low energy expenditure - is correlated with weight gain - i.e. low calories out corresponds to weight gain.

What these articles address are the reasons one person may have lower caloric needs (i.e. lower calories out) than another person - they reaffirm (as I knew they would) the basic physics - calories in > calories out = weight gain.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Not fully exact

but if you want to stick to it, stick to it. It seem to help you

I know it makes you happy.

All the PIMA indians studies have also looked at how western diet screwed the hormonal levels of the North of the border population, while the traditional diet of the south of the border Tarahumara population had very little incidence of Adult Metabolic Syndromes.

As an aside we had a small population of Tarahumara living in TJ and we did some diet and body mass interviews since they were also semi urban... interestingly the incidence of human adult syndromes was lower than their north of the border cousins. as they stuck closer to the traditional diet.

[Ms. Toad]

81. The poster asked where the physics was that still applies

since s/he couldn't find it in the article. I looked at the first portion of the first article and pointed out several instances in which the physics is clearly discussed.

Again - my only argument with you is when you insist that calories in > calories out does not equal weight gain. Everything you keep talking applies to how to calculate (what impacts) one element of the relationship: calories out. Yes, that element varies tremendously for a number of reasons (both between people, and within a single person over shorter or longer periods of time) - but no matter how much that factor varies, the relationship (the basic physics) still holds.

I have never said that the basic relationship is the most useful way to look at weight control - merely that knowing more about what determines calories out does not wipe out basic physics.

It has nothing to do with making me happy - it has to do with being a former physics teacher who continues to be appalled at the basic ignorance of science in this country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. That's how you understand this

how this makes you happy

have a good life

[sense]

90. You're not putting calories into an empty box and taking them out...

You're putting different types of calories into a very complex system, full of all sorts of processes, reactions and entities we don't even know about. Some we haven't even discovered yet and some we simply don't understand. You're trying far too hard to simplify something that we cannot at this point even understand. We discover new things every day. Nothing about science is ever settled.

[Ms. Toad]

110. How your body uses calories, how many it needs,

how it varies over time - you are correct. That is very complex, we don't understand it, and are in the process of figuring all of that out. Once we do, we may develop better ways to attain and maintain whatever a healthy weight is for our bodies.

That is not the point I have been disputing. I have NOT been addressing the overall issue of weight control - I am addressing the basic principles of physics, specifically the first law of thermodynamics, which is long settled.

A poster in this thread asserted at least twice that the basic rules of physics no longer apply - that the following is false: calories in > calories out = weight gain. (Phrased a number of different ways, perhaps, but that is the basic concept.) That basic relationship is true, from a scientific standpoint, it is one statement of the first law of thermodynamics that says that in a system energy can neither be created or destroyed, but may change form. It may not be the most useful way of looking at it in connection with attaining and maintaining a healthy weight, but just because different ways of looking at the overall issue are being developed that may be more useful does not make the basic principle false. They can both be true - other ways of looking at how much energy is expended may more helpful BUT the physical relation of energy consumed = energy expended + weight gain is still correct.

What is true is that we don't yet understand all that goes into the calculation of "calories out." We don't know everything about why some people's bodies require more energy to function; we don't know why the energy needed changes over time for a particular person; we don't know why certain medications change the amount of energy required - and a whole host of other things. If we wanted to, we could quantify the energy consumed and check the basic physics, and I guarantee you that the basic principle above would hold - if that person took in more calories than were used, that person would gain weight.

Regardless of the fact that it is true doesn't necessarily make it helpful - and that is where the field is changing - not in the rejection of thermodynamics, but in a better understanding of what governs the burn rate (and probably to a lesser extent the intake rate).

Merely relying on the overall thermodynamics (calorie counting) is helpful for some people - quantifying how much goes in v. how much is used is a useful tool for some people. For example, Weight watchers is an effective (and generally healthy) way of controlling weight for some people, and it relies on counting calories (at its core).

For far more people, however, merely counting calories (in whatever format) is not a useful tool. We have been doing it for decades with the resulting yo-yo weights and repeated failures by people sincerely interested in losing weight to either lose or to take the weight off in the first place.

Again, that doesn't mean their body rejects the basic principles of physics - it may mean that it is more useful to learn what other things impact either the calories consumed (prednisone, or appetite triggers often increase the caloric intake), or the calories expended (genetics, medication, disease process, exercise, etc.) - and you don't necessarily have to be consciously aware of the underlying physics in order for looking at different things that impact the calorie burn or intake rate to be very useful.

The ONLY reason I entered this discussion is the assertion that somehow the laws of physics vanish just because figuring out how many calories a particular body uses as it makes its way through the day is complex and (based on what we know) less predictable than determining how many calories are used heating up a given quantity of water a given number of degrees. Just because the calculations of "calories out" are quite complex, and may not be the most useful way of looking at the issue of weight control, doesn't make the underlying principles of physics false.

