Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Interesting way that people excuse their overweight / obesity
Replies
-
I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
If it were as simple as CICO, there wouldn't be thousands of studies showing that chemical and hormonal factors play a role. The problem is that most people who acknowledge there is more at work often use it as a generalization, or are under the false impression that secondary factors are more common than they actually are.0 -
cinnag4225 wrote: »I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
If it were as simple as CICO, there wouldn't be thousands of studies showing that chemical and hormonal factors play a role. The problem is that most people who acknowledge there is more at work often use it as a generalization, or are under the false impression that secondary factors are more common than they actually are.
Again, it is still that simple. The people you mentioned just require a different set of numbers to work with, and may have a harder time adhering to those numbers. That doesn't change how physics works; they are just under different parameters.14 -
cinnag4225 wrote: »I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
If it were as simple as CICO, there wouldn't be thousands of studies showing that chemical and hormonal factors play a role. The problem is that most people who acknowledge there is more at work often use it as a generalization, or are under the false impression that secondary factors are more common than they actually are.
Sometimes I wonder how people think the "calories out" part works. Of course there are chemical and hormonal factors at play! That's how our bodies get things done!12 -
cinnag4225 wrote: »I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
If it were as simple as CICO, there wouldn't be thousands of studies showing that chemical and hormonal factors play a role. The problem is that most people who acknowledge there is more at work often use it as a generalization, or are under the false impression that secondary factors are more common than they actually are.
I can say 2+2=4 and it is correct.
You can say 3+1=4 and it is correct.
It's when I say 2+2=4 and you say "That doesn't apply to everyone because 3+1=4." that is the confusion.
CI = what you eat/drink
CO = what your body uses for energy and includes all those pesky things like hormones, disorders, bodily functions, and exercise.
Like PP said, CICO is a basic physics equation. When someone has a disorder that affects the CO side, the equation has different numbers but it is still the same equation.
2+2=4, as does 3+1 and 4+0 and 2.3+ 1.7, etc. etc. etc..
It's as though you're deliberately not understanding that the numbers vary for every person.17 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't know about set point, it might or might not be a thing. What I find really interesting is how naturally weight stable people (not necessarily thin) actually maintain within 5 pounds autonomously until something changes like their general level of activity... that's only a few dozen of calories. The precision It's amazing and fascinating without conscious control over the calories. I would love to find out the mechanisms that contribute to that, both physical and mental.
I suspect it's mostly psychological, and depends on the beliefs you learned from childhood on about food and nutrition. Naturally weight stable people eat what they want, eat when they're hungry and stop when they're full, and seldom eat emotionally out of boredom, depression, anxiety, or the like; food is for nutrition or for fellowship, there are no bad foods. Those who aren't naturally weight stable feel guilty when they eat what they want, have not learned to recognize when they're hungry or satiated, and self-medicate with their food; food is for meeting needs unmet elsewhere, there are bad foods that you have to avoid at all costs, and "transgressions" result in self-hatred and a sense of failure.4 -
I don't think it's really an "excuse" all the time. When you get down to the last 5-10 pounds it gets harder to lose weight, or people plateau at a specific point and they think that they just can't lose the weight. It kind of makes sense to believe that your body isn't meant to go below a certain weight if you try and try to lose weight but it doesn't happen. Obviously it's not true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're trying to come up with excuses to not do it, although I agree that SOME people are but not all.3
-
I don't think it's really an "excuse" all the time. When you get down to the last 5-10 pounds it gets harder to lose weight, or people plateau at a specific point and they think that they just can't lose the weight. It kind of makes sense to believe that your body isn't meant to go below a certain weight if you try and try to lose weight but it doesn't happen. Obviously it's not true, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're trying to come up with excuses to not do it, although I agree that SOME people are but not all.
Oh, definitely. The body seeks homeostasis, and gets all kinds of pissy when you try to alter things quickly. After all, most obese people spent years getting there. Then they wonder why it doesn't just fall off with a month of caloric restriction.
