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?

1…5681011…20

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    KetoGirl83 wrote: »
    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:
    5vnxuncc5mp9.jpg
    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.

    Of course FOODS have different effects on your body (especially if you have insulin issues). But that's not about calories.
  • chocolate_owl
    chocolate_owl Posts: 1,695 Member
    DebSozo 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.

    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.

    Wow, this is all really offensive to me.

    1) You leave off the sentence from my post where I acknowledge people believe it's an addiction, which is part of the "why" we're discussing here. I just asked that people don't debate in this thread about if food addiction is or isn't a thing.

    2) Without knowing anything about my SIL other than that she's had a rough year and opts for convenience food because of it, you throw out that she may have an addiction. There are all sorts of reasons why she might be making the food choices she's making. I used her as an example of someone who isn't prioritizing weight loss because of life factors, and you want to reduce it to addiction. I don't appreciate that.
  • chocolate_owl
    chocolate_owl Posts: 1,695 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    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
    9285851.png

    I do wonder how much medicine factors into this. Do some obese people feel like there's more of a safety net, that our medical advances will be able to save them? I know a person who abuses alcohol who assumes that if he needs a new liver, he'll just get a transplant. If medicine allows you to continue in your pleasurable but harmful habits, do you take advantage of that.....?
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    edited June 2016
    Dvdgzz wrote: »
    I think it comes down to how you were raised. Children do what parents do. If you're more likely to sit on the couch and eat, your kids will most likely follow suit, developing bad habits from an early age.

    My dad went hungry most of the time growing up. His mother (father was rarely home) went even more hungry since she gave the majority of the food she had to him and his brothers. Following your logic, he ought to have been skinny as a rail his whole life. My grandmother certainly was. Instead, he gained weight as soon as food became more available and eventually developed a weight problem.

    Sometimes it's imitating your parents. Sometimes it's making up for things you didn't have as a kid, and sometimes it's for reasons that have nothing to do with how you were raised.

    Regardless, they're all things that can be overcome - eventually, with the right psychological tools and with work.
  • tlflag1620
    tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    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.

    If that's the case, my bad. I thought she said she was at 150g per day, normally, but then cut "added" sugars, which I figured could have put her in the low carb category. She didn't really say what she replaced the added sugars with (other carb sources? Fat? Protein? Idk). The symptoms she described are common when just starting low carb diets, especially when one neglects to increase electrolytes.

  • KetoneKaren
    KetoneKaren Posts: 6,412 Member
    edited June 2016
    @SezxyStef "I am not getting into a food addiction debate, I personally find that notion distasteful considering what happens during an actual addiction and the aftermath...and find that saying eating is out of your control an excuse to not change."

    This is the part of your response to @DebSozo that I was referring to. She did not say eating is out of her control nor is she looking for an excuse to not change.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    mskessler89 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    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
    9285851.png

    I do wonder how much medicine factors into this. Do some obese people feel like there's more of a safety net, that our medical advances will be able to save them? I know a person who abuses alcohol who assumes that if he needs a new liver, he'll just get a transplant. If medicine allows you to continue in your pleasurable but harmful habits, do you take advantage of that.....?

    I've actually read that having a medical reason to lose weight tends to lead to the best outcomes as far as losing and keeping it off. Obviously there are many who still do not, but that makes me think that for many it's the absence of a sufficient enough reason. I know for myself, when I was delaying losing weight, it was because I knew generally that it wasn't healthy and led to more risks, but since I was actually healthy at the time and it wasn't really affecting my life (I could still walk all day, bound up to my fourth floor walk-up condo without a problem, even carrying groceries, so on). Sure, I didn't like how I looked and I knew I'd be better able to get back into running and biking if I dropped some weight (and my feet hurt at the end of the day sometimes and didn't need to), but it was so easy to keep thinking "maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, when X is over." It wasn't so much that I thought medicine would save me (I actually had tremendous guilt when I had a health issue, that turned out to be not weight-related, as I was afraid I'd done it to myself), as that I didn't think about it, it was always something I'd fix soon, but not quite as important as some other things. A health diagnosis will sometimes make that stop, I suspect.
  • tlflag1620
    tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358 Member
    lexbubbles wrote: »
    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")

    Hmmm. In that case it sounds psychosomatic. Replacing "added sugar" with an equivalent amount of "natural" sugar should have no physiological effect.
  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    KetoGirl83 wrote: »
    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:
    5vnxuncc5mp9.jpg
    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::


    No one assumes they have the same effect on a body. You are either making a straw man or willfully ignoring what people actually say.

    We don't need to change our minds. You are the one who is either misunderstanding or just plain wrong.

    This is not a debate about calories. Stop taking the thread off-topic.
  • chocolate_owl
    chocolate_owl Posts: 1,695 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    mskessler89 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    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
    9285851.png

    I do wonder how much medicine factors into this. Do some obese people feel like there's more of a safety net, that our medical advances will be able to save them? I know a person who abuses alcohol who assumes that if he needs a new liver, he'll just get a transplant. If medicine allows you to continue in your pleasurable but harmful habits, do you take advantage of that.....?

    I've actually read that having a medical reason to lose weight tends to lead to the best outcomes as far as losing and keeping it off. Obviously there are many who still do not, but that makes me think that for many it's the absence of a sufficient enough reason. I know for myself, when I was delaying losing weight, it was because I knew generally that it wasn't healthy and led to more risks, but since I was actually healthy at the time and it wasn't really affecting my life (I could still walk all day, bound up to my fourth floor walk-up condo without a problem, even carrying groceries, so on). Sure, I didn't like how I looked and I knew I'd be better able to get back into running and biking if I dropped some weight (and my feet hurt at the end of the day sometimes and didn't need to), but it was so easy to keep thinking "maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, when X is over." It wasn't so much that I thought medicine would save me (I actually had tremendous guilt when I had a health issue, that turned out to be not weight-related, as I was afraid I'd done it to myself), as that I didn't think about it, it was always something I'd fix soon, but not quite as important as some other things. A health diagnosis will sometimes make that stop, I suspect.

    This has been my perception as well - people delay losing weight because they're still healthy enough right now. I just wonder if people feel "safer" being overweight now than they did 20 or 50 years ago because of how medicine has progressed. I'd guess most don't - the strides in medicine have also brought more awareness of the risks.

    I'd guess the "it won't happen to me" logic is much more common - obese people who currently have good health markers don't envision them deteriorating. In the same way that I know I could get cancer or die in a car crash, I don't really think it will happen. I don't use sunscreen often enough, I drive over the speed limit. I should be better about preventative measures, but until it actually happens it doesn't seem like it will.
  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    DebSozo wrote: »
    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.

    I've seen the term compulsion used a few times in this thread. Does that fit the bill?

    I think it probably describes well what my friend experiences.
  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    mskessler89 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    mskessler89 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    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
    9285851.png

    I do wonder how much medicine factors into this. Do some obese people feel like there's more of a safety net, that our medical advances will be able to save them? I know a person who abuses alcohol who assumes that if he needs a new liver, he'll just get a transplant. If medicine allows you to continue in your pleasurable but harmful habits, do you take advantage of that.....?

    I've actually read that having a medical reason to lose weight tends to lead to the best outcomes as far as losing and keeping it off. Obviously there are many who still do not, but that makes me think that for many it's the absence of a sufficient enough reason. I know for myself, when I was delaying losing weight, it was because I knew generally that it wasn't healthy and led to more risks, but since I was actually healthy at the time and it wasn't really affecting my life (I could still walk all day, bound up to my fourth floor walk-up condo without a problem, even carrying groceries, so on). Sure, I didn't like how I looked and I knew I'd be better able to get back into running and biking if I dropped some weight (and my feet hurt at the end of the day sometimes and didn't need to), but it was so easy to keep thinking "maybe tomorrow, maybe next week, when X is over." It wasn't so much that I thought medicine would save me (I actually had tremendous guilt when I had a health issue, that turned out to be not weight-related, as I was afraid I'd done it to myself), as that I didn't think about it, it was always something I'd fix soon, but not quite as important as some other things. A health diagnosis will sometimes make that stop, I suspect.

    This has been my perception as well - people delay losing weight because they're still healthy enough right now. I just wonder if people feel "safer" being overweight now than they did 20 or 50 years ago because of how medicine has progressed. I'd guess most don't - the strides in medicine have also brought more awareness of the risks.

    I'd guess the "it won't happen to me" logic is much more common - obese people who currently have good health markers don't envision them deteriorating. In the same way that I know I could get cancer or die in a car crash, I don't really think it will happen. I don't use sunscreen often enough, I drive over the speed limit. I should be better about preventative measures, but until it actually happens it doesn't seem like it will.

    Some people who are part of the Fat Acceptance Movement/HAES adherents brush off health concerns as "vague future health threats." I would say they definitely think it'll never happen to them.
  • AmazonMayan
    AmazonMayan Posts: 1,168 Member
    edited June 2016
    Personally I went from extremely athletic and active to injured, sick and bedridden for weeks at a time. Previously I never had to worry about quantity of food and I ate mostly healthier foods. When I say healthier I mean mostly whole plant based foods that were minimally processed. I still loved my snacks with the favorite being fried mozzarella yum.

    Medication changed that. I know that is a very unpopular statement on this site, but for some it is accurate. I was on 3, THREE, meds that are known to cause/contribute to weight gain and/or appetite changes. (I will not name the drugs nor get into discussion about who thinks they are right and I am wrong) I always say just like there are some that suppress appetite, there are those that stimulate it as well.

    One had a change on what I craved. Once I was home and slightly mobile again I went from absolutely hands down hating chips (especially powder covered doritos ::::gag:::: vile chips) and hating mayo to craving them and other high fat things constantly all day long day in and day out. I could not satisfy the intense fat craving. And it was a craving. I never wanted nasty oreos (why are stale thin cookies smeared with sweetened crisco :s so popular I'll never know) lol (had to throw that in for the hardcore oreo lovers lol) I am now back to where I can only tolerate potato chips if they are chilled and how often is that available right? Never lol.

    Once I figured it out after a multi-meds several month brain fog, I dropped the problem meds and asked for alternate treatment. I stopped gaining within a month or two. I was not logging, counting, exercising (I was barely mobile at all) or otherwise making any effort to lose or maintain. I made no specific intentional changes to my diet.

    Because of spinal taps (every 10 days for months) and a couple back surgeries, I also stuck to loose clothing such as sweats and dresses. I really had no idea how big I was really getting. That may sound ridiculous to a lot of people but as sick and injured as I was, I wasn't getting dressed up and wasn't clothes shopping or caring much about my appearance. I'm 6' tall with a large frame so gaining weight according to a scale never meant much to me because I can weigh a LOT before looking fat.

    So anyway, I was actually eating less quantity but much higher fat content/calorie foods. Still cico but the meds caused drastic changes to my normal diet and coupled with much less activity well....

    Losing is easy for me now. Im back to craving fruit, veggies and just about any meats I can get my hands on lol. I'm 48 years old and technically disabled but still get up and out and move most days. No excuses about age and nothing medical to prevent weight loss as long as I stay away from the meds that could actually make some other things easier on me.
  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    There have been some very insightful posts here.

    From what I've gathered, some people feel a stronger pull towards food than others, which seems to stem from psychological roots. For these ones, it can be harder to control CI when food is often on the mind, when childhood experiences numbed their hunger/satiety signals, or when eating is a way to self-soothe, or something else entirely.

    It sounds like for these ones, denying a food (using willpower) in order to stay at a deficit causes more stress than another person might experience.

    Just trying to piece together a coherent picture. If this doesn't sound right, I'm open to further input.

    I'm also open to the idea that some people have altered hormone levels that wreak havoc on their appetites/ability to resist available food, but I haven't seen much discussion about it yet.
  • lexbubbles
    lexbubbles Posts: 465 Member
    tlflag1620 wrote: »

    Hmmm. In that case it sounds psychosomatic. Replacing "added sugar" with an equivalent amount of "natural" sugar should have no physiological effect.

    Perhaps, and I already addressed that with LC up there ^^^ somewhere. However, a response being psychosomatic doesn't make it less real, or less horrible to deal with. There's attitude from a lot of people (not saying yourself personally!) on the boards that "there's no physical reason for it and I've never had it so it doesn't exist" and to dismiss it out of hand. My reaction, regardless of the cause, was a very real one.

    I have a *kitten* reaction to refined sugar, for whatever reason, as do some other people. That's my deal to monitor. I know that if I cut out added sugar entirely, I feel like butt. I know that if I begin to eat certain foods heavy in it that I won't be able to stop and will go on a binge. Consequently I just include foods/drinks that are primarily nutrient heavy but with just a bit of added sugar (like my yogurt, or a protein bar, or some cordial in my water) and if I must have something sugar-heavy (chocolate, ice cream, a doughnut) I buy it in a single portion so that I can't binge no matter how much I want to. (I mean, as I noted before, I do also have a reaction to anything carb-dense whether that's sugar or not, which triggers the overeating in me, so you won't see me eat much pasta or rice or potato either. I have pasta almost never and a small portion of rice maybe 3x a week and that's as far as my carb-dense foods go most of the time.)

    That's still only my deal to sort out, but that doesn't mean I have the exact same weightloss experience or challenges as a person without that response (or who maybe has a reaction to a different kind of food, even!) because "there's no physiological reason for it".

    It's just another factor that can lead people to overeat, or make it seem really really hard to lose the weight if you haven't figured out how to manage it.
  • Galadrial60
    Galadrial60 Posts: 19 Member
    If I may...you're assuming a LOT.

    I have been told that weight gain is the result of the wrong balance of food to exercise. I also spent three years unable to walk due to foot issues. I watched my weight go up, and asked my doctors to send me to a nutritionist. The problem was cutting my caloric intake to support a low level of activity...not by choice, but circumstance. The nutritionist said she couldn't suggest a severe caloric intake (800-1000) calories because the long term effect would be a disaster.

    It vexes me when people assume that everyone overweight is just sitting around stuffing their faces. When I needed a handicapped placard after my foot surgery, one "helpful" soul in gym clothes informed me that if I got off my fat *kitten*, maybe I wouldn't be so handicapped? Yes, I have struggled with weight my whole life...but after two serious accidents, three surgeries on my feet, and menopause, I was fighting to not gain. THAT sort of BS is not helpful.

    When I started here, I was shocked by how much I was expected to eat to achieve my goal of 50 pounds in a year. Not because it was so little, but because it was so MUCH.

    So to answer the question "Why do they let themselves gain?" Sometimes it's not a damned choice. And if you continue to judge, the universe just might decide you need a serious dose of humility.
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Galadrial60 wrote: »
    If I may...you're assuming a LOT.

    I have been told that weight gain is the result of the wrong balance of food to exercise. I also spent three years unable to walk due to foot issues. I watched my weight go up, and asked my doctors to send me to a nutritionist. The problem was cutting my caloric intake to support a low level of activity...not by choice, but circumstance. The nutritionist said she couldn't suggest a severe caloric intake (800-1000) calories because the long term effect would be a disaster.

    It vexes me when people assume that everyone overweight is just sitting around stuffing their faces. When I needed a handicapped placard after my foot surgery, one "helpful" soul in gym clothes informed me that if I got off my fat *kitten*, maybe I wouldn't be so handicapped? Yes, I have struggled with weight my whole life...but after two serious accidents, three surgeries on my feet, and menopause, I was fighting to not gain. THAT sort of BS is not helpful.

    When I started here, I was shocked by how much I was expected to eat to achieve my goal of 50 pounds in a year. Not because it was so little, but because it was so MUCH.

    So to answer the question "Why do they let themselves gain?" Sometimes it's not a damned choice. And if you continue to judge, the universe just might decide you need a serious dose of humility.

    Are you replying to someone in particular? I'm seeing a lot of anger here.

    Most of us have been there. Most of us (not all of us) are formerly (or currently!) overweight.

    I'm not seeing a lot of judgement. Instead look at this thread as soul-searching from those who share a common plight and interest.
  • lexbubbles
    lexbubbles Posts: 465 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    I'm also open to the idea that some people have altered hormone levels that wreak havoc on their appetites/ability to resist available food, but I haven't seen much discussion about it yet.

    I can't speak to cravings, because I've been on the hormones that induced my menopausal state for some 5 or 6 years and I honestly can't remember a time before? But hormones can, and do, affect metabolism (declining oestrogen levels in menopausal women, for example) so all I do know is that it reduced my BMR. I've always had a Deal with sugary food, and I'm more or less certain that hasn't changed in any way. It just mattered much much less before to get a handle on it, because I was burning more just by being alive so... less of an issue.

    The depo-provera hormonal birth control injection can have an effect with a quarter of depo users gaining more than 5% of their bodyweight within 6 months over non-depo control groups (and those that gained continued gaining) when this wasn't seen in folk on other kinds of BC. Even other hormonal options, like the implant. But the implant is slow-release long-period and the depo is more short-term and aggressive so that might be why, I'm not sure (I was on it for a while before they put me in menopause and did indeed experience fairly rapid and aggressive weight gain that I managed to get rid of once I stopped having the shot)

    But also relative levels (to each other) of estrogen and progesterone have an impact on metabolism and fat storage so if you're out of whack, or taking medication that makes it out of whack it can have a weight-gain effect in and of itself.

    This wasn't entirely what you asked, I apologise, but yes hormones can have an impact on weight gain/loss (although I don't know about cravings and trigger foods being impacted. Maybe? I mean, pregnancy cravings are a thing, but whether that's because hormones I have no idea)
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    KetoneKaren wrote: »
    @SezxyStef "I am not getting into a food addiction debate, I personally find that notion distasteful considering what happens during an actual addiction and the aftermath...and find that saying eating is out of your control an excuse to not change."

    This is the part of your response to @DebSozo that I was referring to. She did not say eating is out of her control nor is she looking for an excuse to not change.

    okay and? I do not for one sec believe in food addiction hence my statement...

    therefore if I don't believe in food addiction I do not believe eating is out of control...

    I dismissed the claim she is addicted to one carb but not another with a comparison...and will continue to dismiss the fallacy of food addiction.

    and since I don't believe in food addiction I do actually have the right to dismiss the post....it's full of contra evidence that not even begin to support a claim of addiction.

    but to be clear I am not just dismissing that post...I am dismissing any post that claims food addiction. Esp those with such illogical fallacies used to prove it.

    And let me be clear I do believe that people can have issues with food and I do believe that certain foods are better to eat for some people than others....*just glad I am not one of them*

    But this debate is why are people overeat...not is food addiction real and the cause of obesity.

  • JaneSnowe
    JaneSnowe Posts: 1,283 Member
    Galadrial60 wrote: »
    If I may...you're assuming a LOT.

    I have been told that weight gain is the result of the wrong balance of food to exercise. I also spent three years unable to walk due to foot issues. I watched my weight go up, and asked my doctors to send me to a nutritionist. The problem was cutting my caloric intake to support a low level of activity...not by choice, but circumstance. The nutritionist said she couldn't suggest a severe caloric intake (800-1000) calories because the long term effect would be a disaster.

    It vexes me when people assume that everyone overweight is just sitting around stuffing their faces. When I needed a handicapped placard after my foot surgery, one "helpful" soul in gym clothes informed me that if I got off my fat *kitten*, maybe I wouldn't be so handicapped? Yes, I have struggled with weight my whole life...but after two serious accidents, three surgeries on my feet, and menopause, I was fighting to not gain. THAT sort of BS is not helpful.

    When I started here, I was shocked by how much I was expected to eat to achieve my goal of 50 pounds in a year. Not because it was so little, but because it was so MUCH.

    So to answer the question "Why do they let themselves gain?" Sometimes it's not a damned choice. And if you continue to judge, the universe just might decide you need a serious dose of humility.

    With all due respect, that is NOT the question that we're talking about. Please read the thread to get a fuller understanding of the topic for discussion, or at least see my post above to get a bit of an idea of the gist.

    Most people here do not tolerate bashing obese people. Please don't assume that's what this is about.

    I'm sorry to hear of the struggles you've had and if I had been there to witness that person belittle you for using a handicap placard, I would have given him a piece of my mind. I wish you well on your journey to better health.
  • DebSozo
    DebSozo Posts: 2,578 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    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.

    I've seen the term compulsion used a few times in this thread. Does that fit the bill?

    I think it probably describes well what my friend experiences.

    It is more like a gnawing feeling in the pit of my stomach along with an angsty, stressful sensation. I have learned to ignore it, but it feels like hunger. It usually happens when I am on 1200 calories in between meals.
  • SezxyStef
    SezxyStef Posts: 15,267 Member
    KetoneKaren wrote: »
    @SezxyStef As a matter of record, I do not think the word addiction is an accurate term to apply to the cravings and obsessive thinking that some people experience about food. My point was that you were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. She used a word "addict" that triggered a response from you that seemed to misinterpret the point she was making, i.e., that she found something that works for her and that she was not out of control or making excuses (as it seemed you were implying). I am not arguing semantics here, but rather overall interpretation of the post. It is clear from her response that she interpreted your comment : "I am not getting into a food addiction debate, I personally find that notion distasteful considering what happens during an actual addiction and the aftermath...and find that saying eating is out of your control an excuse to not change." the same way I did. There was nothing about her post that indicated she was making excuses or was out of control.

    Yes it did trigger a response and in order to get my point across I have to use those terms. If you are going to claim addiction be prepared for people to assume you are out of control and/or using it as an excuse not to change. Does that mean I dismissed what she said? Probably...and why did I, because if people are going to claim addiction I have to infer they mean they are out of control and that is the only word they know to apply to their feelings...is it a semantic game? perhaps but in forums you have to be specific as there is no way to read other cues such as body language or tone...

  • mamadon
    mamadon Posts: 1,422 Member
    Jruzer wrote: »
    Galadrial60 wrote: »
    If I may...you're assuming a LOT.

    I have been told that weight gain is the result of the wrong balance of food to exercise. I also spent three years unable to walk due to foot issues. I watched my weight go up, and asked my doctors to send me to a nutritionist. The problem was cutting my caloric intake to support a low level of activity...not by choice, but circumstance. The nutritionist said she couldn't suggest a severe caloric intake (800-1000) calories because the long term effect would be a disaster.

    It vexes me when people assume that everyone overweight is just sitting around stuffing their faces. When I needed a handicapped placard after my foot surgery, one "helpful" soul in gym clothes informed me that if I got off my fat *kitten*, maybe I wouldn't be so handicapped? Yes, I have struggled with weight my whole life...but after two serious accidents, three surgeries on my feet, and menopause, I was fighting to not gain. THAT sort of BS is not helpful.

    When I started here, I was shocked by how much I was expected to eat to achieve my goal of 50 pounds in a year. Not because it was so little, but because it was so MUCH.

    So to answer the question "Why do they let themselves gain?" Sometimes it's not a damned choice. And if you continue to judge, the universe just might decide you need a serious dose of humility.

    Are you replying to someone in particular? I'm seeing a lot of anger here.

    Most of us have been there. Most of us (not all of us) are formerly (or currently!) overweight.

    I'm not seeing a lot of judgement. Instead look at this thread as soul-searching from those who share a common plight and interest.

    I agree. This is just a good discussion/debate going on.

Categories