[nadinbrzezinski]

116. So to be correct what I asserted is that our understanding of this

is now changing and it is not just calories in calories out.

We have been saying that it is very complex. THIS IS THE FUCKING POINT OF THE OP and the science that is now leading edge...

But that is ok... either I do not write English or people have obvious biases.

I don't know.

[Ms. Toad]

121. Find me one single documented case

in which the measured caloric intake does not equal the calories expended over a period of, say a month, AND there is no weight gain or loss and I will concede that physics no longer applies.

Again, there may be more helpful ways to look at weight control than counting calories (discovering and addressing reasons why metabolism changes or addressing intake triggers, for example etc.) - but ultimately (whether it is expressly part of how you look at it or not) if the calories consumed are more than needed to run the body there will be weight gain. You can't get away from the first law of thermodynamics - energy within a system may change form, but cannot magically appear or vanish.

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. While you are fixed on calories in calories out

that is not what this was about.

And if you think it was... well then.. I am done arguing with you or anybody else... have a good fucking life...

[Ms. Toad]

129. I didn't brint it up - you did.

I ignored it the first time you made the comment, but I'm frankly tired of the insistence that basic principles of physics are false because we are learning more about individual variation in metabolism. Varitions in metabolism work within the basic principles that govern weight, they don;t wipe them out.

[sense]

133. Here's a real life example

Woman decides to diet. Impatient woman. 800 calories per day, working full time on her feet, 40 hours per week, plus the usual energy expended in the other work of the week. Continues on diet for 5 weeks....each week, gaining 1 1/2 to 2 lbs. per week. After 5th week, discovers she is pregnant. Calories in do not equal calories expended by a long shot. How did that happen?

Your faith in the laws of thermodynamics is founded on misinterpretations of thermodynamic law and not the law itself.

One misconception: There is no arrow of causality. It is possible, w/o violating the basic truth for there to be an association between caloric intake and weight gain, but there is no justification for the assumption that it's the cause of weight gain. Association is not causal.

Height, the growth of skeletal and muscle tissue is determined by genetic inheritance and driven by hormonal regulation. The same is more than likely true of girth.

[Ms. Toad]

135. I am not asking for an anecdotal story

I keep being told that the research now shows physics is no longer true - I am asking for a single case study, well documented, which establishes this phenomenon. The articles previously pointed to support the continued truth of the fundamental principles of physics as underlying the newer research that refines our knowledge of the factors that influence how many calories each individual expends.

Height, growth of skeletal and tissue, genetics, and hormonal regulation are all factors that relate to how many calories are expended - we all expend calories at different rates. The influence of those factors is on the "calories out" number; they don't wipe out the fundamental underlying physics.

[sense]

140. Only the top paragraph is anecdotal, obviously.

The physics is science gleaned from the research.

It's not that physics isn't true, it's that you're confusing association with causation. That's an enormous error.

[JNelson6563]

137. Frankly I'm a Nadine fan and even I

found the tone of your OP rather off-putting. Just sayin'.

Julie

[Johonny]

22. I think it's more a personal vs societal thing

the poster isn't saying there isn't a obesity problem in this country. He's saying not every single person that is overweight has the same issues. Which is profound or not profound depending on the reader. Clearly the current American population is larger (yet shorter) than their parents and grandparents. To date there isn't a clear explanation for why this is. However to take a generalization of a problem and try to diagnose a single person isn't very helpful. For a problem like obesity it is probably more than one factor going on.

[Missy Vixen]

25. Oh, goody

How long did it take them to show up this time?

There are those on this site who openly believe that the fat should not be allowed in public. Go ahead -- advance search is just waiting for you, and there are hundreds of threads to choose from. When you read some of those postings, you are free to come back here and net nanny those of us who've been reading this crap for the past eight years. Then again, I think you'll be too embarrassed to show yourself in the thread again.

Fat is the last acceptable bastion of prejudice, not only on this website, but in our society. It's acceptable to say something to a fat person that would get you punched in the face by someone of any other religious belief, race, or orientation. The permanently thin believe that their genetic good luck also confers the moral high ground as well. It's not just thermodynamics or "exercise more and put down the fork" for millions. I'm very happy for Jillian Michaels, but her story is not the norm for anyone with hypothyroidism, especially after 40.

It's amazing to me that those who badger, ostracize and shame the fat have nothing better to do with their time. Then again, they've proven over and over here that they don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. You are surprised? I am not

by the way... I just realized... I have actually maintained for five years... this is the magic number for success.

Happy me, lucky me... I am a success story!

It is luck, not moral superiority... (and a few meds to boot)

:hi:

It was kind of WOW been five years now.... and for the purist I just had some rye bead with cheese, so there!

[lukasahero]

27. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim

Please provide evidence to support your claim that there are people on this site who believe "the fat" should not be allowed in public. I'll not do your work for you.

I'm not embarrassed to show myself in this thread (and for the record, I believe I'm free to "come back here" to this discussion with or without your permission, thank you very much). As I said, I never judged the overweight to begin with. And you'll see, if you decide to use advanced search yourself, that if ever I have jumped into the fray, it has always been on the side the overweight. I used to be the "permanently thin" for christ sakes and I NEVER considered myself morally superior to anyone. Quit projecting.

Jillian's story is an inspiration to this over-40 woman who has, with proper medical treatment, diet, and strenuous exercise managed to lose 12 of the 20 lbs I put on before I was diagnosed with hypothyroidism. Rather than brush off her accomplishments, perhaps you might consider reading up on Jillian's story - you just might find it beneficial to your own health.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Well you said you have read those threads

you haven't then.

Thank you

Oh and there are many inspirational stories out there. Here is a question for you... how many Americans (many of whom are overweight) don't have health insurance?

47 million last time... I checked.

So you think these 47 million will be able to go have a consult with a top rated specialist in a variety of specialties that may or may not affect their weight?

Now how many of those with insurance will be able to go see these specialists, as they are out of network?

See... you are exhibiting that judgmental attitude... IF THEY WANTED they COULD take responsibility for...

Thanks for playing....

And you accuse me of judging others... Jeebus age!

[lukasahero]

34. No I don't think they can hire specialists without insurance

Which I why I said I have a crisis of conscience of what I can do to improve their situation. What are you doing to help?

I'm done playing with you - you're rude and you don't listen. For fuck's sake I'm on your fucking side and you've managed to turn me off. I can't imagine why you're not winning this debate with people who disagree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. No you are not on my side

and your language, I am done playing with you, is rather revealing.

BYE.

[Missy Vixen]

32. Bullshit

It's happened over and over. A thirty-second search would pull it up, and no, I'm not doing your work for you.

If you claim to have "defended" the overweight so many times on this site, you would have seen it as well.

Not interested in your guru. Thanks for playing.

[pitohui]

37. good post, i think a lot of people lack basic powers of observation

i am thin but i have eyes in my head and i'm not an idiot, how do you not see that thin people eat/cook way more than (most) fat people?

my hubby weighs twice what i do and he eats half the calories of what i eat

i'm completely convinced there's a genetic component and a medication component -- too many people i know get on meds and that's the end of them being able to maintain their weight, important classes of medications (SSRIS, steroids, hormones) are KNOWN to promote weight gain

it's my belief that the metabolites in the water also promote weight gain in the susceptible and i suspect a lot of this is behind the obesity epidemic

you young-uns won't believe me, but back in the day EVERYONE drank coke and ate cheeseburgers yet there would be one fat kid to a class -- being fat while young was UNUSUAL

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Two things about the coke and the burger

though true. What I ate as a medic while on shift would astound people... cheeseburger with bacon and cheese (what we used to call heart attack to go) from a street vendor, who also added mayo and plenty of either picante salsa or japapenos to it, and a soda... that was dinner. Ok so I feel better it has onions and tomato.

Anyhow most burgers not 20 years ago... but forty years ago were smaller, and the glass of coke was 8 oz... kid's size today.

That also has had an effect. But you are absolutely right.

On the observation side... Cocos now is offering (at least in California) normal portions. I swear I had a breakfast the other day that was... surprising. One egg, one slice 2 oz of ham, and 3 oz potatoes and a small biscuit.... and it was not the choose from the sides. It was a menu item.

I thanked the manager...

[K8-EEE]

40. To me it is really interesting that crowd scenes 40 & 50 years ago

People were so slim as compared to now. Look at any old black and white baseball game. Sure there will be a couple of obese people in the shot but now it's AT LEAST HALF of the people!

IMO it's what we are eating and drinking -- the chems the fast food, the artificial sweeteners and etc. And also the parking garage-to-elevator-to-couch lifestyle. I think it wrecks the metabolism to the point where people become overweight very easily and losing weight is very tough

In any event I don't understand people who are not compassionate about people who struggle with their weight.

