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.
Why do people overeat and/or become obese? Is it harder than average for some to lose weight?
Replies
-
Bry_Lander wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »I don't really see how this thread won't end up here anyway, so I'm going to go ahead and throw it out there:
In some (or many) cases, people are afflicted with a compulsion/addiction/condition/whatever-term-that-won't-cause-mental-anguish-to-people. I believe that there is both a physical and mental component to this.
The physical is that there is an abnormal reaction to the effects of certain behaviors and or experiences (such as overeating and/or eating highly palatable foods). This reaction manifests in a phenomenal craving. Once the craving is triggered, it cannot be satisfied.
The mental aspect is an obsession with the behavior or experience. They are inexplicably drawn to attempt normal consumption even if they have proven an inability to do so in the past. No matter their level of commitment or the seriousness of their situation (i.e. you'll have to get your leg amputated if you can't get this under control), they will trigger the craving again.
Basically it boils down to this, they can't stop once they've started and they can't stop themselves from starting.
I don't believe this for one second.
Lack of education.
That's fine.
Are you saying I lack education or the people I am talking about lack education. What education is lacking?
I think the majority of people who are overweight/obese lack education in anything food related.
I watched an episode of my 600lb life...the guy gained weight and the doctor was asking why? the patient said "I don't know I should be losing I switched out my white bread for whole wheat"....seriously.
And based on my own experience I knew about calories from being a teenager and having my mother diet all the time...but had no clue on how to lose weight and maintain...
I could lose like a demon...but gain it back.
diet books, diet websites, diet pills, diet programs aka WW etc...all teach people how to lose but not how to maintain...
and as adults if we weren't taught about nutrition and calories how do we teach our kids??????
It's actually pretty simple. Your pants get too tight, you are getting fatter. Oh, better back off on the eating and/or exercise more
This is actually the system that kept me from getting fat for years. When my clothes started to get too tight, it triggered a high level of anxiety in me and a change in my behavior - I just found it unacceptable that the solution was to go out and buy bigger clothes sizes rather than modify the way that I eat and exercise.
Me too! That always worked when I was thin. I had winter clothes that I could layer and cover up the 10 holiday vanity pounds that I gained each year. Then I would drop the 10 pounds each spring in time for bikini season. Now I can't get rid of those pesky last 10 pounds anymore and keep them on all year round.
Some people on MFP say it is easy to lose weight and hard to maintain, but I find it to be very difficult to lose weight and relatively easy to maintain. I work to lose weight but cycle on same couple pounds over and over. It is frustrating!2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »KetoGirl83 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »(...)
Of course today that's all nonsense. Everyone one knows calories in, calories out is how you manage your weight. What you eat and when you eat doesn't matter.
Seriously? It doesn't matter if I eat 1500 cals of broccoli or 1500 cals of twinkies?
::flowerforyou::
Nutritionally, it obviously does.
Also, you probably couldn't manage to eat 1500 calories of broccoli.
Both would be bad diets -- most mono diets are -- so I never understand why people bring up such things as if they were real choices.
Because the easiest way to show that an argument is invalid is by reductio ad absurdum, ie, showing what happens when you take the argument to its logical consequence. If "what you eat and when you eat doesn't matter" was true, as the quote I was commenting says, then it would indeed be the same to eat broccoli or twinkies.
If I substitute "broccoli" by a woe adequate to my metabolism and "twinkies" by exactly the same amount of cals from junk food, I have no doubt that I will lose faster not eating twinkies. In my experience, a calorie is just an expedite way of cataloguing food. Cals provide a general guidance but that definitely does not mean that (to keep to the example) a cal from broccoli is the same to my body as a cal from a twinkie.
Just to state what we are comparing. According to twinkies nutrition label, a serving size is 77g (2 twinkies). Let's say I eat only one. That's 135 cals of this:
37 ingredients, of which only 5 are ‘recognizable’ as real food: flour,egg, water, sugar, salt.
To eat those same 135 cals from broccoli (34 cals/100g) I need to eat 400g. It's unusual, yes, but not impossible if, like me, you love broccoli.
So, one twinkie or 400g of broccoli. Of course it is not the same nutritionally. That it is also not the same if I want to lose weight or keep it off is, to me at least, evident.
::flowerforyou::
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »sashayoung72 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't really see how this thread won't end up here anyway, so I'm going to go ahead and throw it out there:
In some (or many) cases, people are afflicted with a compulsion/addiction/condition/whatever-term-that-won't-cause-mental-anguish-to-people. I believe that there is both a physical and mental component to this.
The physical is that there is an abnormal reaction to the effects of certain behaviors and or experiences (such as overeating and/or eating highly palatable foods). This reaction manifests in a phenomenal craving. Once the craving is triggered, it cannot be satisfied.
The mental aspect is an obsession with the behavior or experience. They are inexplicably drawn to attempt normal consumption even if they have proven an inability to do so in the past. No matter their level of commitment or the seriousness of their situation (i.e. you'll have to get your leg amputated if you can't get this under control), they will trigger the craving again.
Basically it boils down to this, they can't stop once they've started and they can't stop themselves from starting.
I don't believe this for one second.
Lack of education.
That's fine.
Are you saying I lack education or the people I am talking about lack education. What education is lacking?
I think the majority of people who are overweight/obese lack education in anything food related.
I watched an episode of my 600lb life...the guy gained weight and the doctor was asking why? the patient said "I don't know I should be losing I switched out my white bread for whole wheat"....seriously.
And based on my own experience I knew about calories from being a teenager and having my mother diet all the time...but had no clue on how to lose weight and maintain...
I could lose like a demon...but gain it back.
diet books, diet websites, diet pills, diet programs aka WW etc...all teach people how to lose but not how to maintain...
and as adults if we weren't taught about nutrition and calories how do we teach our kids??????
So, you're basically saying people with weight problems do not know lack education on how to maintain?
No what I am saying is most people have no idea how calories work.
I'm not sure I believe this is true of most. It doesn't seem to mesh with the number of posts asking "why can't I stop overeating" or "how do I stop binge eating" or "how do I break my addiction to sugar"
To me these sound more like issues with control of cravings than a lack of knowledge that too many calories are being consumed.
This is a very small sample tho...I do firmly believe based on my own life most don't understand calories.
If they did there wouldn't be statements of CICO doesn't work for everyone and there wouldn't be this large diet industry preying on people...
Sure they get the concept of I need to eat fewer calories but when it comes down to it they have no idea what that truly means...
But I feel like this is going to get into "food addiction" area and I am not into that debate.
What does it truly mean if not; determining the calories of current intake and eating less than that; or determining caloric output and eating less than that?
to lose weight it truly means taking in less calories than you burn
to maintain weight it truly means that you are eating the same as what you are burning.
If your current intake is making you gain 1lb a week...eating 50 calories less a day won't work...but you know that
Ok, I'm still trying to fully understand what you meant by "Sure they get the concept of I need to eat fewer calories but when it comes down to it they have no idea what that truly means...". So for the sake of clarification, you are saying that they miscalculate their caloric needs or the number of calories they should cut from their diet? In other words, you are saying they know they need to eat fewer calories, but don't know how much fewer?
sort of...
People know that to lose weight they need to eat (for arguments sake) 1200 calories and that means to them 1lb a week. *I know this as a friend is on MFP and this is her life....
They log 1200 calories and really believe they ate 1200 calories.
They exercise and log 500 calories for 45mins of treadmill walking at 3.5 mph because that's what the treadmill says.
In reality they are eating 1600 a day and burning maybe 300..(I am being generous)
They lose 1/2 a week or maybe none because they really ate 1800 for a few days.
They ask "why am I not losing weight"...
They really believe that they are eating 1200 calories and exercising that much and feel they are one of those "that can't lose weight" or "it's the kinds of calories" or "it's because I ate after 7pm" or "because I didn't drink my hot lemon water this morning to rev my metabolism"
No concept of what 1200 calories looks like or how hard it is to exercise off 500 calories walking...
See for me I can tell you what 30gram of marble cheddar looks like and that fact it has 120 calories...or how much 180 grams of mix frozen tropical fruit looks like...I got cha...150 grams of chicken I know but if I am not familiar with the food I would need my food scale to know the weight to get the calories...
Ok, but this is somewhat different than what the thread seemed to be about....I suspect they're trying to say that, for them, either Calories In is harder to limit or that Calories Out is harder to achieve than for the average person...
...Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed?...
If you have been able to build a skill set which allows you to be able to eyeball what 30g of marble cheddar looks like, what makes you think others who have struggled for years haven't been able to develop the same skills? Surely many of them have and still struggle nonetheless. What drives overeating in people who know better? I'm talking about people who:
- know energy balance (CICO)
- Know a pound of fat is about 3500 calories
- know that exercise estimations are inaccurate
- know that measuring by volume is not always precise
- weigh everything that they eat
- have sustainable food plans
- know that forbidding foods could lead to greater temptation
- know that attempting to moderate could lead to greater temptation
- know that micro nutrients are important for body composition
- know that protein intake is recommended at .8-1g per pound of lean body mass
- know that certain food types are more satisfying for different people
- know that certain diets work because they make it easier for some to manipulate energy balance
- you get my point...
There are many who know all of this yet fail regardless. Why?
This interests me too and I've seen some comments on other threads that tell me there are a few people here who might say that this describes them. I would love to hear from them.
A friend of mine has been obese probably her entire life. As far as I can tell, she seems to know all of the above yet still struggles with her weight. It's something that I can never ask her about because it's none of my business and I would never want to risk hurting her feelings, but I know she's not the only one in her shoes and I hope someone can shed some light on what it might be like for her.
Because they aren't willing to change. I know this isn't the best analogy - but surely crack addicts know crack is bad? Surely that guy with diabetes who's repeatedly admitted to the hospital knows he shouldn't be chugging soda and what not? Knowledge isn't the first step in change, acknowledgement is. You can look in the mirror and say "hey, I'm fat" but you're not acknowledging that your own choices and lifestyle are the reason. And even if you do, you're not necessarily willing to step out of your comfort zone and make a change. That requires a very high , sustained level of emotional energy. You're settling for your lifestyle. Deep down, you don't believe that you deserve better.
People have had similar outlooks on alcoholics for decades (or mellenia), but now it is widely accepted to not be so cut and dry.
well if you want to go down the road of addiction fine I will say these couple of points on it.
1. I have yet to see someone derail their entire life aka lose their job, home, family because they do "stupid" and/or illegal acts for food.
2. Applying the logic of addiction to food doesn't even seem logical...we need food to survive so addicts have to stay away from their "drug" per say otherwise....
3. Addicts go through massive amounts of pain physical/mental when they give up their drug and to equate this to it after seeing an addict get off their "drug" is a slap in the fact to their battle.
and lastly
Addicts get treatment and stop if they so choose to...so barring all of the above if they are "addicts" then they can choose to get treatment and stop right??? so why don't they do that?
They understand the logic behind weight loss and just need to apply it to their life but don't because of a choice???
ACTUALLY on point one, there are people that lose their jobs because they become too obese to work at that job, sometimes it's side effects of the weight like high blood pressure. Also husbands and wives have left because they don't love them anymore.... Worse case they die from obesity side effects so slow suicide or OVERDOSE so to speak.
on your point 3. it is painful to let go of the things you can't have to lose the weight, maybe you are lucky and didn't have to do that but some do. And this is worse than drugs because you face it EVERY SINGLE *KITTEN* DAY!!! There is no GOING OFF THE DRUG when it comes to food.
And just like alcohol, most can take it or leave it so some DON't understand why someone else has a hard time and is addicted.
There are similarities yes ie hiding food, perhaps losing the job or a spouse or even die from side effects but that still does not mean food addiction is real....
still doesn't make it an addiction....why because I've seen people like that get WLS and lose the weight and keep it off.
and I have yet to see a "food" addict do illegal acts to get food or leave their family because food was more important...yes maybe their family leaves them...
no physical pain or withdrawal when you go on a diet....have you seen an addict give up a drug like alcohol or crack? seriously.
but again if this is an addiction and it's known to be an addiction and they have education and are smart why not get treatment? or as mentioned above what about people who have issues with food like BED and still manage to lose weight and maintain?
I do have a carb addiction. But thankfully I figured that out and eat complex carbs/low glycemic index food, and avoid sugar and simple carbs. It changed my life. I actually had carb withdrawal symptoms for a week when I initially abruptly dropped them down.
So fruits and veg, plain roasted potatoes, plain pasta are issues?
Most who claim to have issues with carbs don't have issues with these foods. They have issues with some (not all) highly palatable foods that are partly carbs, partly fat. The fat is typically an important part -- most popular trigger foods are either carbs, fat, salt or carbs (including sugar) and fat. Also, the withdrawal thing makes no sense if one is still eating carbs -- how much did you reduce?
I cut out added sugar for a while and felt no effects, which makes sense as I was still eating carbs (although probably less). The US diet isn't particularly high in carbs -- what distinguishes it is the types of carbs people eat, on average.
I don't see any actual physical differences between the foods people claim to be addicted to and foods they are fine with (for example, basically the same macros or even ingredients as others in many cases), which is why I think using the term addiction makes no sense. It's like claiming to be addicted to pinot but not cabernet.
Yes, yes, and yes. I have to restrict all carbs in order to maintain normal appetite. I'm actually better off having a scoop of ice cream (carbs+fat+protein) than having a plain baked potato (mostly carbs, no fat, very little protein, not enough fiber to amount to anything). Carbs in isolation (high sugar fruit, plain starchy veg, plain grains) are particularly bad for me because there really isn't much to slow down the blood sugar spike, and for some reason the crash is always really bad (think hypoglycemia bad). At least the "junky" carbs typically come with a good bit of fat to slow that spike. I'm best off avoiding high carb foods altogether. I never understood why I was struggling not to exceed my calorie goals when I was eating a very "healthy" diet (lots of whole grains, lots of fruit and veg, moderate amounts of lean meat and low fat or fat free dairy, very little added fat or sugar). Now I get it - carbs, all carbs, even the so called "good" carbs, increase my appetite.
In the interest of full disclosure - I have a strong family history of type two diabetes, Alzheimer's, and heart disease, a personal history of reactive hypoglycemia, and it is quite likely I was becoming increasingly insulin resistant as I got older. I think if I had kept insisting on eat a "healthy" diet, not only would I still be fifty lbs heavier than I am now, but I'd probably be pre diabetic by now. I think part of the issue is that the current nutrition guidelines advocate a very one size fits all approach, and tell people it's best to make carbs the biggest part of their diet. Given how many diabetics, prediabetics, and people with family histories of IR related issue there are, not including info on LCHF diets, and when and why they might be beneficial, in the guidelines is negligent at best.
That said, I won't get into the whole "addiction" thing... Cruelty to horses and all...
7 -
I can understand better now how different we all are regarding food responses.2
-
Can I politely request no more debating in here about if food/types of food is an addiction? There's another thread for that, and there's a good conversation happening here that I'd hate to get muddled by that argument. Let's accept that some people think it is and think it's a reason people are obese and leave it there.
One thing no one has brought up is how life factors into this. None of us try to diet in a bubble, but it can be damn hard to make weight loss a priority when other, more immediately distressing things are going on. Example: my SIL is dangerously obese, and every time I talk to her she's had another health complication. But that doesn't seem as pressing to her as everything else. We lost my father-in-law back in March, so there's been setting up hospice, watching him pass, and making funeral arrangements. My MIL is starting to struggle a lot more, so my SIL is taking her to more doctor's appointments, filling more prescriptions, and generally fretting over her state of health. SIL's husband has had severel rounds of surgery on his eye this year. Her company laid off a huge number of employees, so she's picking up the slack from being understaffed and is living with the daily worry of losing her job.
She has the knowledge of how to lose weight - her husband had WLS and she sat in on the nutrition classes with him. She learned how to cook healthier meals for him. But with all these other things going on that seem more urgent, convenience food is easier. She doesn't understand how important it is for her to be losing weight right now, before things get worse. I don't think she'll realize until it's too late.5 -
My intention in this thread is not to convince anybody of the veracity of food addiction. I just want to represent one point of view from that perspective as I feel it is relevant to the OP. Weight loss is a very broad subject. It is a problem with various causes and numerous ways to come to a solution. The occurrence of addictive food behaviors is not typical, but at the same time, it's not uncommon. Many have suffered and recovered from this.
If anyone reading this feels they might suffer from such an affliction, my message to them is that there is a solution (in fact, several). And there is no shame in seeking that solution.4 -
When I eat starchy items like potatoes or sugary foods like fruit, etc I do have to be careful to include protein with it. Low glycemic combos has been the most effective diet for me personally. I'm researching and plan to try keto soon to see if that will jog my plateau. This will be a new experience.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
So fruits and veg, plain roasted potatoes, plain pasta are issues?
Most who claim to have issues with carbs don't have issues with these foods. They have issues with some (not all) highly palatable foods that are partly carbs, partly fat. The fat is typically an important part -- most popular trigger foods are either carbs, fat, salt or carbs (including sugar) and fat. Also, the withdrawal thing makes no sense if one is still eating carbs -- how much did you reduce?
I cut out added sugar for a while and felt no effects, which makes sense as I was still eating carbs (although probably less). The US diet isn't particularly high in carbs -- what distinguishes it is the types of carbs people eat, on average.
I cut out added sugar for the month of April to raise money for charity and felt absolutely TERRIBLE the entire time. It never went away (my body didn't "adjust" after a couple of weeks or whatever). Now, I don't eat a *lot* of added sugar but that whole month I was shaking, incredibly tired (despite, yes, still eating carbs and having sufficient calorie intake), suffered from headaches, nausea, and being a generally irritable grumpy *kitten*. For the whole month. I can only imagine how bad it would have been if my diet had even more refined/added/whatever you want to call it sugar.
When May rolled around I basically went on a refined sugar binge for 2 weeks before I felt normal and healthy again.
Was I still eating carbs? You betcha. Did I feel like *kitten* anyway? Yup. Am I ever doing that again? Oh hell no.
Edited to add: my diet typically contains <150g carbs, mostly because eating high-carb food tends to trigger overeating, but stuff like my yogurt, some drinks, etc etc etc have added sugar and I'll have the occasional chocolate bar or ice cream0 -
I love food. Basically if it tastes good, I'm gonna fricking eat it. Though these days I do try to have a LITTLE self control, and eat LESS of it, but I still sometimes let the food get the best of me and just eat and eat and eat.1
-
mskessler89 wrote: »Can I politely request no more debating in here about if food/types of food is an addiction? There's another thread for that, and there's a good conversation happening here..
One thing no one has brought up is how life factors into this. None of us try to diet in a bubble, but it can be damn hard to make weight loss a priority when other, more immediately distressing things are going on. Example: my SIL is dangerously obese, and every time I talk to her she's had another health complication. But that doesn't seem as pressing to her as everything else. We lost my father-in-law back in March, so there's been setting up hospice, watching him pass, and making funeral arrangements. My MIL is starting to struggle a lot more, so my SIL is taking her to more doctor's appointments, filling more prescriptions, and generally fretting over her state of health...
She has the knowledge of how to lose weight - her husband had WLS and she sat in on the nutrition classes with him. She learned how to cook healthier meals for him. But with all these other things going on that seem more urgent, convenience food is easier. She does understand how important it is for her to be losing weight right now, before things get worse. I don't think she'll realize until it's too late.
The OP is open to "why". We want to know why and are sharing our experiences. Sorry to hear about your family members. You mentioned the "why" is because convenience food is easier. Sorry to break your request, but she may have an addiction. That can possibly be a factor.
I don't have to hunt, prepare and harvest my food which would have kept me active and burning calories in the past. Other people do that work, and I can open a package of something yummy much easier. I have found if I take the time to prepare and eat a meal I cooked myself I do cut back on calories because the foods are naturally less calorie dense. I'm not a baker so I don't have the sugar to deal with, at least.2 -
When I eat starchy items like potatoes or sugary foods like fruit, etc I do have to be careful to include protein with it. Low glycemic combos has been the most effective diet for me personally. I'm researching and plan to try keto soon to see if that will jog my plateau. This will be a new experience.
I'm not going to discourage you from doing keto, many people have great success with it. I just want to mention that I'm not, and I never have been, trying for keto level carbs (though some days I inadvertently end up there). I find my personal tolerance level to be around 50g of carbs per day. Any higher than 80g triggers my hunger issues. I think many people are carb tolerant enough that the USDA guidelines work, but for many others (myself included) it's simply too hig in carbs.
As an aside - I wasn't uneducated on calories or nutrition; we started covering that at school in sixth grade, talked about it more in middle school home ec class, and covered it pretty extensively in high school health class (this was all in the early to mid 1990s) The trouble was all they were teaching was the USDA guidelines (I think that's all public schools are allowed to teach). It took me twenty years after all that indoctrination to seek out an alternative (I'm stubborn I guess). I wish either the government would stay out of nutrition altogether, or at least acknowledge that the guidelines are inappropriate for vast swaths of the population.
2 -
lexbubbles wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So fruits and veg, plain roasted potatoes, plain pasta are issues?
Most who claim to have issues with carbs don't have issues with these foods. They have issues with some (not all) highly palatable foods that are partly carbs, partly fat. The fat is typically an important part -- most popular trigger foods are either carbs, fat, salt or carbs (including sugar) and fat. Also, the withdrawal thing makes no sense if one is still eating carbs -- how much did you reduce?
I cut out added sugar for a while and felt no effects, which makes sense as I was still eating carbs (although probably less). The US diet isn't particularly high in carbs -- what distinguishes it is the types of carbs people eat, on average.
I cut out added sugar for the month of April to raise money for charity and felt absolutely TERRIBLE the entire time. It never went away (my body didn't "adjust" after a couple of weeks or whatever). Now, I don't eat a *lot* of added sugar but that whole month I was shaking, incredibly tired (despite, yes, still eating carbs and having sufficient calorie intake), suffered from headaches, nausea, and being a generally irritable grumpy *kitten*. For the whole month. I can only imagine how bad it would have been if my diet had even more refined/added/whatever you want to call it sugar.
When May rolled around I basically went on a refined sugar binge for 2 weeks before I felt normal and healthy again.
Was I still eating carbs? You betcha. Did I feel like *kitten* anyway? Yup. Am I ever doing that again? Oh hell no.
Edited to add: my diet typically contains <150g carbs, mostly because eating high-carb food tends to trigger overeating, but stuff like my yogurt, some drinks, etc etc etc have added sugar and I'll have the occasional chocolate bar or ice cream
Probably low on electrolytes. Pretty common in low carb newbies. Adding enough salt, and possibly supplementing with potassium and magnesium can "cure" the low carb "flu".
1 -
KetoneKaren wrote: »@SezxyStef I must have missed a post? I don't see where @DebSozo says that she is out of control or using her issue with carbs as an excuse not to change. What I see is that she has figured out that she feels better when she eats complex carbohydrates and avoids simple sugars. That sounds as if she is in control and has changed her approach, the opposite of what you are implying. You may not agree with her using the term "addiction", but it does not give cause to misinterpret her entire post. This is what has worked for her and there is no need to dismiss it because you don't like her use of the term addiction.
and where did I say that? I never did.
What I said was her comparison of one carb is okay and one isn't to me is like saying one type of alcohol is okay and one isn't...that doesn't seem logical to me.
And I don't feel I misrepresent her post..and I didn't dismiss it either...
you infer to much into my post...
my point is exactly thislemurcat12 wrote: »sashayoung72 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't really see how this thread won't end up here anyway, so I'm going to go ahead and throw it out there:
In some (or many) cases, people are afflicted with a compulsion/addiction/condition/whatever-term-that-won't-cause-mental-anguish-to-people. I believe that there is both a physical and mental component to this.
The physical is that there is an abnormal reaction to the effects of certain behaviors and or experiences (such as overeating and/or eating highly palatable foods). This reaction manifests in a phenomenal craving. Once the craving is triggered, it cannot be satisfied.
The mental aspect is an obsession with the behavior or experience. They are inexplicably drawn to attempt normal consumption even if they have proven an inability to do so in the past. No matter their level of commitment or the seriousness of their situation (i.e. you'll have to get your leg amputated if you can't get this under control), they will trigger the craving again.
Basically it boils down to this, they can't stop once they've started and they can't stop themselves from starting.
I don't believe this for one second.
Lack of education.
That's fine.
Are you saying I lack education or the people I am talking about lack education. What education is lacking?
I think the majority of people who are overweight/obese lack education in anything food related.
I watched an episode of my 600lb life...the guy gained weight and the doctor was asking why? the patient said "I don't know I should be losing I switched out my white bread for whole wheat"....seriously.
And based on my own experience I knew about calories from being a teenager and having my mother diet all the time...but had no clue on how to lose weight and maintain...
I could lose like a demon...but gain it back.
diet books, diet websites, diet pills, diet programs aka WW etc...all teach people how to lose but not how to maintain...
and as adults if we weren't taught about nutrition and calories how do we teach our kids??????
So, you're basically saying people with weight problems do not know lack education on how to maintain?
No what I am saying is most people have no idea how calories work.
I'm not sure I believe this is true of most. It doesn't seem to mesh with the number of posts asking "why can't I stop overeating" or "how do I stop binge eating" or "how do I break my addiction to sugar"
To me these sound more like issues with control of cravings than a lack of knowledge that too many calories are being consumed.
This is a very small sample tho...I do firmly believe based on my own life most don't understand calories.
If they did there wouldn't be statements of CICO doesn't work for everyone and there wouldn't be this large diet industry preying on people...
Sure they get the concept of I need to eat fewer calories but when it comes down to it they have no idea what that truly means...
But I feel like this is going to get into "food addiction" area and I am not into that debate.
What does it truly mean if not; determining the calories of current intake and eating less than that; or determining caloric output and eating less than that?
to lose weight it truly means taking in less calories than you burn
to maintain weight it truly means that you are eating the same as what you are burning.
If your current intake is making you gain 1lb a week...eating 50 calories less a day won't work...but you know that
Ok, I'm still trying to fully understand what you meant by "Sure they get the concept of I need to eat fewer calories but when it comes down to it they have no idea what that truly means...". So for the sake of clarification, you are saying that they miscalculate their caloric needs or the number of calories they should cut from their diet? In other words, you are saying they know they need to eat fewer calories, but don't know how much fewer?
sort of...
People know that to lose weight they need to eat (for arguments sake) 1200 calories and that means to them 1lb a week. *I know this as a friend is on MFP and this is her life....
They log 1200 calories and really believe they ate 1200 calories.
They exercise and log 500 calories for 45mins of treadmill walking at 3.5 mph because that's what the treadmill says.
In reality they are eating 1600 a day and burning maybe 300..(I am being generous)
They lose 1/2 a week or maybe none because they really ate 1800 for a few days.
They ask "why am I not losing weight"...
They really believe that they are eating 1200 calories and exercising that much and feel they are one of those "that can't lose weight" or "it's the kinds of calories" or "it's because I ate after 7pm" or "because I didn't drink my hot lemon water this morning to rev my metabolism"
No concept of what 1200 calories looks like or how hard it is to exercise off 500 calories walking...
See for me I can tell you what 30gram of marble cheddar looks like and that fact it has 120 calories...or how much 180 grams of mix frozen tropical fruit looks like...I got cha...150 grams of chicken I know but if I am not familiar with the food I would need my food scale to know the weight to get the calories...
Ok, but this is somewhat different than what the thread seemed to be about....I suspect they're trying to say that, for them, either Calories In is harder to limit or that Calories Out is harder to achieve than for the average person...
...Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed?...
If you have been able to build a skill set which allows you to be able to eyeball what 30g of marble cheddar looks like, what makes you think others who have struggled for years haven't been able to develop the same skills? Surely many of them have and still struggle nonetheless. What drives overeating in people who know better? I'm talking about people who:
- know energy balance (CICO)
- Know a pound of fat is about 3500 calories
- know that exercise estimations are inaccurate
- know that measuring by volume is not always precise
- weigh everything that they eat
- have sustainable food plans
- know that forbidding foods could lead to greater temptation
- know that attempting to moderate could lead to greater temptation
- know that micro nutrients are important for body composition
- know that protein intake is recommended at .8-1g per pound of lean body mass
- know that certain food types are more satisfying for different people
- know that certain diets work because they make it easier for some to manipulate energy balance
- you get my point...
There are many who know all of this yet fail regardless. Why?
This interests me too and I've seen some comments on other threads that tell me there are a few people here who might say that this describes them. I would love to hear from them.
A friend of mine has been obese probably her entire life. As far as I can tell, she seems to know all of the above yet still struggles with her weight. It's something that I can never ask her about because it's none of my business and I would never want to risk hurting her feelings, but I know she's not the only one in her shoes and I hope someone can shed some light on what it might be like for her.
Because they aren't willing to change. I know this isn't the best analogy - but surely crack addicts know crack is bad? Surely that guy with diabetes who's repeatedly admitted to the hospital knows he shouldn't be chugging soda and what not? Knowledge isn't the first step in change, acknowledgement is. You can look in the mirror and say "hey, I'm fat" but you're not acknowledging that your own choices and lifestyle are the reason. And even if you do, you're not necessarily willing to step out of your comfort zone and make a change. That requires a very high , sustained level of emotional energy. You're settling for your lifestyle. Deep down, you don't believe that you deserve better.
People have had similar outlooks on alcoholics for decades (or mellenia), but now it is widely accepted to not be so cut and dry.
well if you want to go down the road of addiction fine I will say these couple of points on it.
1. I have yet to see someone derail their entire life aka lose their job, home, family because they do "stupid" and/or illegal acts for food.
2. Applying the logic of addiction to food doesn't even seem logical...we need food to survive so addicts have to stay away from their "drug" per say otherwise....
3. Addicts go through massive amounts of pain physical/mental when they give up their drug and to equate this to it after seeing an addict get off their "drug" is a slap in the fact to their battle.
and lastly
Addicts get treatment and stop if they so choose to...so barring all of the above if they are "addicts" then they can choose to get treatment and stop right??? so why don't they do that?
They understand the logic behind weight loss and just need to apply it to their life but don't because of a choice???
ACTUALLY on point one, there are people that lose their jobs because they become too obese to work at that job, sometimes it's side effects of the weight like high blood pressure. Also husbands and wives have left because they don't love them anymore.... Worse case they die from obesity side effects so slow suicide or OVERDOSE so to speak.
on your point 3. it is painful to let go of the things you can't have to lose the weight, maybe you are lucky and didn't have to do that but some do. And this is worse than drugs because you face it EVERY SINGLE *KITTEN* DAY!!! There is no GOING OFF THE DRUG when it comes to food.
And just like alcohol, most can take it or leave it so some DON't understand why someone else has a hard time and is addicted.
There are similarities yes ie hiding food, perhaps losing the job or a spouse or even die from side effects but that still does not mean food addiction is real....
still doesn't make it an addiction....why because I've seen people like that get WLS and lose the weight and keep it off.
and I have yet to see a "food" addict do illegal acts to get food or leave their family because food was more important...yes maybe their family leaves them...
no physical pain or withdrawal when you go on a diet....have you seen an addict give up a drug like alcohol or crack? seriously.
but again if this is an addiction and it's known to be an addiction and they have education and are smart why not get treatment? or as mentioned above what about people who have issues with food like BED and still manage to lose weight and maintain?
I do have a carb addiction. But thankfully I figured that out and eat complex carbs/low glycemic index food, and avoid sugar and simple carbs. It changed my life. I actually had carb withdrawal symptoms for a week when I initially abruptly dropped them down.
So fruits and veg, plain roasted potatoes, plain pasta are issues?
Most who claim to have issues with carbs don't have issues with these foods. They have issues with some (not all) highly palatable foods that are partly carbs, partly fat. The fat is typically an important part -- most popular trigger foods are either carbs, fat, salt or carbs (including sugar) and fat. Also, the withdrawal thing makes no sense if one is still eating carbs -- how much did you reduce?
I cut out added sugar for a while and felt no effects, which makes sense as I was still eating carbs (although probably less). The US diet isn't particularly high in carbs -- what distinguishes it is the types of carbs people eat, on average.
I don't see any actual physical differences between the foods people claim to be addicted to and foods they are fine with (for example, basically the same macros or even ingredients as others in many cases), which is why I think using the term addiction makes no sense. It's like claiming to be addicted to pinot but not cabernet.
said better than I did cause reasons.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sashayoung72 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't really see how this thread won't end up here anyway, so I'm going to go ahead and throw it out there:
In some (or many) cases, people are afflicted with a compulsion/addiction/condition/whatever-term-that-won't-cause-mental-anguish-to-people. I believe that there is both a physical and mental component to this.
The physical is that there is an abnormal reaction to the effects of certain behaviors and or experiences (such as overeating and/or eating highly palatable foods). This reaction manifests in a phenomenal craving. Once the craving is triggered, it cannot be satisfied.
The mental aspect is an obsession with the behavior or experience. They are inexplicably drawn to attempt normal consumption even if they have proven an inability to do so in the past. No matter their level of commitment or the seriousness of their situation (i.e. you'll have to get your leg amputated if you can't get this under control), they will trigger the craving again.
Basically it boils down to this, they can't stop once they've started and they can't stop themselves from starting.
I don't believe this for one second.
Lack of education.
That's fine.
Are you saying I lack education or the people I am talking about lack education. What education is lacking?
I think the majority of people who are overweight/obese lack education in anything food related.
I watched an episode of my 600lb life...the guy gained weight and the doctor was asking why? the patient said "I don't know I should be losing I switched out my white bread for whole wheat"....seriously.
And based on my own experience I knew about calories from being a teenager and having my mother diet all the time...but had no clue on how to lose weight and maintain...
I could lose like a demon...but gain it back.
diet books, diet websites, diet pills, diet programs aka WW etc...all teach people how to lose but not how to maintain...
and as adults if we weren't taught about nutrition and calories how do we teach our kids??????
So, you're basically saying people with weight problems do not know lack education on how to maintain?
No what I am saying is most people have no idea how calories work.
I'm not sure I believe this is true of most. It doesn't seem to mesh with the number of posts asking "why can't I stop overeating" or "how do I stop binge eating" or "how do I break my addiction to sugar"
To me these sound more like issues with control of cravings than a lack of knowledge that too many calories are being consumed.
This is a very small sample tho...I do firmly believe based on my own life most don't understand calories.
If they did there wouldn't be statements of CICO doesn't work for everyone and there wouldn't be this large diet industry preying on people...
Sure they get the concept of I need to eat fewer calories but when it comes down to it they have no idea what that truly means...
But I feel like this is going to get into "food addiction" area and I am not into that debate.
What does it truly mean if not; determining the calories of current intake and eating less than that; or determining caloric output and eating less than that?
to lose weight it truly means taking in less calories than you burn
to maintain weight it truly means that you are eating the same as what you are burning.
If your current intake is making you gain 1lb a week...eating 50 calories less a day won't work...but you know that
Ok, I'm still trying to fully understand what you meant by "Sure they get the concept of I need to eat fewer calories but when it comes down to it they have no idea what that truly means...". So for the sake of clarification, you are saying that they miscalculate their caloric needs or the number of calories they should cut from their diet? In other words, you are saying they know they need to eat fewer calories, but don't know how much fewer?
sort of...
People know that to lose weight they need to eat (for arguments sake) 1200 calories and that means to them 1lb a week. *I know this as a friend is on MFP and this is her life....
They log 1200 calories and really believe they ate 1200 calories.
They exercise and log 500 calories for 45mins of treadmill walking at 3.5 mph because that's what the treadmill says.
In reality they are eating 1600 a day and burning maybe 300..(I am being generous)
They lose 1/2 a week or maybe none because they really ate 1800 for a few days.
They ask "why am I not losing weight"...
They really believe that they are eating 1200 calories and exercising that much and feel they are one of those "that can't lose weight" or "it's the kinds of calories" or "it's because I ate after 7pm" or "because I didn't drink my hot lemon water this morning to rev my metabolism"
No concept of what 1200 calories looks like or how hard it is to exercise off 500 calories walking...
See for me I can tell you what 30gram of marble cheddar looks like and that fact it has 120 calories...or how much 180 grams of mix frozen tropical fruit looks like...I got cha...150 grams of chicken I know but if I am not familiar with the food I would need my food scale to know the weight to get the calories...
Ok, but this is somewhat different than what the thread seemed to be about....I suspect they're trying to say that, for them, either Calories In is harder to limit or that Calories Out is harder to achieve than for the average person...
...Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed?...
If you have been able to build a skill set which allows you to be able to eyeball what 30g of marble cheddar looks like, what makes you think others who have struggled for years haven't been able to develop the same skills? Surely many of them have and still struggle nonetheless. What drives overeating in people who know better? I'm talking about people who:
- know energy balance (CICO)
- Know a pound of fat is about 3500 calories
- know that exercise estimations are inaccurate
- know that measuring by volume is not always precise
- weigh everything that they eat
- have sustainable food plans
- know that forbidding foods could lead to greater temptation
- know that attempting to moderate could lead to greater temptation
- know that micro nutrients are important for body composition
- know that protein intake is recommended at .8-1g per pound of lean body mass
- know that certain food types are more satisfying for different people
- know that certain diets work because they make it easier for some to manipulate energy balance
- you get my point...
There are many who know all of this yet fail regardless. Why?
This interests me too and I've seen some comments on other threads that tell me there are a few people here who might say that this describes them. I would love to hear from them.
A friend of mine has been obese probably her entire life. As far as I can tell, she seems to know all of the above yet still struggles with her weight. It's something that I can never ask her about because it's none of my business and I would never want to risk hurting her feelings, but I know she's not the only one in her shoes and I hope someone can shed some light on what it might be like for her.
Because they aren't willing to change. I know this isn't the best analogy - but surely crack addicts know crack is bad? Surely that guy with diabetes who's repeatedly admitted to the hospital knows he shouldn't be chugging soda and what not? Knowledge isn't the first step in change, acknowledgement is. You can look in the mirror and say "hey, I'm fat" but you're not acknowledging that your own choices and lifestyle are the reason. And even if you do, you're not necessarily willing to step out of your comfort zone and make a change. That requires a very high , sustained level of emotional energy. You're settling for your lifestyle. Deep down, you don't believe that you deserve better.
People have had similar outlooks on alcoholics for decades (or mellenia), but now it is widely accepted to not be so cut and dry.
well if you want to go down the road of addiction fine I will say these couple of points on it.
1. I have yet to see someone derail their entire life aka lose their job, home, family because they do "stupid" and/or illegal acts for food.
2. Applying the logic of addiction to food doesn't even seem logical...we need food to survive so addicts have to stay away from their "drug" per say otherwise....
3. Addicts go through massive amounts of pain physical/mental when they give up their drug and to equate this to it after seeing an addict get off their "drug" is a slap in the fact to their battle.
and lastly
Addicts get treatment and stop if they so choose to...so barring all of the above if they are "addicts" then they can choose to get treatment and stop right??? so why don't they do that?
They understand the logic behind weight loss and just need to apply it to their life but don't because of a choice???
ACTUALLY on point one, there are people that lose their jobs because they become too obese to work at that job, sometimes it's side effects of the weight like high blood pressure. Also husbands and wives have left because they don't love them anymore.... Worse case they die from obesity side effects so slow suicide or OVERDOSE so to speak.
on your point 3. it is painful to let go of the things you can't have to lose the weight, maybe you are lucky and didn't have to do that but some do. And this is worse than drugs because you face it EVERY SINGLE *KITTEN* DAY!!! There is no GOING OFF THE DRUG when it comes to food.
And just like alcohol, most can take it or leave it so some DON't understand why someone else has a hard time and is addicted.
There are similarities yes ie hiding food, perhaps losing the job or a spouse or even die from side effects but that still does not mean food addiction is real....
still doesn't make it an addiction....why because I've seen people like that get WLS and lose the weight and keep it off.
and I have yet to see a "food" addict do illegal acts to get food or leave their family because food was more important...yes maybe their family leaves them...
no physical pain or withdrawal when you go on a diet....have you seen an addict give up a drug like alcohol or crack? seriously.
but again if this is an addiction and it's known to be an addiction and they have education and are smart why not get treatment? or as mentioned above what about people who have issues with food like BED and still manage to lose weight and maintain?
I do have a carb addiction. But thankfully I figured that out and eat complex carbs/low glycemic index food, and avoid sugar and simple carbs. It changed my life. I actually had carb withdrawal symptoms for a week when I initially abruptly dropped them down.
So fruits and veg, plain roasted potatoes, plain pasta are issues?
Most who claim to have issues with carbs don't have issues with these foods. They have issues with some (not all) highly palatable foods that are partly carbs, partly fat. The fat is typically an important part -- most popular trigger foods are either carbs, fat, salt or carbs (including sugar) and fat. Also, the withdrawal thing makes no sense if one is still eating carbs -- how much did you reduce?
I cut out added sugar for a while and felt no effects, which makes sense as I was still eating carbs (although probably less). The US diet isn't particularly high in carbs -- what distinguishes it is the types of carbs people eat, on average.
I don't see any actual physical differences between the foods people claim to be addicted to and foods they are fine with (for example, basically the same macros or even ingredients as others in many cases), which is why I think using the term addiction makes no sense. It's like claiming to be addicted to pinot but not cabernet.
No I don't have issues with potatoes, fruit or veggies. I can eat small servings. I only have issues with sugar and refined flour.
So calling it "carbs" seems inaccurate. And again most people eat sugar and refined flour in combination with fat.
I think I have clarified this by mentioning simple/refined carbs and sugar.
That was my point. I just hate the current demonization of all carbs, as if "carbs" were an easily generalizable category, and despite the fact that many call foods that are half fat "carbs." Pet peeve not directed at you.
Many traditional healthy diets that don't result in obesity or health issues are higher carb than the US diet.
I wonder how the percentages work out if you remove most of the nutritionally less dense carbs (pop, chips, candy, doughnuts, cakes etc) from the US diet? Then we'd really be a lot lower carb than traditional healthy diets.3 -
okay so lets for debates sake say that part of the reason for the obesity epidemic is as follows
some are addicted to food
***some have issues other than food addiction aka depression or use food as a comfort mechanism
some lack the knowledge
some just like food
and out of those 4 things which is most common?
***"Some have [underlying] issues other than food addiction"
would get my vote
but it's not just one answer to the question there are too many reasons for people over eating...and people need to figure out theirs and fix it if they want.
mine was lack of knowledge and love of food...I figured it out changed the lack of knowledge lost the weight and have kept it off even tho I still love food...cook all the time and will continue to eat all the foods I love and want when I want.
You said pick one out of your 4 choices.
yes I said which is one is most common and the one you picked has nothing to do with Food issues...it's underlying emotional and mental issues which food is used as a crutch/comfort which is in the control of the individual...they can get therapy and deal with the issues.
So if the most common is using food as a crutch/comfort why not use exercise or reading or video games or X or Y and the list can go on...0 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Can I politely request no more debating in here about if food/types of food is an addiction? There's another thread for that, and there's a good conversation happening here that I'd hate to get muddled by that argument. Let's accept that some people think it is and think it's a reason people are obese and leave it there.
Thanks. I don't think that debate belongs here either.One thing no one has brought up is how life factors into this. None of us try to diet in a bubble, but it can be damn hard to make weight loss a priority when other, more immediately distressing things are going on. Example: my SIL is dangerously obese, and every time I talk to her she's had another health complication. But that doesn't seem as pressing to her as everything else. We lost my father-in-law back in March, so there's been setting up hospice, watching him pass, and making funeral arrangements. My MIL is starting to struggle a lot more, so my SIL is taking her to more doctor's appointments, filling more prescriptions, and generally fretting over her state of health. SIL's husband has had severel rounds of surgery on his eye this year. Her company laid off a huge number of employees, so she's picking up the slack from being understaffed and is living with the daily worry of losing her job.
She has the knowledge of how to lose weight - her husband had WLS and she sat in on the nutrition classes with him. She learned how to cook healthier meals for him. But with all these other things going on that seem more urgent, convenience food is easier. She doesn't understand how important it is for her to be losing weight right now, before things get worse. I don't think she'll realize until it's too late.
Yes, I agree that life factors are significant. I made a comment a while back about priorities, and this was part of what I was thinking about -- sometimes weight loss just isn't the priority. And that includes the emotional or mental effort that it takes if one is dealing with other things. For a while before I lost weight this time I knew I should, and I knew how and that I could, but I didn't have the emotional energy (or whatever) to make it a priority, for a variety of reasons.
I also think when food is a primary comfort (especially for people whose lives are lacking in many other comforts) it can be really hard to make the necessary changes.3 -
KetoGirl83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »KetoGirl83 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »(...)
Of course today that's all nonsense. Everyone one knows calories in, calories out is how you manage your weight. What you eat and when you eat doesn't matter.
Seriously? It doesn't matter if I eat 1500 cals of broccoli or 1500 cals of twinkies?
::flowerforyou::
Nutritionally, it obviously does.
Also, you probably couldn't manage to eat 1500 calories of broccoli.
Both would be bad diets -- most mono diets are -- so I never understand why people bring up such things as if they were real choices.
Because the easiest way to show that an argument is invalid is by reductio ad absurdum, ie, showing what happens when you take the argument to its logical consequence. If "what you eat and when you eat doesn't matter" was true, as the quote I was commenting says, then it would indeed be the same to eat broccoli or twinkies.
If I substitute "broccoli" by a woe adequate to my metabolism and "twinkies" by exactly the same amount of cals from junk food, I have no doubt that I will lose faster not eating twinkies. In my experience, a calorie is just an expedite way of cataloguing food. Cals provide a general guidance but that definitely does not mean that (to keep to the example) a cal from broccoli is the same to my body as a cal from a twinkie.
Just to state what we are comparing. According to twinkies nutrition label, a serving size is 77g (2 twinkies). Let's say I eat only one. That's 135 cals of this:
37 ingredients, of which only 5 are ‘recognizable’ as real food: flour,egg, water, sugar, salt.
To eat those same 135 cals from broccoli (34 cals/100g) I need to eat 400g. It's unusual, yes, but not impossible if, like me, you love broccoli.
So, one twinkie or 400g of broccoli. Of course it is not the same nutritionally. That it is also not the same if I want to lose weight or keep it off is, to me at least, evident.
::flowerforyou::
If you'd pay attention to the context in which it was presented, you'd see that it talks about weight, not nutrition, satiety, or whatever else. And for weight loss, CALORIES IS ALL THAT MATTERS. Full stop. You cannot gain fat when there's not enough calories present to do so, that is a fact of physics and your feelings do not change that.
A calorie of broccoli is indeed exactly the same as a calorie from a twinkie. Just like a mile you walk vs. a mile you drive with a car is both a mile, the same distance travelled, regardless that one is healthier and the other takes a lot less time. In the sense of "For distance traveled, it doesn't matter if you take the car or walk" is absolutely true, a mile doesn't suddenly become 3 miles just because you walk.
Your reductio ad absurdum was de facto as incorrect as saying "A pound of feathers is not the same as a pound of bricks because it's harder to gather that many feathers."9 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Can I politely request no more debating in here about if food/types of food is an addiction? There's another thread for that, and there's a good conversation happening here..
One thing no one has brought up is how life factors into this. None of us try to diet in a bubble, but it can be damn hard to make weight loss a priority when other, more immediately distressing things are going on. Example: my SIL is dangerously obese, and every time I talk to her she's had another health complication. But that doesn't seem as pressing to her as everything else. We lost my father-in-law back in March, so there's been setting up hospice, watching him pass, and making funeral arrangements. My MIL is starting to struggle a lot more, so my SIL is taking her to more doctor's appointments, filling more prescriptions, and generally fretting over her state of health...
She has the knowledge of how to lose weight - her husband had WLS and she sat in on the nutrition classes with him. She learned how to cook healthier meals for him. But with all these other things going on that seem more urgent, convenience food is easier. She does understand how important it is for her to be losing weight right now, before things get worse. I don't think she'll realize until it's too late.
The OP is open to "why". We want to know why and are sharing our experiences. Sorry to hear about your family members. You mentioned the "why" is because convenience food is easier. Sorry to break your request, but she may have an addiction. That can possibly be a factor.
My impression from a lot of these discussions is that much of the time people are talking about the same things, but some people like to call it an "addiction" and others think the word is wrong. Because addiction tends to be a hot button term for many (I admit guilt there) and people have their own reasons for thinking the thing we are talking about should or should not be called addiction, using the term tends to derail us into what is in large part a debate about terminology or what addiction is.
In my mind, it's absolutely the wrong term, and makes no sense given how it's used, but I will avoid addressing it in this thread to prevent the conversation from getting off track. I do think it would be better to be more specific as to what we are talking about rather than use loaded language that many of us bring other experiences to, but obviously everyone will do what they think best.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Can I politely request no more debating in here about if food/types of food is an addiction? There's another thread for that, and there's a good conversation happening here..
One thing no one has brought up is how life factors into this. None of us try to diet in a bubble, but it can be damn hard to make weight loss a priority when other, more immediately distressing things are going on. Example: my SIL is dangerously obese, and every time I talk to her she's had another health complication. But that doesn't seem as pressing to her as everything else. We lost my father-in-law back in March, so there's been setting up hospice, watching him pass, and making funeral arrangements. My MIL is starting to struggle a lot more, so my SIL is taking her to more doctor's appointments, filling more prescriptions, and generally fretting over her state of health...
She has the knowledge of how to lose weight - her husband had WLS and she sat in on the nutrition classes with him. She learned how to cook healthier meals for him. But with all these other things going on that seem more urgent, convenience food is easier. She does understand how important it is for her to be losing weight right now, before things get worse. I don't think she'll realize until it's too late.
The OP is open to "why". We want to know why and are sharing our experiences. Sorry to hear about your family members. You mentioned the "why" is because convenience food is easier. Sorry to break your request, but she may have an addiction. That can possibly be a factor.
My impression from a lot of these discussions is that much of the time people are talking about the same things, but some people like to call it an "addiction" and others think the word is wrong. Because addiction tends to be a hot button term for many (I admit guilt there) and people have their own reasons for thinking the thing we are talking about should or should not be called addiction, using the term tends to derail us into what is in large part a debate about terminology or what addiction is.
In my mind, it's absolutely the wrong term, and makes no sense given how it's used, but I will avoid addressing it in this thread to prevent the conversation from getting off track. I do think it would be better to be more specific as to what we are talking about rather than use loaded language that many of us bring other experiences to, but obviously everyone will do what they think best.
What word would substitute best that isn't loaded?2 -
Human physiology hasn't changed much in THOUSANDS of years. Like any other animal, our goal is to eat to survive and we have the correct mechanisms to store excess calories in times of famine. The problem is, in the industrial world today, you don't have to hunt for food 12 hours out of the day anymore. It's just a quick run down to the store. And it's VERY EASY to over consume calories due to the calorie density of most foods today.
Couple that with habitual behavior and people using food as comfort due to how it makes them feel, it's not hard to understand why many are well overweight/obese.
Realize too that through the centuries, being overweight was a sign of prosperity, and if one was lean, they were thought to be a worker/laborer. That doesn't hold true today with the exception of a couple of countries.
And unlike times before, medical advancement is SAVING lives. People well overweight/obese probably won't worry/do something about it till they have a near death experience. And even then, they may not do anything.
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
7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Can I politely request no more debating in here about if food/types of food is an addiction? There's another thread for that, and there's a good conversation happening here..
One thing no one has brought up is how life factors into this. None of us try to diet in a bubble, but it can be damn hard to make weight loss a priority when other, more immediately distressing things are going on. Example: my SIL is dangerously obese, and every time I talk to her she's had another health complication. But that doesn't seem as pressing to her as everything else. We lost my father-in-law back in March, so there's been setting up hospice, watching him pass, and making funeral arrangements. My MIL is starting to struggle a lot more, so my SIL is taking her to more doctor's appointments, filling more prescriptions, and generally fretting over her state of health...
She has the knowledge of how to lose weight - her husband had WLS and she sat in on the nutrition classes with him. She learned how to cook healthier meals for him. But with all these other things going on that seem more urgent, convenience food is easier. She does understand how important it is for her to be losing weight right now, before things get worse. I don't think she'll realize until it's too late.
The OP is open to "why". We want to know why and are sharing our experiences. Sorry to hear about your family members. You mentioned the "why" is because convenience food is easier. Sorry to break your request, but she may have an addiction. That can possibly be a factor.
My impression from a lot of these discussions is that much of the time people are talking about the same things, but some people like to call it an "addiction" and others think the word is wrong. Because addiction tends to be a hot button term for many (I admit guilt there) and people have their own reasons for thinking the thing we are talking about should or should not be called addiction, using the term tends to derail us into what is in large part a debate about terminology or what addiction is.
In my mind, it's absolutely the wrong term, and makes no sense given how it's used, but I will avoid addressing it in this thread to prevent the conversation from getting off track. I do think it would be better to be more specific as to what we are talking about rather than use loaded language that many of us bring other experiences to, but obviously everyone will do what they think best.
What word would substitute best that isn't loaded?
I'd say something like compulsion or trigger foods, because it's just not carbs if it's only a specific subset of foods containing carbs and those tend to have just as much fat as they have carbs.
And addiction wise, there's no addiction where you're fine with half the things containing the substance or action. There's no nicotine addiction where you're fine with cigars but not cigarettes, no heroin addiction where you're fine with the stuff from a different dealer, no gambling addiction where you can play poker normally but not blackjack, etc. etc.6 -
Go to a penitentiary and see how they eat. Low quality, processed foods. Daily 3 times a day and maybe commissary (which is still processed food snacks), yet there isn't a prevalence of obesity or overweight population. Why? They are still burning off what they consume. And if the food quality (low nutrition) should be an indication that health and death are imminent, somehow inmates are defying that by staying alive for YEARS.KetoGirl83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »KetoGirl83 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »(...)
Of course today that's all nonsense. Everyone one knows calories in, calories out is how you manage your weight. What you eat and when you eat doesn't matter.
Seriously? It doesn't matter if I eat 1500 cals of broccoli or 1500 cals of twinkies?
::flowerforyou::
Nutritionally, it obviously does.
Also, you probably couldn't manage to eat 1500 calories of broccoli.
Both would be bad diets -- most mono diets are -- so I never understand why people bring up such things as if they were real choices.
Because the easiest way to show that an argument is invalid is by reductio ad absurdum, ie, showing what happens when you take the argument to its logical consequence. If "what you eat and when you eat doesn't matter" was true, as the quote I was commenting says, then it would indeed be the same to eat broccoli or twinkies.
If I substitute "broccoli" by a woe adequate to my metabolism and "twinkies" by exactly the same amount of cals from junk food, I have no doubt that I will lose faster not eating twinkies. In my experience, a calorie is just an expedite way of cataloguing food. Cals provide a general guidance but that definitely does not mean that (to keep to the example) a cal from broccoli is the same to my body as a cal from a twinkie.
Just to state what we are comparing. According to twinkies nutrition label, a serving size is 77g (2 twinkies). Let's say I eat only one. That's 135 cals of this:
37 ingredients, of which only 5 are ‘recognizable’ as real food: flour,egg, water, sugar, salt.
To eat those same 135 cals from broccoli (34 cals/100g) I need to eat 400g. It's unusual, yes, but not impossible if, like me, you love broccoli.
So, one twinkie or 400g of broccoli. Of course it is not the same nutritionally. That it is also not the same if I want to lose weight or keep it off is, to me at least, evident.
::flowerforyou::
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
2 -
KetoGirl83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »KetoGirl83 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »(...)
Of course today that's all nonsense. Everyone one knows calories in, calories out is how you manage your weight. What you eat and when you eat doesn't matter.
Seriously? It doesn't matter if I eat 1500 cals of broccoli or 1500 cals of twinkies?
::flowerforyou::
Nutritionally, it obviously does.
Also, you probably couldn't manage to eat 1500 calories of broccoli.
Both would be bad diets -- most mono diets are -- so I never understand why people bring up such things as if they were real choices.
Because the easiest way to show that an argument is invalid is by reductio ad absurdum, ie, showing what happens when you take the argument to its logical consequence.
Quite often, as in your case, you end up with a strawman. For example, you cut the context of the quote you responded to, but having been in lots of conversations with AlabasterVerve, I am certain that she did not claim that what you eat doesn't matter for nutritional purposes or health. It was a comment about weight loss specifically. And yeah, for weight loss it doesn't matter if you stick to 1500. But it would be tough to stick to 1500 eating just Twinkies (plus I don't think I could eat even one of them, as I think they are disgusting), and few people could manage to eat 1500 calories of broccoli. It's just silly.If I substitute "broccoli" by a woe adequate to my metabolism and "twinkies" by exactly the same amount of cals from junk food, I have no doubt that I will lose faster not eating twinkies.
Well, no one recommends eating just junk food, but if you control so that calories in are actually the same and can actually stick to the calories, then I think you are wrong here, except to the extent that you feel better or worse and end up expending more energy as a result. And if one diet is quite low in protein it may negatively effect composition (you may lose more muscle than necessary), although that depends also on other factors, like how much you have to lose.In my experience, a calorie is just an expedite way of cataloguing food. Cals provide a general guidance but that definitely does not mean that (to keep to the example) a cal from broccoli is the same to my body as a cal from a twinkie.
Calories are just energy, they are the same. The foods obviously are not the same nutritionally, but that's not what a calorie is a calorie means. In some contexts "junk food" might be a better choice, also -- I love broccoli, but it's a terrible choice when you want a little something while running a marathon or on a long bike ride. A "junk food" like a gel or some sports drink or even soda will be a better choice.To eat those same 135 cals from broccoli (34 cals/100g) I need to eat 400g. It's unusual, yes, but not impossible if, like me, you love broccoli.
I don't think it's that hard to eat 400 g of broccoli. I think it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone would eat 1500 calories of broccoli (or that that would be a good choice).So, one twinkie or 400g of broccoli. Of course it is not the same nutritionally. That it is also not the same if I want to lose weight or keep it off is, to me at least, evident.
Within the context of a normal diet, ideally a healthful balanced diet, eating a Twinkie will make no difference. I wouldn't because I don't like Twinkies, but this idea that one particular food will make or break you is silly. I diet with the Twinkie and without could easily be just as good for weight loss (if calories are the same) and just as good nutritionally (depending on the overall diet, of course).6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Can I politely request no more debating in here about if food/types of food is an addiction? There's another thread for that, and there's a good conversation happening here..
One thing no one has brought up is how life factors into this. None of us try to diet in a bubble, but it can be damn hard to make weight loss a priority when other, more immediately distressing things are going on. Example: my SIL is dangerously obese, and every time I talk to her she's had another health complication. But that doesn't seem as pressing to her as everything else. We lost my father-in-law back in March, so there's been setting up hospice, watching him pass, and making funeral arrangements. My MIL is starting to struggle a lot more, so my SIL is taking her to more doctor's appointments, filling more prescriptions, and generally fretting over her state of health...
She has the knowledge of how to lose weight - her husband had WLS and she sat in on the nutrition classes with him. She learned how to cook healthier meals for him. But with all these other things going on that seem more urgent, convenience food is easier. She does understand how important it is for her to be losing weight right now, before things get worse. I don't think she'll realize until it's too late.
The OP is open to "why". We want to know why and are sharing our experiences. Sorry to hear about your family members. You mentioned the "why" is because convenience food is easier. Sorry to break your request, but she may have an addiction. That can possibly be a factor.
My impression from a lot of these discussions is that much of the time people are talking about the same things, but some people like to call it an "addiction" and others think the word is wrong. Because addiction tends to be a hot button term for many (I admit guilt there) and people have their own reasons for thinking the thing we are talking about should or should not be called addiction, using the term tends to derail us into what is in large part a debate about terminology or what addiction is.
In my mind, it's absolutely the wrong term, and makes no sense given how it's used, but I will avoid addressing it in this thread to prevent the conversation from getting off track. I do think it would be better to be more specific as to what we are talking about rather than use loaded language that many of us bring other experiences to, but obviously everyone will do what they think best.
I'm not the biggest fan of the term myself, but other terms lack the universal understanding of the situation implied by the term. I tried to avoid the terminology debate in my OP in this thread by offering several alternative terms. I understand though that for many the term is unforgivable.
0 -
I've used "craving" as a term to describe the feelings of sugar withdrawal on a different thtead and Stef retorted that everyone gets cravings. So I don't have a word to describe it. Eating an extra hotwing because I crave one isn't the same experience. I'm serious. I need a term to differentiate.2
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »lexbubbles wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So fruits and veg, plain roasted potatoes, plain pasta are issues?
Most who claim to have issues with carbs don't have issues with these foods. They have issues with some (not all) highly palatable foods that are partly carbs, partly fat. The fat is typically an important part -- most popular trigger foods are either carbs, fat, salt or carbs (including sugar) and fat. Also, the withdrawal thing makes no sense if one is still eating carbs -- how much did you reduce?
I cut out added sugar for a while and felt no effects, which makes sense as I was still eating carbs (although probably less). The US diet isn't particularly high in carbs -- what distinguishes it is the types of carbs people eat, on average.
I cut out added sugar for the month of April to raise money for charity and felt absolutely TERRIBLE the entire time. It never went away (my body didn't "adjust" after a couple of weeks or whatever). Now, I don't eat a *lot* of added sugar but that whole month I was shaking, incredibly tired (despite, yes, still eating carbs and having sufficient calorie intake), suffered from headaches, nausea, and being a generally irritable grumpy *kitten*. For the whole month. I can only imagine how bad it would have been if my diet had even more refined/added/whatever you want to call it sugar.
When May rolled around I basically went on a refined sugar binge for 2 weeks before I felt normal and healthy again.
Was I still eating carbs? You betcha. Did I feel like *kitten* anyway? Yup. Am I ever doing that again? Oh hell no.
Edited to add: my diet typically contains <150g carbs, mostly because eating high-carb food tends to trigger overeating, but stuff like my yogurt, some drinks, etc etc etc have added sugar and I'll have the occasional chocolate bar or ice cream
Probably low on electrolytes. Pretty common in low carb newbies. Adding enough salt, and possibly supplementing with potassium and magnesium can "cure" the low carb "flu".
She actually said she hadn't gone low carb when doing it.
I think things like that must be mental, as added sugar is not physically different from other sugars and basically the same as any other carb (besides fiber) once your body starts using it. I'd be open to some other explanation, though--just can't think of any.
And yeah, I remembered that you had said that it really is carbs for you, but the vast majority of people here who assert that it's "carbs" they have as a trigger food mean specific carbs, typically ones with lots of fat too, and not fruits, veg, or even (usually) not plain starches. Personally, if I eat high carb meals I am less satisfied than if I eat protein also, which I think is due to the filling qualities of protein for me (again, fat does nothing for satiety for me). But I can't imagine overeating plain starches or even wanting to eat plain pasta with nothing on it. While I can overeat pasta, it's all about the sauce (meat, veg, some fat) for me. I know people are different, though. I just think there's a kneejerk anti carb thing these days that's not consistent with the fact that many healthy traditional diets are higher carb. That Americans tend to eat too many low nutrient carbs+fat (or drink too many sugary drinks) isn't the fault of the macronutrient or mean that all carbs are the same.1 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »
Probably low on electrolytes. Pretty common in low carb newbies. Adding enough salt, and possibly supplementing with potassium and magnesium can "cure" the low carb "flu".
I'm not a low carb newbie though... I literally just said I wasn't getting much added/refined sugar in the first place and that I keep my carbs below 150g -normally around 120g honestly- and have done since approximately forever. Like, I don't have a super-duper low carb diet a la Keto people but it's not like I went from high carb to no carb and that I haven't been limiting my carbs for a really long time.
I ate more fruit that month - I don't normally eat that much - to try and compensate so my carb levels may even have been the same or thereabouts (I tried to check my diary but apparently I didn't hit "complete entry" at any point there because it's blank even though I definitely logged for at least the first week until I stepped away because of how ill I felt so we're out of luck there). Not buying "because electrolytes" as the reason in this case. I've had electrolyte imbalance (only once, but I've been there) and it felt so different. Terrible, but different terrible. I didn't get light-headed, dizzy, have stomach cramps or muscle pain, suffer dehydration, experience bowel irregularities, or experience an irregular heart beat. I had all of those things when my electrolytes were outta whack.
How it felt was a lot, LOT closer to how I felt when I abruptly chucked *most* caffeine out of my diet post A-level exams after basically living on the stuff for a year (6 cans of sugar-free red bull/day minimum. It was bad, lads. Don't do that. 0/10 would not recommend). Wanting to kill everyone, having a perma-migraine and the shakes, and wishing for death. Except that nonsense actually did only last a week before my body was like "okay, we got this, we cool, everything's fine"
(Also noting here that I get full blood workups done fairly regularly for various other medical reasons and nothing was noted as out of place with my mineral levels or anything like that, so again probably not. I feel like if it was so bad as to cause low carb flu to that degree my doctor would have been like "yo your potassium and/or magnesium levels are super low maybe sort that out")0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »sashayoung72 wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't really see how this thread won't end up here anyway, so I'm going to go ahead and throw it out there:
In some (or many) cases, people are afflicted with a compulsion/addiction/condition/whatever-term-that-won't-cause-mental-anguish-to-people. I believe that there is both a physical and mental component to this.
The physical is that there is an abnormal reaction to the effects of certain behaviors and or experiences (such as overeating and/or eating highly palatable foods). This reaction manifests in a phenomenal craving. Once the craving is triggered, it cannot be satisfied.
The mental aspect is an obsession with the behavior or experience. They are inexplicably drawn to attempt normal consumption even if they have proven an inability to do so in the past. No matter their level of commitment or the seriousness of their situation (i.e. you'll have to get your leg amputated if you can't get this under control), they will trigger the craving again.
Basically it boils down to this, they can't stop once they've started and they can't stop themselves from starting.
I don't believe this for one second.
Lack of education.
That's fine.
Are you saying I lack education or the people I am talking about lack education. What education is lacking?
I think the majority of people who are overweight/obese lack education in anything food related.
I watched an episode of my 600lb life...the guy gained weight and the doctor was asking why? the patient said "I don't know I should be losing I switched out my white bread for whole wheat"....seriously.
And based on my own experience I knew about calories from being a teenager and having my mother diet all the time...but had no clue on how to lose weight and maintain...
I could lose like a demon...but gain it back.
diet books, diet websites, diet pills, diet programs aka WW etc...all teach people how to lose but not how to maintain...
and as adults if we weren't taught about nutrition and calories how do we teach our kids??????
So, you're basically saying people with weight problems do not know lack education on how to maintain?
No what I am saying is most people have no idea how calories work.
I'm not sure I believe this is true of most. It doesn't seem to mesh with the number of posts asking "why can't I stop overeating" or "how do I stop binge eating" or "how do I break my addiction to sugar"
To me these sound more like issues with control of cravings than a lack of knowledge that too many calories are being consumed.
This is a very small sample tho...I do firmly believe based on my own life most don't understand calories.
If they did there wouldn't be statements of CICO doesn't work for everyone and there wouldn't be this large diet industry preying on people...
Sure they get the concept of I need to eat fewer calories but when it comes down to it they have no idea what that truly means...
But I feel like this is going to get into "food addiction" area and I am not into that debate.
What does it truly mean if not; determining the calories of current intake and eating less than that; or determining caloric output and eating less than that?
to lose weight it truly means taking in less calories than you burn
to maintain weight it truly means that you are eating the same as what you are burning.
If your current intake is making you gain 1lb a week...eating 50 calories less a day won't work...but you know that
Ok, I'm still trying to fully understand what you meant by "Sure they get the concept of I need to eat fewer calories but when it comes down to it they have no idea what that truly means...". So for the sake of clarification, you are saying that they miscalculate their caloric needs or the number of calories they should cut from their diet? In other words, you are saying they know they need to eat fewer calories, but don't know how much fewer?
sort of...
People know that to lose weight they need to eat (for arguments sake) 1200 calories and that means to them 1lb a week. *I know this as a friend is on MFP and this is her life....
They log 1200 calories and really believe they ate 1200 calories.
They exercise and log 500 calories for 45mins of treadmill walking at 3.5 mph because that's what the treadmill says.
In reality they are eating 1600 a day and burning maybe 300..(I am being generous)
They lose 1/2 a week or maybe none because they really ate 1800 for a few days.
They ask "why am I not losing weight"...
They really believe that they are eating 1200 calories and exercising that much and feel they are one of those "that can't lose weight" or "it's the kinds of calories" or "it's because I ate after 7pm" or "because I didn't drink my hot lemon water this morning to rev my metabolism"
No concept of what 1200 calories looks like or how hard it is to exercise off 500 calories walking...
See for me I can tell you what 30gram of marble cheddar looks like and that fact it has 120 calories...or how much 180 grams of mix frozen tropical fruit looks like...I got cha...150 grams of chicken I know but if I am not familiar with the food I would need my food scale to know the weight to get the calories...
Ok, but this is somewhat different than what the thread seemed to be about....I suspect they're trying to say that, for them, either Calories In is harder to limit or that Calories Out is harder to achieve than for the average person...
...Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed?...
If you have been able to build a skill set which allows you to be able to eyeball what 30g of marble cheddar looks like, what makes you think others who have struggled for years haven't been able to develop the same skills? Surely many of them have and still struggle nonetheless. What drives overeating in people who know better? I'm talking about people who:
- know energy balance (CICO)
- Know a pound of fat is about 3500 calories
- know that exercise estimations are inaccurate
- know that measuring by volume is not always precise
- weigh everything that they eat
- have sustainable food plans
- know that forbidding foods could lead to greater temptation
- know that attempting to moderate could lead to greater temptation
- know that micro nutrients are important for body composition
- know that protein intake is recommended at .8-1g per pound of lean body mass
- know that certain food types are more satisfying for different people
- know that certain diets work because they make it easier for some to manipulate energy balance
- you get my point...
There are many who know all of this yet fail regardless. Why?
This interests me too and I've seen some comments on other threads that tell me there are a few people here who might say that this describes them. I would love to hear from them.
A friend of mine has been obese probably her entire life. As far as I can tell, she seems to know all of the above yet still struggles with her weight. It's something that I can never ask her about because it's none of my business and I would never want to risk hurting her feelings, but I know she's not the only one in her shoes and I hope someone can shed some light on what it might be like for her.
Because they aren't willing to change. I know this isn't the best analogy - but surely crack addicts know crack is bad? Surely that guy with diabetes who's repeatedly admitted to the hospital knows he shouldn't be chugging soda and what not? Knowledge isn't the first step in change, acknowledgement is. You can look in the mirror and say "hey, I'm fat" but you're not acknowledging that your own choices and lifestyle are the reason. And even if you do, you're not necessarily willing to step out of your comfort zone and make a change. That requires a very high , sustained level of emotional energy. You're settling for your lifestyle. Deep down, you don't believe that you deserve better.
People have had similar outlooks on alcoholics for decades (or mellenia), but now it is widely accepted to not be so cut and dry.
well if you want to go down the road of addiction fine I will say these couple of points on it.
1. I have yet to see someone derail their entire life aka lose their job, home, family because they do "stupid" and/or illegal acts for food.
2. Applying the logic of addiction to food doesn't even seem logical...we need food to survive so addicts have to stay away from their "drug" per say otherwise....
3. Addicts go through massive amounts of pain physical/mental when they give up their drug and to equate this to it after seeing an addict get off their "drug" is a slap in the fact to their battle.
and lastly
Addicts get treatment and stop if they so choose to...so barring all of the above if they are "addicts" then they can choose to get treatment and stop right??? so why don't they do that?
They understand the logic behind weight loss and just need to apply it to their life but don't because of a choice???
ACTUALLY on point one, there are people that lose their jobs because they become too obese to work at that job, sometimes it's side effects of the weight like high blood pressure. Also husbands and wives have left because they don't love them anymore.... Worse case they die from obesity side effects so slow suicide or OVERDOSE so to speak.
on your point 3. it is painful to let go of the things you can't have to lose the weight, maybe you are lucky and didn't have to do that but some do. And this is worse than drugs because you face it EVERY SINGLE *KITTEN* DAY!!! There is no GOING OFF THE DRUG when it comes to food.
And just like alcohol, most can take it or leave it so some DON't understand why someone else has a hard time and is addicted.
There are similarities yes ie hiding food, perhaps losing the job or a spouse or even die from side effects but that still does not mean food addiction is real....
still doesn't make it an addiction....why because I've seen people like that get WLS and lose the weight and keep it off.
and I have yet to see a "food" addict do illegal acts to get food or leave their family because food was more important...yes maybe their family leaves them...
no physical pain or withdrawal when you go on a diet....have you seen an addict give up a drug like alcohol or crack? seriously.
but again if this is an addiction and it's known to be an addiction and they have education and are smart why not get treatment? or as mentioned above what about people who have issues with food like BED and still manage to lose weight and maintain?
I do have a carb addiction. But thankfully I figured that out and eat complex carbs/low glycemic index food, and avoid sugar and simple carbs. It changed my life. I actually had carb withdrawal symptoms for a week when I initially abruptly dropped them down.
So fruits and veg, plain roasted potatoes, plain pasta are issues?
Most who claim to have issues with carbs don't have issues with these foods. They have issues with some (not all) highly palatable foods that are partly carbs, partly fat. The fat is typically an important part -- most popular trigger foods are either carbs, fat, salt or carbs (including sugar) and fat. Also, the withdrawal thing makes no sense if one is still eating carbs -- how much did you reduce?
I cut out added sugar for a while and felt no effects, which makes sense as I was still eating carbs (although probably less). The US diet isn't particularly high in carbs -- what distinguishes it is the types of carbs people eat, on average.
I don't see any actual physical differences between the foods people claim to be addicted to and foods they are fine with (for example, basically the same macros or even ingredients as others in many cases), which is why I think using the term addiction makes no sense. It's like claiming to be addicted to pinot but not cabernet.
No I don't have issues with potatoes, fruit or veggies. I can eat small servings. I only have issues with sugar and refined flour.
So calling it "carbs" seems inaccurate. And again most people eat sugar and refined flour in combination with fat.
I think I have clarified this by mentioning simple/refined carbs and sugar.
That was my point. I just hate the current demonization of all carbs, as if "carbs" were an easily generalizable category, and despite the fact that many call foods that are half fat "carbs." Pet peeve not directed at you.
Many traditional healthy diets that don't result in obesity or health issues are higher carb than the US diet.
I wonder how the percentages work out if you remove most of the nutritionally less dense carbs (pop, chips, candy, doughnuts, cakes etc) from the US diet? Then we'd really be a lot lower carb than traditional healthy diets.
We could just move over from the less nutritionally dense carbs to more nutritionally dense carbs, which would give us a diet closer to what is typically recommended (not just by the gov't, but by nutrition experts like Walter Willett at Harvard, David Katz at Yale, the people at the Mayo Clinic, etc.). That is also basically how I try to eat most of the time.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »KetoGirl83 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »KetoGirl83 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »(...)
Of course today that's all nonsense. Everyone one knows calories in, calories out is how you manage your weight. What you eat and when you eat doesn't matter.
Seriously? It doesn't matter if I eat 1500 cals of broccoli or 1500 cals of twinkies?
::flowerforyou::
Nutritionally, it obviously does.
Also, you probably couldn't manage to eat 1500 calories of broccoli.
Both would be bad diets -- most mono diets are -- so I never understand why people bring up such things as if they were real choices.
Because the easiest way to show that an argument is invalid is by reductio ad absurdum, ie, showing what happens when you take the argument to its logical consequence. If "what you eat and when you eat doesn't matter" was true, as the quote I was commenting says, then it would indeed be the same to eat broccoli or twinkies.
If I substitute "broccoli" by a woe adequate to my metabolism and "twinkies" by exactly the same amount of cals from junk food, I have no doubt that I will lose faster not eating twinkies. In my experience, a calorie is just an expedite way of cataloguing food. Cals provide a general guidance but that definitely does not mean that (to keep to the example) a cal from broccoli is the same to my body as a cal from a twinkie.
Just to state what we are comparing. According to twinkies nutrition label, a serving size is 77g (2 twinkies). Let's say I eat only one. That's 135 cals of this:
37 ingredients, of which only 5 are ‘recognizable’ as real food: flour,egg, water, sugar, salt.
To eat those same 135 cals from broccoli (34 cals/100g) I need to eat 400g. It's unusual, yes, but not impossible if, like me, you love broccoli.
So, one twinkie or 400g of broccoli. Of course it is not the same nutritionally. That it is also not the same if I want to lose weight or keep it off is, to me at least, evident.
::flowerforyou::
If you'd pay attention to the context in which it was presented, you'd see that it talks about weight, not nutrition, satiety, or whatever else. And for weight loss, CALORIES IS ALL THAT MATTERS. Full stop. You cannot gain fat when there's not enough calories present to do so, that is a fact of physics and your feelings do not change that.
A calorie of broccoli is indeed exactly the same as a calorie from a twinkie. (...)"
I know that's the general opinion. Still, it is not my experience.
My point was never about nutrition or satiety, no one would disagree that it's better to eat broccoli than twinkies. And I also agree that a cal of broccoli is the same as a cal from a twinkie, how could it not be if cals are just a measure? Where I don't agree is when one assumes that because they measure the same they have the same effect on my body.
Calories do matter, of course. Just not to the point that a "good" calorie is the same as a "bad" calorie.
For me, IR and ex-diabetic, as far as weight loss goes, it is definitely not the same. But I'll agree to disagree because I know no one ever changes their mind on this subject.
::flowerforyou::
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Can I politely request no more debating in here about if food/types of food is an addiction? There's another thread for that, and there's a good conversation happening here..
One thing no one has brought up is how life factors into this. None of us try to diet in a bubble, but it can be damn hard to make weight loss a priority when other, more immediately distressing things are going on. Example: my SIL is dangerously obese, and every time I talk to her she's had another health complication. But that doesn't seem as pressing to her as everything else. We lost my father-in-law back in March, so there's been setting up hospice, watching him pass, and making funeral arrangements. My MIL is starting to struggle a lot more, so my SIL is taking her to more doctor's appointments, filling more prescriptions, and generally fretting over her state of health...
She has the knowledge of how to lose weight - her husband had WLS and she sat in on the nutrition classes with him. She learned how to cook healthier meals for him. But with all these other things going on that seem more urgent, convenience food is easier. She does understand how important it is for her to be losing weight right now, before things get worse. I don't think she'll realize until it's too late.
The OP is open to "why". We want to know why and are sharing our experiences. Sorry to hear about your family members. You mentioned the "why" is because convenience food is easier. Sorry to break your request, but she may have an addiction. That can possibly be a factor.
My impression from a lot of these discussions is that much of the time people are talking about the same things, but some people like to call it an "addiction" and others think the word is wrong. Because addiction tends to be a hot button term for many (I admit guilt there) and people have their own reasons for thinking the thing we are talking about should or should not be called addiction, using the term tends to derail us into what is in large part a debate about terminology or what addiction is.
In my mind, it's absolutely the wrong term, and makes no sense given how it's used, but I will avoid addressing it in this thread to prevent the conversation from getting off track. I do think it would be better to be more specific as to what we are talking about rather than use loaded language that many of us bring other experiences to, but obviously everyone will do what they think best.
What word would substitute best that isn't loaded?
Maybe not a single word but I'd try to describe more specifically what is meant, as that helps ensure we are actually communicating with each other. For me, for example, addiction suggests that the substance is in some way at the center of the person's life and inappropriately replacing things that should be more important -- the person ends up caring about the substance more than job, relationships, the essentials of life (and selfishly so). I do think there are eating addictions that can reach that level, but they are uncommon and not mostly what we are talking about here. I don't think they have much to do with the obesity rate in the US.
I will acknowledge that I'll use "addiction" casually myself at times, for things like caffeine, but with caffeine and cigarettes I think it's more of a physical dependence, of a quality that we don't get with food (which is not physically addictive in that same way).
I don't see cravings as equally addiction. Nor do I see the annoying "I want to eat even when not hungry" feeling that has been more of an issue for me as addiction, even if I can relate to KetoneKaren's posts about food thinking.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions