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
-
You probably only remember the days when you ate a lot and don't remember all the days when you barely had anything. It's physicality impossible to eat 4000 calories and remain at a normal weight unless you are active enough to support it. Similarly, some overweight people only remember their light days and would swear that their metabolism is slow because they barely eat anything but keep gaining weight.
This is all about perception. I have noticed on some days when my appetite is low I very often have to double check my calories in disbelief thinking surely I had more than 1200 calories because it feels like I was eating nonstop large portions of calorific foods. It had to be at least 3000 calories. On the other hand, I have days when my calorie intake is over 2000 but and I find myself double checking wondering if I entered the wrong quantity somewhere because I "know" I barely any food that day.
If you are full and happy you perceive eating a lot, but if you're hungry all day you tend to forget more than half the stuff you consumed and your portions feel smaller than they actually are. The actual calorie content of your food has little to do with how you feel it may be.24 -
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.
Bull, it may be "normal" because that is what happens to most people. The reason isn't the years its the fact they are taking in more calories than they are using, not because another year has passed.10 -
FridayApril01st2016 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.
We all had better metabolism in high school. :noway:8 -
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.
Incorrect and inaccurate8 -
FridayApril01st2016 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.
And you did that every single day for 4 years?6 -
FridayApril01st2016 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.
If you didn't count calories how did you know you were eating 4-6000 a day on a regular basis?20 -
Its easy to come up with excuses for why we are overweight....3
-
I know how I gained weight: Demanding stressful job + 90 minute one-way commute + all work and no play + little sleep + no exercise + eating whatever, whenever to satisfy hunger. Multiply by five years after a lifetime of being just slightly overweight.
And thanks to all the press over the recent "Biggest Loser" study, I do believe in a body's set point, and that I've messed up my metabolism due to all the failed attempts at losing weight. (Previously, I thought this was a myth). This doesn't mean I won't be successful (more than 30 lbs down using CICO, for what it's worth) it just means it will continue to be a struggle the rest of my life after I reach goal. <shrug>. Depressing, but likely true.5 -
I am the queen of making excuses so when I read about this "Set Point", my brain went right to... Woohoo! Another reason I'm not losing weight!
So I looked it up. http://www.mirror-mirror.org/set.htm The article doesn't talk about the body "preventing" weight loss because of a set point but more that the body may make it more difficult to lose the weight. That being said, I still believe that regardless of the time it takes, CICO is it. So my body can fight me all it wants, as long as I can continue eating healthy calories and burning more of them than I eat, I'll eventually lose weight. I've started this weight loss "journey" too many times to mention and each time I've gained some of it back. Why? As the queen of excuses, I could make up a bunch of reasons but it comes down to sugar, pizza, burgers, chips, freezies, too much coffee every day containing too much sugar and cream and sitting on my larger than life derriere. What's also interesting in the article is that it says there's no test to calculate your set point. You just have to pay attention to your body and what it's trying to tell you. Shouldn't we being doing that anyways??? 4 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Weight gain is not an autonomic reflex.8 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »You probably only remember the days when you ate a lot and don't remember all the days when you barely had anything. It's physicality impossible to eat 4000 calories and remain at a normal weight unless you are active enough to support it. Similarly, some overweight people only remember their light days and would swear that their metabolism is slow because they barely eat anything but keep gaining weight.
This is all about perception. I have noticed on some days when my appetite is low I very often have to double check my calories in disbelief thinking surely I had more than 1200 calories because it feels like I was eating nonstop large portions of calorific foods. It had to be at least 3000 calories. On the other hand, I have days when my calorie intake is over 2000 but and I find myself double checking wondering if I entered the wrong quantity somewhere because I "know" I barely any food that day.
If you are full and happy you perceive eating a lot, but if you're hungry all day you tend to forget more than half the stuff you consumed and your portions feel smaller than they actually are. The actual calorie content of your food has little to do with how you feel it may be.
This is pretty much true for me. I felt like I ate whatever I wanted through my early 20s and never gained weight and started gaining weight in my mid to late 20s despite not eating that much and being somewhat active. When I took stock, I realized my perception was off -- I walked and ran around all the time in college, without really noticing it, because it was just part of daily life or part of a fun activity. I had basically planned meals, so although I ate as much as I wanted at them my overall consumption wasn't so high (and they weren't necessarily high cal options). When I was working a stressful job in my later 20s I'd schedule in workouts, but not as much as I told myself, had reduced movement through the day, and -- most important -- had much more social eating at events and, especially, restaurant meals since I was traveling a lot (fancy dining being a perk) and if we worked 'til at least 8 dinner would be catered from any number of nice restaurants. And since I was generally stressed and miserable it was easy to treat the dining opportunities as reasons to be indulgent and think of them as special occasions even though they were pretty regular. When I cooked for myself it would be pretty low cal, but that was getting to be the exception. Once I thought about my patterns it made total sense.
When I gained again in my late 30s (after losing weight at the beginning of my 30s), it was similar -- I drastically reduced activity without really changing my eating habits and I'd let myself get overindulgent at restaurants again.
5 -
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.
I'm a psychology major and one of the things that stuck with me was locus of control(it's been 10 years so bear with me). It's the idea of whether you (internal) or outside forces (external) control your behavior or outcomes. Many folks are more comfortable explaining behavior based on an external locus of control because then they are off the hook for what is happening.17 -
I was 10st in 2003 after a bad case of mono. It took me years to regain my pre illness weight of 13st. I ate whatever I wanted and sometimes more, I loved playing sports too, so I was always working at least some of it off. Was I making excuses? I don't believe so, I was trying my hardest and it felt virtually impossible to gain. Fast forward to 2014 I'm 16st and in and out of hospital. The stress of chronic illness leaves me depressed and I start taking Mirtazapine. It gives me a bigger appetite and in a year I balloon to 18st. Did my behaviour cause the gain? YES. Has my behaviour got me down to 15st? YES. Now, my case isn't typical I guess but I'm not the only one with good reasons to have struggled with weight. Scientifically speaking it's simple, I ate too much and didn't move enough, but life is more nuanced, more complex than CICO. Achieving the right ratio of CICO is very hard for some people. I did make excuses and I have no problem admitting it, but they were pretty good excuses and I'm sure others have good excuses too.5
-
I'm sharing my personal story--it's bizarre for people to say that my weightloss didn't happen just because it happened in a different way than them. In the strength training and bodybuilding community, it's common knowledge that WHAT you eat matters just as much as HOW MUCH you eat in order to lose fat, especially when you don't have much to lose. (Just google macros) I'm happy to share this with the general public who is just trying to lose weight (which is why I did share), but surprised that rather than think "oh that's interesting" or "I'll have to read one of the many articles available on that", many people are basically responding with "I've never heard of that before, so you must be wrong."zoeysasha37 wrote: »Incorrect and inaccurate
I think the MFP discussion boards should be educational and supportive of other's struggles and successes. Health and fitness education is important to me, so I read a lot about it. I encourage others to do so as well before posting hasty, unsupported comments. We're all just trying to better ourselves and education is key.
15 -
paulgads82 wrote: »Now, my case isn't typical I guess but I'm not the only one with good reasons to have struggled with weight. Scientifically speaking it's simple, I ate too much and didn't move enough, but life is more nuanced, more complex than CICO. Achieving the right ratio of CICO is very hard for some people. I did make excuses and I have no problem admitting it, but they were pretty good excuses and I'm sure others have good excuses too.
I don't even necessarily think of them as excuses, as I don't feel like I had a responsibility to someone else to make my weight a top priority. There are explanations for why I gained or why I took a few years to get a handle on it that are helpful for me to understand to both combat the causes and prevent them from happening again (or watch out for in some cases). Trying to understand those reasons isn't making an excuse. It's not like I complained to people when I was fat and then said "I can't."2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »paulgads82 wrote: »Now, my case isn't typical I guess but I'm not the only one with good reasons to have struggled with weight. Scientifically speaking it's simple, I ate too much and didn't move enough, but life is more nuanced, more complex than CICO. Achieving the right ratio of CICO is very hard for some people. I did make excuses and I have no problem admitting it, but they were pretty good excuses and I'm sure others have good excuses too.
I don't even necessarily think of them as excuses, as I don't feel like I had a responsibility to someone else to make my weight a top priority. There are explanations for why I gained or why I took a few years to get a handle on it that are helpful for me to understand to both combat the causes and prevent them from happening again (or watch out for in some cases). Trying to understand those reasons isn't making an excuse. It's not like I complained to people when I was fat and then said "I can't."
Perhaps explanation is better than excuse. I did feel like I could never lose weight for a while because food was such a psychological crutch for me.4 -
mommarnurse wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
Weight gain is not an autonomic reflex.
That's true. I answered the question of why people use figures of speech like "my body wants" versus "I want" by pointing to autonomic reflexes as a tangible example of why people might do this. 3 -
I'm sharing my personal story--it's bizarre for people to say that my weightloss didn't happen just because it happened in a different way than them. In the strength training and bodybuilding community, it's common knowledge that WHAT you eat matters just as much as HOW MUCH you eat in order to lose fat, especially when you don't have much to lose. (Just google macros) I'm happy to share this with the general public who is just trying to lose weight (which is why I did share), but surprised that rather than think "oh that's interesting" or "I'll have to read one of the many articles available on that", many people are basically responding with "I've never heard of that before, so you must be wrong."zoeysasha37 wrote: »Incorrect and inaccurate
I think the MFP discussion boards should be educational and supportive of other's struggles and successes. Health and fitness education is important to me, so I read a lot about it. I encourage others to do so as well before posting hasty, unsupported comments. We're all just trying to better ourselves and education is key.
Trust me on this. No one is responding with that.11 -
I'm sharing my personal story--it's bizarre for people to say that my weightloss didn't happen just because it happened in a different way than them. In the strength training and bodybuilding community, it's common knowledge that WHAT you eat matters just as much as HOW MUCH you eat in order to lose fat, especially when you don't have much to lose. (Just google macros) I'm happy to share this with the general public who is just trying to lose weight (which is why I did share), but surprised that rather than think "oh that's interesting" or "I'll have to read one of the many articles available on that", many people are basically responding with "I've never heard of that before, so you must be wrong."zoeysasha37 wrote: »Incorrect and inaccurate
I think the MFP discussion boards should be educational and supportive of other's struggles and successes. Health and fitness education is important to me, so I read a lot about it. I encourage others to do so as well before posting hasty, unsupported comments. We're all just trying to better ourselves and education is key.
The things you listed were simply wrong.
CICO works for everyone as it is based on a law of physics.
Starvation mode like that doesn't exist.
Amount of meals per day doesn't matter.
We can tell you that you're wrong BECAUSE we heard it all before. Do you think you're the first to come here talking about this stuff?
Also the bodybuilding community knows fuckall as a whole, with only a handful of people who have a clue about the science. The bodybuilding community is where the term bro science comes from FFS.
24 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »The things you listed were simply wrong.
CICO works for everyone as it is based on a law of physics.
Starvation mode like that doesn't exist.
Amount of meals per day doesn't matter.
We can tell you that you're wrong BECAUSE we heard it all before. Do you think you're the first to come here talking about this stuff?
I'm not wrong. I simply had a different experience than you. CICO alone did not work for ME. Therefore, you cannot say "everyone". I tried it for 7 months (I was quite determined!), but didn't lose a single pound. As soon as I started tracking my macros in addition to calories (went from 1300 cals to 1400 cals/day and increased protein), I dropped 10 lbs in 8 weeks. Physics may work for you, but science/biology worked for me. And the amount of meals each day mattered for me. Some people eat 1 meal/day and that works for them. You may not choose to do that for yourself, but different things work for different people.
If you've heard of macros before and the benefits of tracking them, then why do you disbelieve it? Somebody had to tell you about CICO, why did you not question them? For some people, there's more to weightloss than CICO. It doesn't change the fact that CICO works for you/others. Lucky you, by the way. You don't have to track macros to meet your goals.6 -
What part about CICO being a law of physics and applying to every person on the planet is hard to understand?28
-
Today I learned that Physics isn't science.20
-
CICO "doesn't work" for a lot of people because they are unable to accurately track their calories, estimate portions or calculate calories burned for exercise. That doesn't mean it isn't still "true". Anyone that says CICO "doesn't work" for them, I just assume they can't tell they difference between a half pound steak and 6 ounces of steak, or that they don't realize the gallon of ranch they add to their low calorie salad had calories as well. Or perhaps they went for a bike ride and assume "yeah, that was like 14 mph, right?". I've seen instances of all those things in co-workers trying to lose weight. Compound that with the fact that people don't understand their own daily weight fluctuations, and you have a recipe for failure for many.
Again, CICO is a "truth", many people just fail to understand the rules.35 -
Suspended_User wrote: »CICO "doesn't work" for a lot of people because they are unable to accurately track their calories, estimate portions or calculate calories burned for exercise. That doesn't mean it isn't still "true". Anyone that says CICO "doesn't work" for them, I just assume they can't tell they difference between a half pound steak and 6 ounces of steak, or that they don't realize the gallon of ranch they add to their low calorie salad had calories as well. Or perhaps they went for a bike ride and assume "yeah, that was like 14 mph, right?". I've seen instances of all those things in co-workers trying to lose weight. Compound that with the fact that people don't understand their own daily weight fluctuations, and you have a recipe for failure for many.
Again, CICO is a "truth", many people just fail to understand the rules.
Well said.7 -
This content has been removed.
-
Suspended_User wrote: »CICO "doesn't work" for a lot of people because they are unable to accurately track their calories, estimate portions or calculate calories burned for exercise. That doesn't mean it isn't still "true". Anyone that says CICO "doesn't work" for them, I just assume they can't tell they difference between a half pound steak and 6 ounces of steak, or that they don't realize the gallon of ranch they add to their low calorie salad had calories as well. Or perhaps they went for a bike ride and assume "yeah, that was like 14 mph, right?". I've seen instances of all those things in co-workers trying to lose weight. Compound that with the fact that people don't understand their own daily weight fluctuations, and you have a recipe for failure for many.
Again, CICO is a "truth", many people just fail to understand the rules.
I think a lot of people are speaking in terms of practicality or simply making assumptions based on practical experience. The fact of the matter is: You don't need to understand the principle of manipulating CICO in order to implement its practice. Someone who says I ate whatever I wanted, as much as I wanted whenever I wanted it is probably telling the truth. It doesn't mean that they ate more calories than they burned.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
GuitarJerry 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.
This is true for those that make meals and like a lot of variety and taste. I am fortunate in that I am happy to eat plain baked chicken 7 nights a week, so it's just a matter of plopping it on a scale. But, I know people that can't do that, they need it marinated, and they want it friend, or basted, or whatever. They need the variety. It is much more difficult that way. I agree with that.
Even in those logging can be simplified. Using the meal option instead of "recipe" then editing the weight of the ingredients, adding or removing whatever needs to be added or removed. Even that can be simplified further by counting groups of ingredients as a single ingredient - the highest calorie ingredient. I usually actually enjoy logging every single ingredients, but when I'm in a rush and have a multiple bean dish, for example, I sometimes count them all as chickpeas and if I'm adding eggplants, zucchini and cauliflower I lump them together on the scale and count them all as cauliflower. Yes, it's less accurate, but since you are using the highest calorie ingredient you are not very likely to be underestimating the calorie count so this method does in a rush.8 -
I can't paraphrase it very well, but there was a thread in this forum about how long it takes for the body to stop trying to regain the weight you lose. It was a hormonal thing, if I remember correctly, and the time frame was a little less than a year. I found it very hopeful. If a person can hold out for a year, your body gets the hint.9
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