[pitohui]

44. i'm going to tell you a secret

40 and 50 yrs ago the food people ate had more calories, more fat, and more salt

it ain't the food

until we accept the evidence of our own lying eyes instead of pie in the sky bullshit about "calories" we're going to keep going down the wrong path

people ate MORE calories in the past, a lot more, i would love to see you at one of our family buffets in the 60s complete w. a whole pie for every single human present -- and everybody was skinny! everybody! ( i ate the coconut cream pie, go me, yay!)

yah, more people smoked but my family didn't smoke and we were still skinny (admittedly we still are, so maybe we also have genetics on our side)

there is something in today's environment that has changed and it ain't calories because there is no evidence that people are consuming anywhere near the calories they did in olden times

[K8-EEE]

46. I'm not so sure about that

I read an interesting article (will try to find it!) about portion sizes and how they have doubled or tripled in the last decades.

I myself inherited my grandma's dishes....they're TINY, the dinner plate is a salad plate. When I was in France last year I was struck by how people ate small (to us) servings off of small plates. We somehow started to fall under the spell of these chain restaurants "value meals" served on a platter not a plate, and mostly filled with cheap starches or fries.

I do think we kind of brought the portions home with us to speak.

I've had pretty good results weight control wise with the small dishes thing. Ditching the huge plates and especially GIANT CEREAL BOWLS! I think it's fairly common to have 3X one serving in one bowl....AND THEN POUR ANOTHER ONE.

True some people are overweight because of other factors, but for me, decreasing portion control with age really helps and I find when I eat half a sandwich I'm perfectly OK with it; although if I had giant servings in front of me I would eat it all!

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. It is partly lifestyle

but something is activating those fat genes and creating other changes.

That is why 50 years ago you saw one or two... who are not that big by modern standards. Those were your fat gene expression... like my "aunt" I mentioned... though she was morbidly obese mind you.

To me it is in the water and the food, literally.

The first insecticide was deployed in 1938, you and I know the initials, DDT. It had terrible effects across the environment, remember the thinning egg shells? I cannot help to wonder if DDT (and later chemicals) have not played havoc with our bodies. I mean they are designed to kill in at times very creative ways.

In some ways this to me will be akin to global warming... because our industrial agriculture is wholly dependent on them. If we stopped using them tomorrow... billions across the world will starve and die. So it is a catch 22. The world does not have the carrying capacity for our current population load.

Perhaps we will have no choice anyway... most of those chemicals are oil based.

[K8-EEE]

47. Speaking generally though Americans are fatter

I was in Europe last summer and like most Americans struck by how slender the middle aged and older people seemed, by our standards. Even though they line up for the bakery in the a.m they aren't fat! I do think their food is higher quality and smaller portions though.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. As I said part of it is lifestyle

and portion control.

But Mexico is a country with a gift of a lot of good weather (global warming is ruining that though) with a lot of fresh fruit and vegies... guess where are they obesity wise? And yes dishes and portions are also smaller...

France is seeing an uptick in obesity.

And WHO has the data. It is going up world wide... regardless of local diet and all that.

The favorite blame is a western style diet. Part of the reason for it, indeed... (see Mickey Ds et al) but the striking uptick on this is making the science community ask... WTF? And now there is research into the effects of organophostates and obesity. There is a link

Some links for you

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w201461632286372/

I know rat study, well that is where all start

And a good blog

http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/index.php?s=organophosphates

And here is the WHO statement on this

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/

[anneboleyn]

78. I studied images from the 19th century in grad school and you are wrong.

Many people, especially if they were from a higher class status, were what would now be considered obese. Take a look at Queen Victoria and any number of political figures for starters. The average middle and upper middle class Victorian woman was certainly considered fat by today's standards.

It is a myth that fat people only appeared in the late twentieth century. There were no studies being done in the 19th century of these issues either so we hardly have an accurate notion of how many people were truly obese.

[Lilith Velkor]

87. The 19th century was not 40 or 50 years ago, it was 100 years ago.

What appeared during the twentieth century was the cultural expectation that mid-to-upper class women be thin.

The images from the 1950s reflect that.

[K8-EEE]

111. Well I'm not talking about portraits of well to do ladies, I mean crowd scenes

Look at a studio audience in 1958 and one today for example.

[nickinSTL]

53. good post

I get really annoyed when people are intolerant about weight.

And the idea of taxing fat people, or charging them higher health premiums...don't get me started.

I've been overweight since I was 5 mos. old. Is that due to overeating and lack of exercise? I doubt it.

Currently, I'm just at the point where by BMI I'm no longer obese, but just overweight.

I eat probably 1700 calories a day (nowhere near the 2000-2500 they say an adult male should), exercise regularly, and eat a lot of fruit and vegetables.

Yet, I'm still overweight. Why?

Part of it is because I have a metabolic disorder that I just recently learned can interfere with fat metabolism - many people with the disorder are overweight. Part of it is that because of the same disorder, my diet is rather high in carbs.

I can't do much to change that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Well once they find what is wrong

they can help you with it.