I've actually found though, that the leaner I get, the easier it is to make my weight go whichever way I want. Now granted, I'm sure this has more to do with learning myself, and how my body reacts to various input, but I can't help but assume that everyone with an IQ above room temperature is capable of doing the same. Anything short of "incapable" is an excuse, by it's very nature.5 -
DeficitDuchess wrote: »I'm kind of interested in the way people explain their behavior. One example is pertinent to weight loss / diet. I was having a debate with my girlfriend about this, who was arguing what basically sounded like the set-point theory to me. The argument went something like this:
Me: "I think anyone can lose weight, it's just a matter of CICO."
Her: "Except that people's bodies naturally have a certain preference for a certain weight. You can force your body down to a particular weight, but then your body will want to go back to the weight it was at."
Anyone notice anything strange about this kind of use of language? As if "you" are separate from "your body." How can a "body" want something (like, a preferred weight range) without a person controlling it? Isn't this a strange use of language, like we're somehow divorced from our bodies?
Anyways, just a philosophical point really.
What about all the people that don't count calories, weigh, measure their food, eat whatever portions're available to them & stay a consistent weight? All 4 years of high school I weighed 137 pounds, when I got weighed; during my check ups, I was sedentary & consuming 4,000 to 6,000 calories a day. I ate for taste & because it was there. I'd eat until I had to unbutton/unzip my pants, could feel the food coming up my throat & never gained weight. I'd eat a meal consisting of a salad with extra dressing, an appetizer, a main portion, 2 sides an iced tea or soda (sometimes 2) a milkshake plus a slice of cake & get the same amount of food to go (minus the iced tea and/or soda) because a 5 minute car ride home, made me half as hungry again.
Very interesting, we all know people like this dont we? Seems like sooner or later the food does catch up to most of them though. Btw, ur post made me long for those days haha, great now lm hungry0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Pressure in the bladder or the sensation of air hunger isn't the "body wanting something" - which implies that our bodies have intentionality outside of our own as sentient beings. Which is a really odd duality - "you" can want something but your "body" can want something else (as if your body is somehow separate from you).
Okay I just gotta point out this is is a cop out. you are arguing language semantics. you know what they meant.0 -
See "starvation mode isn't real" and I'm going to nope on out of here. Hormonal imbalances don't exist, science doesn't exist, only the studies that back up what you specifically believe, right. There is no medication that drastically speeds up or slows down your metablosim /s0
-
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »See "starvation mode isn't real" and I'm going to nope on out of here. Hormonal imbalances don't exist, science doesn't exist, only the studies that back up what you specifically believe, right. There is no medication that drastically speeds up or slows down your metablosim /s
You seem to only believe studies that back up what you believe too. Starvation mode doesn't exist as you believe it does otherwise anorexics would be obese. Yes your metabolism slows down but not enough to counteract the weight lose. There are very few medications that "drastically" slow down your metabolism. A lot of the time they increase appetite so you eat more. I don't see you linking to any studies4 -
"Starvation mode doesn't exist as you believe it"singingflutelady wrote: »DisruptedMatrix wrote: »See "starvation mode isn't real" and I'm going to nope on out of here. Hormonal imbalances don't exist, science doesn't exist, only the studies that back up what you specifically believe, right. There is no medication that drastically speeds up or slows down your metablosim /s
You seem to only believe studies that back up what you believe too. Starvation mode doesn't exist as you believe it does otherwise anorexics would be obese. Yes your metabolism slows down but not enough to counteract the weight lose. There are very few medications that "drastically" slow down your metabolism. A lot of the time they increase appetite so you eat more. I don't see you linking to any studies
your assuming I believe misinformation. I don't believe that starvation mode causes you to gain weight, but that it makes losing weight harder. your metabolsim slows down, that's it.
There are a lot of medications that effect metabolism, but it would be impossible to provide a source for this without spending hours copying and pasting different medications, which I'm not going to do.0 -
I didn't say medication doesn't effect metabolism. I said few medications "drastically" change metabolism.2
-
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »
"Starvation mode doesn't exist as you believe it"singingflutelady wrote: »DisruptedMatrix wrote: »See "starvation mode isn't real" and I'm going to nope on out of here. Hormonal imbalances don't exist, science doesn't exist, only the studies that back up what you specifically believe, right. There is no medication that drastically speeds up or slows down your metablosim /s
You seem to only believe studies that back up what you believe too. Starvation mode doesn't exist as you believe it does otherwise anorexics would be obese. Yes your metabolism slows down but not enough to counteract the weight lose. There are very few medications that "drastically" slow down your metabolism. A lot of the time they increase appetite so you eat more. I don't see you linking to any studies
your assuming I believe misinformation. I don't believe that starvation mode causes you to gain weight, but that it makes losing weight harder. your metabolsim slows down, that's it.
There are a lot of medications that effect metabolism, but it would be impossible to provide a source for this without spending hours copying and pasting different medications, which I'm not going to do.
None of these things have very significant impacts, though.
Weight gain caused by any of them, with caloric intake being what it should, would be minimal. The people usually blaming medication for metabolic slow down or metabolic adaptation are obese, not carrying around an extra 10 or 20 pounds.
That was painful to type, because metabolic adaptation is debated to begin with because it was found that the people supposedly stalled were... quelle surprise!... eating (binging really) food and not logging it.
For people who have been dieting a long time who have hormonal issues, simply eating at maintenance for a bit and perhaps moving a tiny bit more counters any difficulties.
In none of these instances is weight gain experienced.1 -
Her answer is right and maintaining weight will be a life long effort0
-
Guns_N_Buns wrote: »I'm not fat, I'm big boned!
of course you are. the cemeteries are full of obese skeletons!
Big Boned!!! bs..1 -
I read once about a study: that an adults fat cell count and size is determined by a blueprint set during puberty. Your shape, fat cell count, and BMI are all set at an "ideal" when you go through puberty, and throughout your adult life, your body will always try to go back to that preset. This is why you can destroy fat cells with surgery, but they will grow back to what your body considers idyllic.
My last endocrinologist (who I see for my Hashimoto's disease, along with 3 other autoimmune diseases) consulted with my nutritionist, and they both said "you are doing everything right, we can't ask you to go below 1,100 calories, your body just wants you to be overweight. It's okay, because you're healthy, but your body just doesn't want you to lose weight, so if you want to, you'll have work much harder than others have to"
I fired that endo. CICO works for me for basic weight loss. I was extremely, heartbroken this year, distressed and in a daze for months, and didn't eat much more than 500 calories a day (usually in the form of a McD sandwich and a pack of cigarettes). No starvation mode here: I lost 30lbs in 6 weeks.
To the OP: I have many "reasons" for my weight. Hashimoto's disease, genetics (my family is all obese), my parents feeding me ramen and candy apples and pizza every day while not encouraging exercise. And of course: my own lifestyle choices; choosing to sleep 20 more minutes instead of jog, eating leftover Halloween candy instead of pawning it off on others, drinking that diet coke instead of more water. It's a big mixed bag for me. I hold a lot of resentment toward my parents for how they raised me: I was 180lbs and a women's size 18 by age 12. I was over 100lbs at age 7, and I haven't been below 200lbs since I was 13.
But as an adult, I just try my best, no matter who I was yesterday, I WILL be better every single new day, and if I mess up I own up to it.1 -
shredcamps wrote: »Guns_N_Buns wrote: »I'm not fat, I'm big boned!
of course you are. the cemeteries are full of obese skeletons!
Big Boned!!! bs..
My nutritionist said I was big boned!! No lie, she measured my wrist bones and said it's a thing and that I'm big boned!! But she did say it doesn't affect your weight as much as people want it to LOL0 -
Wherever you're getting your source of information, it's incorrect. You're listening to propaganda from fitness/diet companies that just want your money.Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
10 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »shredcamps wrote: »Guns_N_Buns wrote: »I'm not fat, I'm big boned!
of course you are. the cemeteries are full of obese skeletons!
Big Boned!!! bs..
My nutritionist said I was big boned!! No lie, she measured my wrist bones and said it's a thing and that I'm big boned!! But she did say it doesn't affect your weight as much as people want it to LOL
I would get a new nutritionist.5 -
Mary_Anastasia wrote: »shredcamps wrote: »Guns_N_Buns wrote: »I'm not fat, I'm big boned!
of course you are. the cemeteries are full of obese skeletons!
Big Boned!!! bs..
My nutritionist said I was big boned!! No lie, she measured my wrist bones and said it's a thing and that I'm big boned!! But she did say it doesn't affect your weight as much as people want it to LOL
as i said. no fat skeletons. your Nutritionist is an idiot.4 -
Interesting pov... Obesity based on genetic factors :
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/health/americans-obesity-willpower-genetics-study.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/health&action=click&contentCollection=health&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&referer=http://www.nytimes.com/section/health1 -
My genes never shoved a pan of brownies in my mouth.
Environment affects genetic expression. This is a case where we can control our environment instead of letting our environment control us.6 -
Call it an excuse if you want (technically I guess it is) but I was uneducated about HOW to keep the weight loss off.
I can diet like no ones business but once I lost the weight I thought all I had to do was eat less than my regular eating habit. HOW much less I had no clue, I missed that chapter in the books.
Therefore I gave up, for a while.0 -
Interesting pov... Obesity based on genetic factors :
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/health/americans-obesity-willpower-genetics-study.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/health&action=click&contentCollection=health&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&referer=http://www.nytimes.com/section/health
And a POV is all it is. And a flawed, biased one at that. It was not a "study", it was a survey, which was funded by the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. It's nothing more than typical clickbait junk.2 -
DisruptedMatrix wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
Pressure in the bladder or the sensation of air hunger isn't the "body wanting something" - which implies that our bodies have intentionality outside of our own as sentient beings. Which is a really odd duality - "you" can want something but your "body" can want something else (as if your body is somehow separate from you).
Okay I just gotta point out this is is a cop out. you are arguing language semantics. you know what they meant.
Why didnt they say what they meant, then?0 -
There is tremendous variation in human bone density, shape, and even connectivity at some points (the clavicle comes to mind) that affect overall body size fairly considerably. There are also variations in musculature and adiposity related to genetics.
People who deny this clearly have not studied anatomy with any degree of diligence.3 -
Actually, CICO doesn't work for everyone, mostly because not all calories are created equal. Per MFP, I restricted calories to 1300/day. According to MFP I should have been losing weight, but I was gaining fat in my midsection. It wasn't until I learned about a protein/fat/carb nutrition plan that I realized the CICO flaw. When you restrict calories drastically, your body may go into starvation mode and want to store fat. And since a lot of my calories at the time were just carbs (fruit, veggies, dairy, grains), there was a lot for my body to convert to fat and store. Once I increased my calorie consumption and got 40% of my calories from protein, I was able to drop the weight. I also started eating 5 smaller meals/day, which revved up my metabolism and allowed me to eat even more food without burning more calories.
As for your friend's viewpoint, it makes sense that if you continue the same eating and exercising (or sedentary) habits, your body will stay the same weight. To say that's where the body "wants to be" is a bit of a stretch. More like where that person is comfortable. And of course if you go through steps to lose weight and then go back to old habits, you'll go back to your old weight. That's just common sense.
So much fatlogic wrapped up into one block.
I can't even begin... I don't know where to start lol..
I know where to start.
CICO does work for all.
Starvation mode doesn't exisit
if you were gaining weight you were eating more than you thought
timing of eating does not affect weight
Muscle revs the metabolism
Yup, weight loss isn't about WHAT you eat rather HOW MUCH.
You can only eat twinkies but eat under your TDEE calorie amount and you will lose weight.
and acquire pre-diabetes. LOL0 -
There is tremendous variation in human bone density, shape, and even connectivity at some points (the clavicle comes to mind) that affect overall body size fairly considerably. There are also variations in musculature and adiposity related to genetics.
People who deny this clearly have not studied anatomy with any degree of diligence.
I don't recall anyone being goofy enough to say that there was no genetic input. Which one of the two has a bigger impact over a lifetime would be the point.0 -
In eating disorder recovery therapists and dietitians usually use set point theory- patients are expected to gain weight until it balances out at a healthy place for them, which can be very different for different people.
I always see people talking about how set point theory doesn't actually work how the theory says it should, and that people just gain weight due to the number of calories they eat- so I don't know why I should trust my therapist that gaining weight is okay now that I'm at a healthy BMI because I'm not at my set point/personal healthy weight yet- why shouldn't I just eat less and stay at a low healthy range BMI? If set point isn't real, gaining weight until I reach it seems pointless and it seems like I'll just be gaining weight forever.
Not sure if that really went anywhere, I'm just dubious about set point theory but am expected to put my trust in it- so I am in a strange situation at the moment.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions