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
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Yep, people don't want to man/woman up and take responsibility.
Can you explain your reasoning. How would your body having a set point it wants to get back to relieve you of responsibility for weight control?
The reasoning is right there.
Because you can ascribe responsibility to your body ("my body wanted my set point more than I wanted to lose weight").
That would be reason why it might be hard to lose weight. Even in the OP's example his girlfriend says you can lose beyond the set point. So, I still don't get it unless you are changing it to someone saying "I can't lose because of my body's set point". Which is not what the OP or the post to which I replied said.2 -
I think one's body structure and (more importantly) hormones and hormone sensitivity can certainly affect outcomes...than said CICO is in fact the bottom line. And another thing that affects a person's outcome (related to hormones) is that people falsely assume cardio is important in weight loss. You get better results from weight training, explosive training (jumping, sprinting, HIIT, etc.), and cutting calories.2
-
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.
Maybe they do have a point, but worded better and more honestly it would sound something like "I'm eating comfortably at a certain weight, eating less is uncomfortable and I don't like to feel uncomfortable."
In a sense you do need to "force it" to get to a certain weight by changing a few things about the way you eat that may be less comfortable, and your resolve does get challenged not to get back to a higher weight without constant monitoring. Is it an excuse though? You bet it is. Anyone who is willing to put in the work can lose weight and maintain it.12 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
While this is true, no one says, "My body needs to pee," or "My body needs air." No, it's "I need to X."4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
While this is true, no one says, "My body needs to pee," or "My body needs air." No, it's "I need to X."
So would it be correct if someone says "I have a weight set point"??2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
While this is true, no one says, "My body needs to pee," or "My body needs air." No, it's "I need to X."
So would it be correct if someone says "I have a weight set point"??
I doubt it. I think they likely have developed habits that involve how quickly they eat, what they eat, and their portion sizes. It feels like a natural setpoint because it's habit.12 -
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.
Maybe they do have a point, but worded better and more honestly it would sound something like "I'm eating comfortably at a certain weight, eating less is uncomfortable and I don't like to feel uncomfortable."
In a sense you do need to "force it" to get to a certain weight by changing a few things about the way you eat that may be less comfortable, and your resolve does get challenged not to get back to a higher weight without constant monitoring. Is it an excuse though? You bet it is. Anyone who is willing to put in the work can lose weight and maintain it.
I love this post right up to the end. Why do you assume that believing your body has a set point means they think they can't lose weight, or even that they haven't lost weight? That seems a big assumption.2 -
I'm not fat, I'm big boned!10
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Maybe they do have a point, but worded better and more honestly it would sound something like "I'm eating comfortably at a certain weight, eating less is uncomfortable and I don't like to feel uncomfortable."
In a sense you do need to "force it" to get to a certain weight by changing a few things about the way you eat that may be less comfortable, and your resolve does get challenged not to get back to a higher weight without constant monitoring. Is it an excuse though? You bet it is. Anyone who is willing to put in the work can lose weight and maintain it.
I love this post right up to the end. Why do you assume that believing your body has a set point means they think they can't lose weight, or even that they haven't lost weight? That seems a big assumption.
There was no such assumption! Some of those who believe in this theory do successfully lose weight and in their mind they are successfully swimming upstream against their 'set point'. The last bit was for a very specific case mentioned by the original post where some people would use it as an excuse.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
MissusMoon wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
While this is true, no one says, "My body needs to pee," or "My body needs air." No, it's "I need to X."
So would it be correct if someone says "I have a weight set point"??
I doubt it. I think they likely have developed habits that involve how quickly they eat, what they eat, and their portion sizes. It feels like a natural setpoint because it's habit.
Sorry, I don't follow. Do you mean that everyone (or most) that says they have a set point believes that point is their highest weight?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »One excuse I hear a lot is that calorie counting is hard.
I spend around 5 to 10 minutes a day logging my food if it's not saved over from the previous day. How is that harder than being 100 lbs overweight someone please tell me.
I've never been 100 lbs overweight so I can't answer your specific question, but I can address the first part. Calorie counting takes more than 5-10 min a day for me. WAY more. One meal takes longer than that. I would imagine this is because I eat differently than you. Most of meals are home prepared, contain lots of ingredients and I don't use recipes. Every bowl of chili is different from the last. Every omelet is different. Every meal is different. Saved entries must be edited every single time. Ingredients would have to be weighed every single meal. I couldn't just add a dash of that or a bit of this. I have to get out a container and scale and weigh it and then add it to the pot. It's frustrating and stressful and a royal PITA and I hate it.
I meal prep homemade recipes every weekend, place into tupperware to eat through out the week. I also weigh everything. It's not that hard, it's an excuse.
Beginners don't even need to go through the effort that me and you do. I lost the first 60lbs guessing. Bought a scale only recently.
People spend more time on netflix or Facebook than they would on losing weight by calorie counting. It's an excuse, if it's so hard and they're so busy then I'm sure measuring insulin for their diabetes will be easier.
Not even to mention the huge eating out culture of the city and country that I live in. I got an excuse that was "I eat out too much and it's too hard to find the calories".
You literally only need to google or use the search function.
11 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Maybe they do have a point, but worded better and more honestly it would sound something like "I'm eating comfortably at a certain weight, eating less is uncomfortable and I don't like to feel uncomfortable."
In a sense you do need to "force it" to get to a certain weight by changing a few things about the way you eat that may be less comfortable, and your resolve does get challenged not to get back to a higher weight without constant monitoring. Is it an excuse though? You bet it is. Anyone who is willing to put in the work can lose weight and maintain it.
I love this post right up to the end. Why do you assume that believing your body has a set point means they think they can't lose weight, or even that they haven't lost weight? That seems a big assumption.
There was no such assumption! Some of those who believe in this theory do successfully lose weight and in their mind they are successfully swimming upstream against their 'set point'. The last bit was for a very specific case mentioned by the original post where some people would use it as an excuse.
An excuse for what? The OP never says anything about not being able to lose weight, though the subject line does.
The post itself seems more to about why it would be hard to maintain a loss, which seems a valid point to me.0 -
I know, right?! Everybody says "just cut your calories!" but it didn't work for me. My pants just got tighter. I think CICO is definitely guaranteed to work for people who need to lose a lot of weight. A lot of people are just overeating. But I was about 10lbs from my goal weight, so I needed to be more strategic with my foods. It wasn't just about the amount anymore.All of this is wrong... No just no.
3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Maybe they do have a point, but worded better and more honestly it would sound something like "I'm eating comfortably at a certain weight, eating less is uncomfortable and I don't like to feel uncomfortable."
This is how I think of it too. I gained when for various reasons I went from very active to sedentary twice in my life. I was never particularly weight stable, either -- I found that once I'd started gaining and was unhappy with my weight it was too easy to just decide it didn't matter, as I was going to have to lose the weight anyway or was already fat. There was some depression involved.
When I focus on having an active lifestyle and being thoughtful about how I eat I seem to be able to maintain easily just a little bit heavier than I'd like to be. It takes more work to get lower, but I think that's about the lifestyle choices that I am comfortable with.4 -
I know, right?! Everybody says "just cut your calories!" but it didn't work for me. My pants just got tighter. I think CICO is definitely guaranteed to work for people who need to lose a lot of weight. A lot of people are just overeating. But I was about 10lbs from my goal weight, so I needed to be more strategic with my foods. It wasn't just about the amount anymore.All of this is wrong... No just no.
3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »One excuse I hear a lot is that calorie counting is hard.
I spend around 5 to 10 minutes a day logging my food if it's not saved over from the previous day. How is that harder than being 100 lbs overweight someone please tell me.
I've never been 100 lbs overweight so I can't answer your specific question, but I can address the first part. Calorie counting takes more than 5-10 min a day for me. WAY more. One meal takes longer than that. I would imagine this is because I eat differently than you. Most of meals are home prepared, contain lots of ingredients and I don't use recipes. Every bowl of chili is different from the last. Every omelet is different. Every meal is different. Saved entries must be edited every single time. Ingredients would have to be weighed every single meal. I couldn't just add a dash of that or a bit of this. I have to get out a container and scale and weigh it and then add it to the pot. It's frustrating and stressful and a royal PITA and I hate it.
I meal prep homemade recipes every weekend, place into tupperware to eat through out the week. I also weigh everything. It's not that hard, it's an excuse.
Beginners don't even need to go through the effort that me and you do. I lost the first 60lbs guessing. Bought a scale only recently.
People spend more time on netflix or Facebook than they would on losing weight by calorie counting. It's an excuse, if it's so hard and they're so busy then I'm sure measuring insulin for their diabetes will be easier.
You and I are nothing alike it seems. I never get on Netflix and only check FB while in the loo. I don't preplan meals because I don't know what we'll be in the mood for on any given day and I'm not fond of food that's been in the fridge for more than a day. I also can't really be sure how many people I'll be feeding each day. I'm not sure what you think I'm making excuses for as I've already lost weight without weighing. Lots of people do. I was just giving you an example of one person that finds measuring and weighing food to be a PITA. Sorry you seem offended by my being different.11 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »One excuse I hear a lot is that calorie counting is hard.
I spend around 5 to 10 minutes a day logging my food if it's not saved over from the previous day. How is that harder than being 100 lbs overweight someone please tell me.
I've never been 100 lbs overweight so I can't answer your specific question, but I can address the first part. Calorie counting takes more than 5-10 min a day for me. WAY more. One meal takes longer than that. I would imagine this is because I eat differently than you. Most of meals are home prepared, contain lots of ingredients and I don't use recipes. Every bowl of chili is different from the last. Every omelet is different. Every meal is different. Saved entries must be edited every single time. Ingredients would have to be weighed every single meal. I couldn't just add a dash of that or a bit of this. I have to get out a container and scale and weigh it and then add it to the pot. It's frustrating and stressful and a royal PITA and I hate it.
I meal prep homemade recipes every weekend, place into tupperware to eat through out the week. I also weigh everything. It's not that hard, it's an excuse.
Beginners don't even need to go through the effort that me and you do. I lost the first 60lbs guessing. Bought a scale only recently.
People spend more time on netflix or Facebook than they would on losing weight by calorie counting. It's an excuse, if it's so hard and they're so busy then I'm sure measuring insulin for their diabetes will be easier.
You and I are nothing alike it seems. I never get on Netflix and only check FB while in the loo. I don't preplan meals because I don't know what we'll be in the mood for on any given day and I'm not fond of food that's been in the fridge for more than a day. I also can't really be sure how many people I'll be feeding each day. I'm not sure what you think I'm making excuses for as I've already lost weight without weighing. Lots of people do. I was just giving you an example of one person that finds measuring and weighing food to be a PITA. Sorry you seem offended by my being different.
I'm not offended nor talking about you if this doesn't apply, not sure why you're entering yourself into the equation if it has nothing to do with you.
The thread is about excuses people use on why they can't lose weight and I responded giving the ones I've heard.12 -
I was just sharing that CICO didn't work for me (in case there are others struggling with that too). It has to do with the fact that carbs are converted to glucose in the body. When you can't process all that sugar at once (as I said, most of my calories were carbs), the body converts it to fat. So subbing equal calories of protein for carbs fixed that issue and I lost weight! And I don't want to get too graphic, but when your metabolism is faster, the food comes out faster...Not exactly. Maybe macros are not all created equal (fat is 9 kcals per gram, protein and carbs are 4 kcals per gram and protein tends to be more satiating and there is a small difference in the thermic effect of food (TEF) for the different macros, but it's pretty miniscule. Bottomline, CICO holds true. How you go about getting that deficit can vary from person to person. Some do better with low carb strategies, some do not. To each their own there.
As far as frequent eating revving up metabolism. There is no solid scientific evidence to back that up. This is purely anecdotal (but so is your example), but for me, eating more frequently just resulted in me never feeling satiated after a meal (since I ate smaller calorie meals) or I ended up eating more calories than I burned due to the more frequent meals. Significantly limiting my snacking and sticking to essentially 3 meals a day (with maybe a light snack to tide me over here and there) has been more helpful. But again, every individual is different and the key is to find something that works for you, whether that's large meals less frequently or smaller meals more frequently or something completely different. Bottomline, calories in versus calories out during the day is what matters for weight loss, not how frequently or when you eat during the day.
6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »One excuse I hear a lot is that calorie counting is hard.
I spend around 5 to 10 minutes a day logging my food if it's not saved over from the previous day. How is that harder than being 100 lbs overweight someone please tell me.
I've never been 100 lbs overweight so I can't answer your specific question, but I can address the first part. Calorie counting takes more than 5-10 min a day for me. WAY more. One meal takes longer than that. I would imagine this is because I eat differently than you. Most of meals are home prepared, contain lots of ingredients and I don't use recipes. Every bowl of chili is different from the last. Every omelet is different. Every meal is different. Saved entries must be edited every single time. Ingredients would have to be weighed every single meal. I couldn't just add a dash of that or a bit of this. I have to get out a container and scale and weigh it and then add it to the pot. It's frustrating and stressful and a royal PITA and I hate it.
I meal prep homemade recipes every weekend, place into tupperware to eat through out the week. I also weigh everything. It's not that hard, it's an excuse.
Beginners don't even need to go through the effort that me and you do. I lost the first 60lbs guessing. Bought a scale only recently.
People spend more time on netflix or Facebook than they would on losing weight by calorie counting. It's an excuse, if it's so hard and they're so busy then I'm sure measuring insulin for their diabetes will be easier.
You and I are nothing alike it seems. I never get on Netflix and only check FB while in the loo. I don't preplan meals because I don't know what we'll be in the mood for on any given day and I'm not fond of food that's been in the fridge for more than a day. I also can't really be sure how many people I'll be feeding each day. I'm not sure what you think I'm making excuses for as I've already lost weight without weighing. Lots of people do. I was just giving you an example of one person that finds measuring and weighing food to be a PITA. Sorry you seem offended by my being different.
I'm not offended nor talking about you if this doesn't apply, not sure why you're entering yourself into the equation if it has nothing to do with you.
The thread is about excuses people use on why they can't lose weight and I responded giving the ones I've heard.
If I misunderstood your remarks about diabetes and Netflix and FB and excuses as offense then I apologize for misinterpreting. They seemed rather rude to me but it's hard to tell tone in a post. Perhaps you were attempting humor. You asked a question about how calorie counting could be hard so I answered it since I'm one that finds it hard (not physically hard but nonetheless not something sustainable).3 -
I was just sharing that CICO didn't work for me (in case there are others struggling with that too). It has to do with the fact that carbs are converted to glucose in the body. When you can't process all that sugar at once (as I said, most of my calories were carbs), the body converts it to fat. So subbing equal calories of protein for carbs fixed that issue and I lost weight! And I don't want to get too graphic, but when your metabolism is faster, the food comes out faster...Not exactly. Maybe macros are not all created equal (fat is 9 kcals per gram, protein and carbs are 4 kcals per gram and protein tends to be more satiating and there is a small difference in the thermic effect of food (TEF) for the different macros, but it's pretty miniscule. Bottomline, CICO holds true. How you go about getting that deficit can vary from person to person. Some do better with low carb strategies, some do not. To each their own there.
As far as frequent eating revving up metabolism. There is no solid scientific evidence to back that up. This is purely anecdotal (but so is your example), but for me, eating more frequently just resulted in me never feeling satiated after a meal (since I ate smaller calorie meals) or I ended up eating more calories than I burned due to the more frequent meals. Significantly limiting my snacking and sticking to essentially 3 meals a day (with maybe a light snack to tide me over here and there) has been more helpful. But again, every individual is different and the key is to find something that works for you, whether that's large meals less frequently or smaller meals more frequently or something completely different. Bottomline, calories in versus calories out during the day is what matters for weight loss, not how frequently or when you eat during the day.
But that is still CICO...5 -
I was just sharing that CICO didn't work for me (in case there are others struggling with that too). It has to do with the fact that carbs are converted to glucose in the body. When you can't process all that sugar at once (as I said, most of my calories were carbs), the body converts it to fat. So subbing equal calories of protein for carbs fixed that issue and I lost weight! And I don't want to get too graphic, but when your metabolism is faster, the food comes out faster...Not exactly. Maybe macros are not all created equal (fat is 9 kcals per gram, protein and carbs are 4 kcals per gram and protein tends to be more satiating and there is a small difference in the thermic effect of food (TEF) for the different macros, but it's pretty miniscule. Bottomline, CICO holds true. How you go about getting that deficit can vary from person to person. Some do better with low carb strategies, some do not. To each their own there.
As far as frequent eating revving up metabolism. There is no solid scientific evidence to back that up. This is purely anecdotal (but so is your example), but for me, eating more frequently just resulted in me never feeling satiated after a meal (since I ate smaller calorie meals) or I ended up eating more calories than I burned due to the more frequent meals. Significantly limiting my snacking and sticking to essentially 3 meals a day (with maybe a light snack to tide me over here and there) has been more helpful. But again, every individual is different and the key is to find something that works for you, whether that's large meals less frequently or smaller meals more frequently or something completely different. Bottomline, calories in versus calories out during the day is what matters for weight loss, not how frequently or when you eat during the day.
This was equally wrong as your first post. Your body doesn't just go and convert carbs to fat. That's inefficient. If anything it turns them into glycogen and that gets used later on.
Because you're in a calorie deficit and your body takes from its reserves, including the glycogen it created right after your meal.
And you're going to the toilet more often because the waste in your intestines is more less spaced out.9 -
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.
Maybe they do have a point, but worded better and more honestly it would sound something like "I'm eating comfortably at a certain weight, eating less is uncomfortable and I don't like to feel uncomfortable."
In a sense you do need to "force it" to get to a certain weight by changing a few things about the way you eat that may be less comfortable, and your resolve does get challenged not to get back to a higher weight without constant monitoring. Is it an excuse though? You bet it is. Anyone who is willing to put in the work can lose weight and maintain it.
I agree with not being sure about set point being a thing. But I did discover during my own weight loss that for the most part, it was pretty easy to manage as far as being happy with my calorie intake and feeling fueled for my workouts. But then I dropped to a certain weight/%BF, and it went from manageable to "I would need a ridiculous level of time and dedication to maintain this, let alone lose weight." And even putting in that time, it felt like an uphill battle. I suppose if I had certain fitness/competition goals, I would have been able to put in the effort, but as just a regular person trying to use weight/get into shape, it became a huge source of stress and led to feelings of discouragement.
I feel like when people talk about a set point, they are probably referring to what you discuss in your first paragraph, which is the ability to maintain weight with a reasonable activity level and conscious control of calories. I suspect that is more a result of lifestyle than necessarily a physical response, but I would also be interested in finding out.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »
I was just sharing that CICO didn't work for me (in case there are others struggling with that too). It has to do with the fact that carbs are converted to glucose in the body. When you can't process all that sugar at once (as I said, most of my calories were carbs), the body converts it to fat. So subbing equal calories of protein for carbs fixed that issue and I lost weight! And I don't want to get too graphic, but when your metabolism is faster, the food comes out faster...Not exactly. Maybe macros are not all created equal (fat is 9 kcals per gram, protein and carbs are 4 kcals per gram and protein tends to be more satiating and there is a small difference in the thermic effect of food (TEF) for the different macros, but it's pretty miniscule. Bottomline, CICO holds true. How you go about getting that deficit can vary from person to person. Some do better with low carb strategies, some do not. To each their own there.
As far as frequent eating revving up metabolism. There is no solid scientific evidence to back that up. This is purely anecdotal (but so is your example), but for me, eating more frequently just resulted in me never feeling satiated after a meal (since I ate smaller calorie meals) or I ended up eating more calories than I burned due to the more frequent meals. Significantly limiting my snacking and sticking to essentially 3 meals a day (with maybe a light snack to tide me over here and there) has been more helpful. But again, every individual is different and the key is to find something that works for you, whether that's large meals less frequently or smaller meals more frequently or something completely different. Bottomline, calories in versus calories out during the day is what matters for weight loss, not how frequently or when you eat during the day.
This was equally wrong as your first post. Your body doesn't just go and convert carbs to fat. That's inefficient. If anything it turns them into glycogen and that gets used later on.
Because you're in a calorie deficit and your body takes from its reserves, including the glycogen it created right after your meal.
And you're going to the toilet more often because the waste in your intestines is more spaced out.
This, this, also this.2 -
I heard an amazing ad on the radio recently. "Maybe you're not fat, maybe you're just bloated! Try our new all natural pro-biotics. They reduce bloating and will magically make your belly disappear!"
Especially hilarious (to me) because I have used that very excuse looking in the mirror before even though I knew for sure it was total BS.5 -
Whatever your brain wants (eg to lose weight), your body is aiming for homeostasis (keeping you the same). It does this in a number of ways, including hunger signals or reducing how much you move. There is plenty of research that demonstrates this, and interestingly, also, that a reduction in movement at other times of day if exercise is undertaken, is more marked in women than men. Also, after extreme weight loss, metabolisms become more efficient, so it is necessary to eat less than you would have had to if you had always been your new weight. This helps explain why it is so common to regain weight after weight loss.
I don't think biological fact is an excuse. Realising what your body is up to can help you reach your goals. Losing weight is not what your body wants, mostly, so you have to be ready for that, and be aware that maintenance is as hard or harder than weight loss for many people.12 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Arguing against the ghost in the machine?
Philosophical issues aside, IMO of course our bodies are us, but it's really common and understandable to perceive desires that we don't have conscious control over as "the body" vs. "the mind." In reality for many it's basically a figurative way of talking in that most people will likely acknowledge that their body is them (and that their mind is determined by the physical as well).
That's separate from set point theory, which I don't buy.
A hundred times, this. Don't get caught up in figures of speech.3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
While this is true, no one says, "My body needs to pee," or "My body needs air." No, it's "I need to X."
Dingdingding
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
No matter what the mirror shows I feel 'right' when I'm around 150 - 155 lbs.
But, it wasn't always this way. I can remember when I was younger I felt this way around 135 - 140 lbs.
If set point is a thing I think we alter it by becoming overly fat. And I'm not sure we can change it back once it's been altered. At least I haven't been able to. Maybe if I got down to 135 and maintained there for a year or so that would become my set point again. IDK I haven't had the motivation to get down there again yet.
Alternative hypothesis: You're older, and its normal for us to become a bit heavier as we age. Although I'm not sure how much older you are now than then. CT scanning has demonstrated that the pelvic girdle continues to widen as we age, and with that, weight does go up over time.
2 -
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.7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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