Now as to the sin taxes, I am torn. On the one hand it will punish people who truly have no control, on the other there are a few... it is a debate how many, that is more of a choice. Mind you, I am not convinced anymore that choice is as important as we even thought ten years ago, as we find more and more metabolic disorders as well Or to be more exact some that used to be lethal (diabetes comes to mind) are very survivable.

Now I am all for a sin tax on sodas... but that is for many complex reasons going into how we encourage people to engage in certain behaviors... but I'd rather tax the corporations themselves.

[nickinSTL]

61. I know what's wrong - to some degree

the treatment is a low-protein diet - which basically means high in carbs.

It's not a matter of sin taxes, per se, IMO. I'm talking about some who want to tax the PEOPLE, not the foods.

I like the idea of making unhealthy foods more expensive...and healthy foods less so.

HFCS and trans-fat are just a couple of ingredients that need to be eliminated from foods, as well, to improve health and weight, rather than being so cheap that manufacturers stick them in everything.

Sorry, that was a bit of a non-sequitur - not a lot of time to think it through.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Oh no problem and I got what you meant

why I said sin taxes are one thing, people... quite another.

And good luck with it. Metabolic disorders do suck and suck major you know what.

[nashville_brook]

54. really awesome, courageous post.

i have the fat gene. slow metabolism. it's always been this way. and i've always been super active. swim team as a kid. then bikes and gyms, dance classes and racquetball. paddling, hiking and biking now. i've always been curvy. always will be. i'm told that my father (who i've never known) struggled horribly with weight. that he was built like a wrestler. i inherited all that.

as i've gotten older, many of my friends who were skinny hotties when we were young, are now dealing with some really challenging weight issues. one woman in particular has weight gain as the result of cancer therapy. she had ovarian cancer and they had to throw everything at it (chemo, radiation)...finally she beat it. and her thyroid went kerplunk. others have SSRI-related weight-gain. still others just had a mid-life hormone change. no one suddenly became an out-of-control eater. and everyone, to a person, beats themselves up over it.

god it's nice to see a discussion here about this that is positive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. And among you and me I am shocked it has not turned nasty

yet...

:-)

Me, I started to gain weight in my teen years, nothing spectacular... and for god sakes I was a member of an ultra competitive fencing team.

Then due to joint issues I had to stop... and in my twenties and thirties I gained steadily never mind I went to the gym regularly and did EMS... I was very physically active. Again nothing spectacular... and I was probably in a BMI of 26-27...

So that was the other reason that got me going.... HMMM I mean I ate intuitively back then too, and my heavy eating days came only after a really rough shift...

Tell your friends not to beat themselves over it, and to try to work with their bodies, not against them.

And Ovarian cancer... ouch...

[nashville_brook]

80. on the cancer -- we grew up in a neighborhood that is a known cluster

we were the last civvy street before the air force base. the rumors are that there was a lot of dumping. when i was trying to sell the house (after the parents passed away) i lost interested buyers once they found out about the cluster/dumping.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. That's my experience, too

I was always the skinny one who could eat everything, and if I did gain weight, losing was easy.

No longer. I'm in my late 50's, and I've learned that I can no longer eat large amounts of the breads and pastas that I love, because it goes straight to fat.

This is in spite of the fact that I eat healthier (few sweets, no sugary drinks, lots of veggies) and exercise more (a strenuous deep water exercise class that essentially has us swimming laps, three to five days a week) than I did in my teens and twenties.

It's frustrating. All that virtue and I look as if I lie on the couch eating chocolate all day.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

67. MissyVixen, Nadin and I are the Dead Thyroid Committee. We will educate you.

Pesticides, plastics, all kinds of chemicals and toxins loose in our environment. Toxins mess up your endocrine glands. This has led to an epidemic of millions of people with hypothyroidism. That means your thyroid is not putting out enough hormone to keep you alive or it might be dead.

My thyroid is dead from a common autoimmune disease, Hashimoto's, which may affect 30 to 40 million Americans. That does not qualify as "rare". This happened over forty years ago.

It doesn't matter how much you diet or exercise, you won't lose any weight without additional factors (such as hormone replacement -- thyroid and testosterone are the biggies) and additional studies, such as reverse T3 formation and leptin resistance.

Interview I've been quoting from:
http://thyroid.about.com/od/loseweightsuccessfully/a/we...

Kent Holtorf, MD: We try and investigate and treat as many dysfunctions and suboptimal metabolic conditions that we can. We have had success with a large range of individuals, from those who need to lose a few pounds to those who are over a hundred or more pounds overweight. The most satisfying are the people who lose 50 to 100 pounds or more. It totally changes their lives.

We are also seeing more patients who come in after gastric bypass – those who either didn’t lose weight or have gained much or all of their weight back. Most have low tissue thyroid levels as well as significant leptin resistance. They can also have a growth hormone deficiency as well.

We had one person who was eating 800 calories a day after having gastric bypass and she was still gaining weight. Nobody believed that was all she was eating until they put her in the hospital and monitored her food intake. They insisted her thyroid was fine, as she had a normal TSH, T4 and T3. When we checked her reverse T3, however, and it was over 800 and her leptin was 75. We checked her metabolic rate and it was 45% below normal. Dieting alone would, of course, never work with such a patient.

Also, toxins such as biphenyl-A can block the thyroid receptors everywhere in the body except for the pituitary, which has different receptors. So due to the ubiquitous nature of these toxins, I believe that everyone has a relative deficiency of thyroid activity that is not detected by the TSH. People blame food intake and lack of exercise for the obesity problem in this country, but I think a major problem is the thyroid-disrupting toxins, as well as stress.

Additionally, dieting is shown to not only reduce the T4-to-T3 conversion and increase reverse T3, but it is also shown to reduce the numbers of peripheral thyroid receptors -- but again, not in the pituitary -- so the same amount of thyroid has less of an effect, but the TSH is unchanged. This exemplifies the importance of clinical and target tissue assessment in the determination of overall thyroid activity in an individual. Also, women have fewer thyroid receptors than men, making them more sensitive to small decreases in serum levels of thyroid hormones.

=============================

Another article by Dr. Holtorf:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kent-holtorf/long-term-we...

It is not simply a problem that individuals are taking in more calories than they are consuming or lack of exercise or willpower, but rather it is a complex vicious-cycle of endocrinological and metabolic dysfunction. Contemporary medicine has failed to address these dysfunctions in overweight individuals and doctors and patients continue to believe that all cases are a matter of willpower and lifestyle. Thus, it is no surprise that obesity is reaching epidemic proportions.

Research is demonstrating that dysregulation of two key hormones may be a cause or major contributor of weight gain or inability to lose weight in the majority of overweight people. The first is leptin and the second is reverse T3. The exciting part is that doctors can now test for the presence of these physiologic barriers to weight loss and prescribe appropriate treatments with potentially dramatic results.
=============

BTW, I do NOT eat when I am bored, or for comfort, or for relief from stress. I have always been unable to consume a normal restaurant meal at one sitting. I cannot eat a burger that is larger than 1/4 lb. unless I am extremely hungry. Because restaurant meals are so huge, I can take the leftovers home and get one or two more meals out of them. My mother and grandmother just KNEW I was going to die because I did not eat enough. And I was physically active, I just came home every day after school and collapsed for three hours due to my hypothyroidism. Back then in high school, I was of normal weight. I could have died from hypothyroidism, instead of from not eating enough.

I also had severe bacterial pneumonia/bronchitis on and off for about seven or eight years. I had numerous hospitalizations and ER visits. When you are barfing your guts out because of sinus infection drainage, you lose your taste for food. In all the time I was sick over those years, I only lost about six or seven pounds. In order to get to the recommended BMI, I should have been losing thirty pounds. Never happened.
=============


More info:


www.thyroid-info.com

www.thyrophoenix.com

www.stopthethyroidmadness.com

What is my thyroid and why does it hate me?
http://www.beautynewsnyc.com/in-this-issue/what-is-my-t... /

http://www.holtorfmed.com/handouts

[Missy Vixen]

76. Manifestor of Light, I'm happy to be in the club

I was diagnosed with a dead thyroid in 1995. A "normal" TSH test is anywhere from 0.0 to 4. Mine was 75. I've been on meds ever since. (It's always fun when the doctor writes a prescription, hands it to you and says, "Take one every morning on an empty stomach. You will be on this medication for the rest of your life. Oh, yeah: If you stop taking it, you'll die.")

Those who aren't members of this exclusive club -- yet -- also don't understand the following. Doctors treat to lab values instead of the TSH. In other words, it looks great on paper, but you still have the same symptoms -- lethargy, the metabolism of a whale, brain fog, dry skin and hair, significant weight gain, bla bla bla. There's a naturopath in Vancouver, BC, that's identified something like forty different symptoms brought on by hypothyroidism. Of course, one of those is the fact that those whose meds aren't "optimized" (and anyone who's typically not at 0.00 is not "optimized",) finds it almost impossible to lose weight.

So: Unless you find a doctor that's willing to prescribe Armour in the amount you need (or you have a doc that has some clue about thyroid disease and the effects on someone who suffers from it,) you're outta' luck. My doctor's great. He took me off Armour because he read some studies that those taking Armour are now having some cardiac issues. Bummer. I actually felt better on Armour.

Thirteen million diagnosed in the USA, another ten million undiagnosed. This isn't going away. It might be nice to discover what's causing it...

[snooper2]

95. And the discovery of that fat gene......

Did this gene evolve in the past 50 years or something?

Americans Slightly Taller, Much Heavier Than Four Decades Ago

Embargoed For Release: Wednesday, October 27, 2004
12:00 Noon EST

Contact: NCHS Press Office [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index, United States 1960-2002. Advance Data No. 347. 18 pp. (PHS 2005-1250).
View/download PDF 620 KB

Adult men and women are roughly an inch taller than they were in 1960, but are nearly 25 pounds heavier on average as well, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition, average BMI (body mass index, a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity) has increased among adults from approximately 25 in 1960 to 28 in 2002.

------------------------

Though the average weight for men aged 20-39 years increased by nearly 20 pounds over the last four decades, the increase was greater among older men:

Men between the ages of 40 and 49 were nearly 27 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.

Men between the ages of 50 and 59 were nearly 28 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.

Men between the ages of 60 and 74 were almost 33 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.

For women, the near opposite trend occurred:

Women aged 20-29 were nearly 29 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.

Women aged 40-49 were about 25½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.

Women aged 60-74 were about 17½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.



http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/04news/americans.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. The fat gene has been around for evah

it is just expressing itself more often...

Genetics 101.

[snooper2]

97. And it chose the United States to express itself more often

gotcha... :eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Have you read the World Health Organization statement on

the pandemic of Obesity WORLD WIDE?

I guess the US is the world then huh?

:banghead: at willful ignorance.

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/obesity/en/

By the way, is the US Population 1 BILLION?

I guess it is.

[snooper2]

99. hmmm...

From the second paragraph from your own link:

"Increased consumption of more energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods with high levels of sugar and saturated fats, combined with reduced physical activity, have led to obesity rates that have risen three-fold or more since 1980 in some areas of North America, the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Islands, Australasia and China.The obesity epidemic is not restricted to industrialized societies; this increase is often faster in developing countries than in the developed world."


Interesting article on girls in Japan....

Girls' average weight on the decline, data shows
Health data for 1997 compiled and released Friday by the Education Ministry indicates that the average weight of young girls is on the decline, possibly influenced by slender teen idols like pop star Namie Amuro.

Declines in weight from the previous year's level were reported for girls from kindergarten through the third, final year of high school. Only those in their first year of junior high were not lighter this year. Girls at all high school levels were an average 0.3 kg lighter than in previous years, marking the largest fall for girls in the three grades.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn19971219b4.html



The epidemic of people eating processed food World Wide is the main contributing factor period.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/116480-what-recession-mcdonald-s-continues-its-global-growth

“McDonald’s (MCD) is planning to this year create 12,000 jobs and open 240 new restaurants across Europe, it emerged on Friday, as the fast-food chain shows signs of being one of the few global companies to benefit from the financial crisis.

In stark contrast to the multinational groups announcing record job cuts and losses, McDonald’s plans for expansion in Europe are its biggest in five years.

“We’re certainly not slowing down,” said Denis Hennequin, president of McDonald’s Europe as he outlined to the Financial Times his plans to hire 50 people at each of the 240 new restaurants, mostly in Spain, France, Italy, Russia, and Poland.”

snip---

2. As mentioned by the company, consumers prefer to eat something that is cheap. This is true in Europe as well, where local food prices could be high in traditional eateries. Though their food may not be of as good quality as other fast food restaurants, it is comparably cheaper. This is a huge draw among cash-strapped consumers.



So I guess the fat gene will be more pronounced in Spain in a few more years

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Again, the population of the US is 1 Billion

since the gene is only appearing in the US.

Do you know why genes express themselves?

And yes, those of us observing things for multiple reasons expect a spike in obesity in spain, portugal and france. Next....

Oh wait, the WHO is also imagining this.

[snooper2]

101. are you serious...

you are blaming the bulk of obesity on:

"And the discovery of that fat gene and all the other discoveries on serotonin values in the brains of the obese when they eat... tells me that shut your mouth off and exercise is too simplistic. And again those people with Phd, MD, MpH and other silly initials have come to the same conclusions, and it is not that simple."


I think the gene is expressing itself where people tend to eat more and more processed foods...that's pretty weird. They should do a study on that.


No comment on the second paragraph of the WHO article I see. Or why there are more escalators in America per capita than say India...

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. The gene is not the only explanation

there is more and people are NOW asking the proper questions.

It comes down to WHY?

Now if you think I said that it was the only reason, you have misread me.

That's ok. Some folks have trouble realizing that there is something going on in the environment... and that it may very well be as explosive as Global Weather Change.

[bobbolink]

106. Excellent point... you have a book in you!

This isn't a big struggle of mine, but I certainly sympathize with people who are dealing with this.

I know what judgementalism does to people. It's something we can't even seem to get rid of among "progressives", and it's damaging us.

[bobbolink]

102. Thank you for chiseling away at the self-righteous.

I have come to firmly believe that because it is no longer acceptable to dump on people of color, or gays or women, etc., that people are finding other targets for their angry self-righteous crap.....those who don't have support and advocates.

In other words, bullies who do what bullies do... pick on the weakest, and those they can get away with picking on.

Thank you for bringing some of this to light.

Highly recommended!

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Oh you welcome, and yes all societies do have

blind spots and bullies.

And the blind spot here is that all obesity has to be what we eat only... never mind it has exploded.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. I think the hatred directed at the overweight is akin to the hatred directed

at the poor. It's a kind of perverted magical thinking.

It's the, "If I hate those people enough, it will never happen to me."

If you're into hating the overweight and you're still under 40, life may hold some surprises for you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. And give that obesity rates are also related to income and

where you live... you got it.

They are highest in urban poor populations and rural populations.

What do they have in common? Many of those environmental factors have a higher concentration.

So you get a one two punch

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. Well the bullies win

yep, I am done.

There is nothing sadder than to conclude that certain subjects are verbotten on DU.

These are as follows:

Any breaking political story, especially if this is a "twitter based story."

Any story having to do with human weight, after all we know it is just as simple as calories in and calories out... and asking questions steps on people's egos and personal agendas.

Any story that has to do with social change, after all talking about social change is far better than actually doing it.

So what is safe on DU?

Palin (or whatever missing blond story on the TV machine)

Always talk about higher taxis and hate for the rich... (this is an especially interesting one since it is mostly talk)

Of course silly things like the War on Christmas, While fun, all these social war issues are just a tip of the iceberg of a dangerous thing.

Insert other safe stories here.

But for god sakes careful about posting anything that will actually get on people's toes...

Got it....

By the way, I have said it in the past. Americans are ignorant, proud of it, and damn it don't bother me bro...

So I guess I shall stick to the "safe subjects," and get a frontal lobotomy in the process. Or just plain out tell you that bullies are exist everywhere... and yes agendas exist as well... so sad to see this. But I guess that's the way it is.

Me going to read some research studies on estrogens and rats, and BMR and Fat Genes... and NOT sharing. After all apparently sharing means the laws of physics got cancelled somehow... Have a good life DU... I think I probably need a vacation form the local bullies.

Oh will be back to give some money for Vet Dogs, and RAM, or probably go to their site and give the money directly... yes I am that disgusted now.

Good night... bullies got it today...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

130. And I can't call people what they are.....racists and rednecks.

Apparently when they say they hate Obama or whatever, I can't say they are rednecks and racists.

Damn my lyin' eyes and ears.

[Lars39]

131. Please come back when you can...I've always enjoyed your posts.

:hug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

132. Here are some of the articles for the scientists in the group

who insist it is just calories in and calories out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7045342

Not that I expect an apology or anything...

[DanTex]

139. Can't we all just get along?

It seems to me that it's entirely possible (and likely) that both of the following statements are true:

1) Weight gain = calories consumed - calories expended.
2) Weight gain defies any simple explanation, and is affected by such things as genetics, pesticides, hormonal levels, and countless other processes, many of which scientists are only beginning to understand.

There's no contradiction here. The first is a statement about thermodynamics. It's just an equation. In fact, as stated, the equation isn't quite true, because of things like water weight. So we might be more precise and write
1a) Change in calories stored = calories consumed - calories expended - calories excreted.
It's pretty difficult to argue with this. And, assuming calories excreted is small, and ignoring non-caloric body mass (e.g. water), and we have our first equation.

Nevertheless, this equation doesn't say anything about how simple or complicated weight gain is. It's like saying that the way to win a football game is to score more points than the other team. The equation just shifts the "complicatedness" over to the right hand side. The two statements can be reconciled like this:
2a) Calories consumed and calories expended defy any simple explanation, and are affected by such things as genetics, pesticides, hormonal levels, and countless other processes, many of which scientists are only beginning to understand.

For example, here are some possible "complications" that do not contradict the calorie equation
- eating 2000 calories of one kind of food will cause more weight gain than eating 2000 calories of another kind of food (one kind of food might affect the metabolism rate)
- adding 1 hour of exercise a day to your lifestyle may not cause you to lose weight (you might compensate by eating more, expending less calories the rest of the day)
- some people eat low calorie diets and exercise and still gain weight (those people may have slow metabolism i.e. less calories expended)
- chemicals are responsible for the obesity epidemic (chemicals may be responsible for increasing calories consumed and/or decreasing calories expended)
- the calorie equation is not the most useful way to thing about weight gain (maybe not, but that doesn't make it false)