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
Options
Replies
-
what is woo1
-
-
Set point as in there's naturally one weight your body "wants" to be that doesn't change is, of course, nonsense. It may well be that there's some weight at which it's easy to maintain (based on the calories you like to eat and activity you like to do) and lower weights are more difficult to maintain, sure.
But set point as in if you lose or gain your body will make changes (hormonal, metabolic adaptation) designed to maintain the weight and body fat level it's been at, sure. The point is that doesn't actually mean that we can't gain or lose weight or eventually create a different set point.
The problem is that lots of people either use set point inaccurately to suggest that there is a weight we are meant to be at and so we can't change it or to suggest that biological factors are the primary reason for weight gain (vs. environment or lifestyle choices).
A couple of related points by Yoni Freedhoff:
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2010/12/set-point-theory-is-stupid.html
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2014/06/is-it-really-scientifically-impossible.html4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »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.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I didn't say that ageing was a reason for "getting fat." I said it was natural to gain some weight as a consequence of the pelvic girdle widening. The person I was replying to noted a *small* gain in weight over some course of years that wouldn't be out of line with their body having become wider due to bone growth. It's not like the pelvic girdle widens and nothing happens within the body.
Again, even if the pelvis widens, the person can reduce calories and/or increase exercise to avoid weight gain.Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »LaceyBirds wrote: »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.
This is interesting - thanks for sharing it. Here is a link to an article in Science Daily that references the study that determined this: https://sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525110453.htm:
So the pelvis widens a bit as people age. This is not why people get fat, eating more calories than they burn is why.
Works for young and old.
I didn't say that ageing was a reason for "getting fat." I said it was natural to gain some weight as a consequence of the pelvic girdle widening. The person I was replying to noted a *small* gain in weight over some course of years that wouldn't be out of line with their body having become wider due to bone growth. It's not like the pelvic girdle widens and nothing happens within the body.
Again, even if the pelvis widens, the person can reduce calories and/or increase exercise to avoid weight gain.
I'm not saying that people don't also put on unnecessary fast, or that they can't lose weight by reducing intake. I'm saying that not all weight gain is necessarily fat in adulthood, nor is it necessarily bad.
I have been reading studies that appear to indicate that older women (70 years old +) tend to be healthier and with fewer problems like osteoporosis, etc if they have a little extra weight. NOT overweight, but a little more towards the high side of a normal BMI. I will look for the study but IIRC, there even was a slightly smaller incidence of dementia among those studied. Kind of makes sense. It is not uncommon for the elderly to lose their sense of taste and appetite so eating enough nutritious food is difficult. Also, keeping the muscles strong helps keep the bones strong, and carrying around a couple more pounds helps that.
This was just a preliminary study, but interesting.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Set point as in there's naturally one weight your body "wants" to be that doesn't change is, of course, nonsense. It may well be that there's some weight at which it's easy to maintain (based on the calories you like to eat and activity you like to do) and lower weights are more difficult to maintain, sure.
But set point as in if you lose or gain your body will make changes (hormonal, metabolic adaptation) designed to maintain the weight and body fat level it's been at, sure. The point is that doesn't actually mean that we can't gain or lose weight or eventually create a different set point.
The problem is that lots of people either use set point inaccurately to suggest that there is a weight we are meant to be at and so we can't change it or to suggest that biological factors are the primary reason for weight gain (vs. environment or lifestyle choices).
A couple of related points by Yoni Freedhoff:
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2010/12/set-point-theory-is-stupid.html
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2014/06/is-it-really-scientifically-impossible.html
Yep, agree. Kinda like the term "starvation mode" is abused. Or "CICO". Or...3 -
I have noticed that many people parrot what they heard some place. We all hear "they say...". The other thing is we all find ways to justify or rationalize what we do. In my case recently I was told "your weight loss is pretty agressive...." Well I want to know who says so?1
-
[/quote]
I'm not saying that people don't also put on unnecessary fast, or that they can't lose weight by reducing intake. I'm saying that not all weight gain is necessarily fat in adulthood, nor is it necessarily bad. [/quote]
I have been reading studies that appear to indicate that older women (70 years old +) tend to be healthier and with fewer problems like osteoporosis, etc if they have a little extra weight. NOT overweight, but a little more towards the high side of a normal BMI. I will look for the study but IIRC, there even was a slightly smaller incidence of dementia among those studied. Kind of makes sense. It is not uncommon for the elderly to lose their sense of taste and appetite so eating enough nutritious food is difficult. Also, keeping the muscles strong helps keep the bones strong, and carrying around a couple more pounds helps that.
This was just a preliminary study, but interesting.
[/quote]
Could it be that older women with fewer health issues have a healthy appetite, versus women with underlying medical conditions who tend to have a less healthy appetite, and are more susceptible to becoming frail and underweight? I'm not convinced that it proves that being overweight is protective, but rather that healthier older women eat more than those with health complications.3 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »what is woo
*kitten*.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »KetoneKaren wrote: »what is woo
*kitten*.
B.S.2 -
This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
Yeah I think you've got it
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
You've never heard of homeostasis and feedback loops?
(snippage)
Weight homeostasis is a result, most likely, of functional feedback loops for a variety of other mechanisms and not, by-itself, a true set point but it is affected by hunger and metabolic feedback mechanisms and not just voluntary decision to "eat for 60 kgs".
"instinctively" is part of the programming you scoff at.
Oooo, duuuude: Scary big words!
But yeah.
And further: "Your body is a machine that will do as it has been programmed" per the post you replied to . . . that may be true, too, kinda - but it's way complicated by the fact that your brain (last I looked, part of the body) is necessarily creating and running that program. Lots of feedback loops: Psychology is biochemistry, too, under the covers.5 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
You've never heard of homeostasis and feedback loops?
(snippage)
Weight homeostasis is a result, most likely, of functional feedback loops for a variety of other mechanisms and not, by-itself, a true set point but it is affected by hunger and metabolic feedback mechanisms and not just voluntary decision to "eat for 60 kgs".
"instinctively" is part of the programming you scoff at.
Oooo, duuuude: Scary big words!
But yeah.
And further: "Your body is a machine that will do as it has been programmed" per the post you replied to . . . that may be true, too, kinda - but it's way complicated by the fact that your brain (last I looked, part of the body) is necessarily creating and running that program. Lots of feedback loops: Psychology is biochemistry, too, under the covers.
Use enough big words and refer obliquely to "models" and "homeostasis" and "mechanisms" and one can pretend that you have nothing to do with getting fat.0 -
walking2running wrote: »
I have been reading studies that appear to indicate that older women (70 years old +) tend to be healthier and with fewer problems like osteoporosis, etc if they have a little extra weight. NOT overweight, but a little more towards the high side of a normal BMI. I will look for the study but IIRC, there even was a slightly smaller incidence of dementia among those studied. Kind of makes sense. It is not uncommon for the elderly to lose their sense of taste and appetite so eating enough nutritious food is difficult. Also, keeping the muscles strong helps keep the bones strong, and carrying around a couple more pounds helps that.
This was just a preliminary study, but interesting.
Could it be that older women with fewer health issues have a healthy appetite, versus women with underlying medical conditions who tend to have a less healthy appetite, and are more susceptible to becoming frail and underweight? I'm not convinced that it proves that being overweight is protective, but rather that healthier older women eat more than those with health complications.
I can't speak to the "studies" referenced, but at least some of the "studies" I've seen about the value of increased weight among the elderly didn't adequately control for the fact that elderly people in active decline do tend to have lower body weight, i.e., lots of chronic or acute conditions include weight loss before they finally become fatal.
But I, too, have read that on average heavier women have less osteopenia/osteoporosis - makes sense, in that they (we) put more mechanical stress on the bones by carrying more body weight around, and tend to have higher estrogen levels (because of the fat itself being involved in post-menopausal estrogen creation), especially if we're inactive. On average, higher estrogen = better bones.
I've spent way too much time in doctor's offices myself, and I gotta say, I see a higher proportion of severely overweight/inactive 60-70+ y/o people there, than I do out in the world in general, let alone at my Y or rowing club. But that's not a "study", and I'm well aware of the biases in my observations, when it comes to the direction of the causation arrows.
But still, it was among the factors that led me to get serious about weight loss at age 59/60.
@earlnabby, please do post a link to that study if you find it. This is an area of interest for me as a li'l ol' lady.
(edited to fix messed-up quotations . . . I hope).3 -
itsalifestylenotadiet wrote: »Hello to all, sorry i'm new to the threads and am unsure how to navigate around here and don't know how to respond directly to those who responded to me. I didn't feel the comments were directed at me at all. I just felt that there was a majority of condescending comments on both sides of the debate about what kind of diet works and vice versa. We all need to find what works for us and I have to say I am not on a diet. My name here is "its a lifestyle not a diet" because it's my mantra 100%. Diets don't work for me. Lifestyle changes do, and if I don't lead a healthy one it will end with me putting all of the lbs. back on that I fought hard to lose. I lost 76 lbs on WW and kept it off for 5 years. Between my health getting even worse two years ago which resulted in me not being able to walk again, and my depression kicking back in I put nearly half of my weight on again. I finally kicked the "I don't give a care attitude" and the depression to the curb and have lost 20 lbs of it in the last 6 months, 14 of that in the last 2, doing Keto because WW wasn't working for me anymore. I am trying to get back down to the weight I am in my profile pic so that I can wear my closet full of clothes again and most importantly feel better. When people assume that all others "have to do is start moving, go to the gym, get outside and do things" not all of us have that option. So therefore the original post to start with about people using their "overweight and obesity" as an excuse is not that way for everyone. Some of us struggle everyday and have their whole lives trying to keep their weight down. So what I am essentially saying is unless someone has truly been in someone elses shoes they will never understand what others go through and to have some kind of empathy for them.
I'm sincerely sorry that you feel unsupported by some of the rhetoric in this thread! I certainly know that many people have uphill struggles to lose weight.
I took the original post to be saying that some people do use excuses because they're not ready to commit themselves to trying to lose weight, and that OP found it interesting that the structure of one particular set of excuses had to do with a belief that the body and brain were somehow separable entities in conflict with each other. But that's just my reading.
I don't think any of that takes away from people who truly do commit themselves, and still struggle, for very good reasons (like physical challenges to exercise, medical conditions with metabolic consequences, etc.).
That said, I want to point out that this specific thread is taking place in the "Debate" forum, which is oriented to arguments (
) more than to support . . . here, one will see more over-generalization, fewer careful qualifications (to avoid hurt feelings) around those generalizations, and generally a more "gloves off" kind of approach.
The "Motivation & Support" forum, not to mention some of the specialized interest groups, tends to be a kinder, gentler place.11 -
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
I just listened to the results of a study the other day that looked at timing of calories. Two groups of overweight women were given the same number of calories per day for 12 weeks. In one group, the women consumed half the calories for breakfast, and the rest over the course of the day. In the second group, the women consumed half the calories at dinner and the rest over the course of the day. The study found that the group that consumed the majority calories for breakfast were more successful at losing weight than the group that consumed the majority calories for dinner. Here's the overview: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20460/full
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just saying that no matter what anyone says, one way or another, there's probably some research out there somewhere to support it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
CICO doesn't seem to work for me. I've recently gone from a pretty severe deficit of 700-1000 cals/day to about 1200-1400. Technically, I should be thin as a rail by CICO standards, but the scale hasn't budged. I'm not overly concerned about it. I'm losing inches and bfp, and that's where my main focus is.2 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
You've never heard of homeostasis and feedback loops?
(snippage)
Weight homeostasis is a result, most likely, of functional feedback loops for a variety of other mechanisms and not, by-itself, a true set point but it is affected by hunger and metabolic feedback mechanisms and not just voluntary decision to "eat for 60 kgs".
"instinctively" is part of the programming you scoff at.
Oooo, duuuude: Scary big words!
But yeah.
And further: "Your body is a machine that will do as it has been programmed" per the post you replied to . . . that may be true, too, kinda - but it's way complicated by the fact that your brain (last I looked, part of the body) is necessarily creating and running that program. Lots of feedback loops: Psychology is biochemistry, too, under the covers.
Use enough big words and refer obliquely to "models" and "homeostasis" and "mechanisms" and one can pretend that you have nothing to do with getting fat.
Trying to understand what happens and what might make it harder under some circumstances is part of how one deals with those issues, not an excuse for not losing weight or a claim of powerlessness.
For example, one thing that helps with the hormonal issues is to exercise more. If I lose weight and am struggling with all of a sudden feeling hungry all the time, to understand that there are hormonal reasons and that exercise is likely to help gives me something to do, as opposed to just trying to employ willpower and feeling like a failure because it's so hard. (Hypothetical, btw.)
Similarly, if I do have a metabolic adaptation understanding that's normal and even that I can fix it over time will be helpful. I won't just wonder why my body won't let me eat more.
Knowing the research that your body can adapt to a new "set point" in about a year also would be helpful.
Understanding is good, not an excuse. Knowledge is power and all that.1 -
SuperMelinator wrote: »
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
I just listened to the results of a study the other day that looked at timing of calories. Two groups of overweight women were given the same number of calories per day for 12 weeks. In one group, the women consumed half the calories for breakfast, and the rest over the course of the day. In the second group, the women consumed half the calories at dinner and the rest over the course of the day. The study found that the group that consumed the majority calories for breakfast were more successful at losing weight than the group that consumed the majority calories for dinner. Here's the overview: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20460/full
I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just saying that no matter what anyone says, one way or another, there's probably some research out there somewhere to support it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
CICO doesn't seem to work for me. I've recently gone from a pretty severe deficit of 700-1000 cals/day to about 1200-1400. Technically, I should be thin as a rail by CICO standards, but the scale hasn't budged. I'm not overly concerned about it. I'm losing inches and bfp, and that's where my main focus is.
That research doesn't directly support or not support CICO.
No study that relies solely on subject compliance and reporting for intake estimates is ever going to be able to definitively state two diets were isocaloric. Isocaloric as prescribed, sure. As followed? Highly doubtful. The best that study can conclude is that subjects prescribed a higher calorie breakfast tended to lose more weight. Given that, those subjects either tended to eat fewer calories, move more, or both.4 -
(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.")
HOGWASH, our bodies are amazing machines. When sick it seeks to repair itself, when broken it continually mends itself. So in essence your body wants to be fit.... our bodies prefer the healthy side and would naturally be slender built and beautiful...... but we have the ability to change that by what we put into our bodies and it is ourselves that "FORCE" our bodies to a particular weight by being carless and lazy. So she's right our bodies naturally want to be a certain weight. But that weight is fit, it is we who sabotage that.4 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »This "set weight" stuff is rubbish. Your body cannot and will not put on weight if you are not eating the calories that leads to that weight. Your body is a machine and will do as it has been programmed. It's not your body that has the set weight, it's your mouth/brain that has the "set weight". If you are routinely/instinctively eating enough to be 80kgs, you will be 80kgs. Enough for 60kgs, you will be 60kgs.
You've never heard of homeostasis and feedback loops?
(snippage)
Weight homeostasis is a result, most likely, of functional feedback loops for a variety of other mechanisms and not, by-itself, a true set point but it is affected by hunger and metabolic feedback mechanisms and not just voluntary decision to "eat for 60 kgs".
"instinctively" is part of the programming you scoff at.
Oooo, duuuude: Scary big words!
But yeah.
And further: "Your body is a machine that will do as it has been programmed" per the post you replied to . . . that may be true, too, kinda - but it's way complicated by the fact that your brain (last I looked, part of the body) is necessarily creating and running that program. Lots of feedback loops: Psychology is biochemistry, too, under the covers.
Use enough big words and refer obliquely to "models" and "homeostasis" and "mechanisms" and one can pretend that you have nothing to do with getting fat.
Hmmm, I admit I'm only judging from photos, but @EvgeniZyntx does not look especially fat to me. But, judging over a series of posts, he does look like a Science Dude.
Homeostasis and feedback loops are not the same thing as a set-point, as he says. And free will, while a useful and practical metaphor, is kinda problematic under the covers, I say.
Allowing intellectually for complexity in mechanism, does not, in itself, inhibit weight loss. In fact, if one's brain accounts for 20% of one's BMR or somesuch, maybe exercising it will burn a few more calories?
OP, I'm with you on the CICO. I've lost 60+ pounds, quite easily & happily, acting on that math. But when you're gonna do some programming, it helps to understand the operating system it needs to run on, too.3 -
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions