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.

Metabolism "healing" or going back to "normal"

135

Replies

  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Parkersspace wrote: »
    It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.

    I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.

    As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.

    Here's a more heartening figure:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short

    This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Parkersspace wrote: »
    It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.

    I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.

    As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.

    Here's a more heartening figure:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short

    This one finds an 80% regain rate, which isn't as bad but certainly not great. One of the problem with the regain studies is that they often look for people that were in structured programs so it's hard to say what the unstructured regain rate is. This would be like addiction research ignoring the spontaneous recovery rate (people quitting on their own), which is actually comparable to many programs. I often wonder if people in programs have a higher regain rate than those who do it on their own due to the loss of structure once they leave the program. Those who do it on their own might have a better long term strategy.

    I suspect the overall figure is higher too. I'm just very, very tired of seeing that 95% number trotted out and that's the only study I know of that refutes it.

    I can't recall the exact figure off the top of my head, but the statistic for being successful at quitting smoking is only in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 percent. Per attempt.

    Yet we all know and accept that many, many people successfully quit smoking for good.

    I think we can apply this same thinking to dieting.

    I've actually never even heard the 95% number and that's obviously complete *kitten.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited October 2016
    psulemon wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    Parkersspace wrote: »
    It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.

    The lost on average 4.2lbs per week. How much of that do you think was also muscle? Muscle drives metabolic rate. When you lose a ton of muscle, by starving yourself and working out 7 hours a day, it's no wonder why they metabolism went down the crapper.

    These studies usually try to account for body composition, at least the good ones but if they don't then that's certainly an issue.

    ETA: Just read some of that article and it's probably the only study I've seen that did a pre and post test metabolic rate check. What strikes me as strange is that the average weight of them before is 328 pounds but their BMR average was well below what should be expected at a mere 2607. This dropped further to 2000 but their BF% and weight was lower as well. Seems they may have done long term damage to their metabolism but they also had massive caloric deficits during the show as you mention so that could be more of the issue.

    I haven't seen the original study, but I didn't see any references to body composition.

    Interesting and anecdotal, but I was working with someone who did 3 rounds of HCG (500 calories for 3 months, 1 month off, rinse and repeat) and her maintenance was fairly low... like 1400 calories with 6 hours of exercise a week @ 120lbs and 5'3". It took about a year, of lifting heavy (NROL4W) and eating around maintenance to get that up. After a year, things seemed to rebound to around 1700.

    A quick note here, it looks like Kevin Hall was the senior author so I don't think that factor would have been overlooked. The fact that they declare the BF% is an indication that composition was taken into account.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited October 2016
    psulemon wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    Parkersspace wrote: »
    It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.

    The lost on average 4.2lbs per week. How much of that do you think was also muscle? Muscle drives metabolic rate. When you lose a ton of muscle, by starving yourself and working out 7 hours a day, it's no wonder why they metabolism went down the crapper.

    These studies usually try to account for body composition, at least the good ones but if they don't then that's certainly an issue.

    ETA: Just read some of that article and it's probably the only study I've seen that did a pre and post test metabolic rate check. What strikes me as strange is that the average weight of them before is 328 pounds but their BMR average was well below what should be expected at a mere 2607. This dropped further to 2000 but their BF% and weight was lower as well. Seems they may have done long term damage to their metabolism but they also had massive caloric deficits during the show as you mention so that could be more of the issue.

    I haven't seen the original study, but I didn't see any references to body composition.

    Interesting and anecdotal, but I was working with someone who did 3 rounds of HCG (500 calories for 3 months, 1 month off, rinse and repeat) and her maintenance was fairly low... like 1400 calories with 6 hours of exercise a week @ 120lbs and 5'3". It took about a year, of lifting heavy (NROL4W) and eating around maintenance to get that up. After a year, things seemed to rebound to around 1700.

    Ok, I think this is the actually paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full but Hall doesn't seem to be the Senior Author as indicated in Scientific America so there may be more than one paper. The methodology looks solid here and body composition was definitely addressed as was age.

    It seems that the extreme weight loss rate might have played a large part since the meta analysis show a much lower adaption rate: "A meta-analysis of previous cross-sectional studies found that subjects who had lost weight exhibited a 3% to 5% lower RMR compared with control subjects who had not lost weight "
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Parkersspace wrote: »
    It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.

    I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.

    As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.

    Here's a more heartening figure:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short

    Hey, then I'm not just successful but quadruple sucessful for losing twice the amount and maintining double the time.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Parkersspace wrote: »
    It would be nice to know the answers but the most recent study I've heard of is the following of the Biggest loser contestants from one season and 6 years later their metabolism was still suffering https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/6-years-after-the-biggest-loser-metabolism-is-slower-and-weight-is-back-up/ They know that most people who lose weight (95%) regain it over time or most of it or more. They suspected it was due to lowered metabolisms. They need more study and currently don't know if it can be fixed is my understanding.

    I see others have addressed The Biggest Loser contestants. Also, the formula for calculating the metabolic damage was a bit flawed. It wasn't based on formulas used for everyone else, but on their own previous data.

    As to the 95% failure rate? That comes from a flawed study as well, which the study author later disavowed.

    Here's a more heartening figure:

    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.short

    Hey, then I'm not just successful but quadruple sucessful for losing twice the amount and maintining double the time.

    The success rate goes for those who can maintain for 2 years, this was probably an obvious conclusion.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,029 Member
    Metabolism ALWAYS slows down when you consume less calories than you burn. That's normal for just about anyone. Eating more will increase it. That's normal for just about anyone. Over consumption of calories will lead to energy storage and that's normal for everyone.
    So what is it you're trying to find out or debate?

    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
  • The_Original_Beauty
    The_Original_Beauty Posts: 162 Member
    For me after restricting for about a year, every week or two weeks i added 100 calories to my diet until i hit my TDEE. It tok me about 4 months to do this. So it can take a long time. Over all it took me about 6 months to be comfortable to how much i was eating.
  • Parkersspace
    Parkersspace Posts: 17 Member
    edited October 2016
    Sorry i get my figures from announcements made in Canada in the past two years. Obesity experts there are trying to start concentrating on weight maintenance or surgery as they find the rates of success expensive and dismal. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/obesity-research-confirms-long-term-weight-loss-almost-impossible-1.2663585 and if you google and search (though Canadian stuff is often not as reported) there is more articles. They find that with surgery http://www.cbsnews.com/news/diet-exercise-treatment-for-obese-patients/. A couple of articles on their findings in the past two years. Now they are merely saying if you wait 10 years people are back to the old weight and yet the diet industry makes a lot of money when there is no cure. Yes the biggest loser study is an excellent start as it was detailed and measured metabolism and most people dieting aren't weight lifters they are people who are very over weight. And yes, they find most doctors and the medical community don't want to believe this much like all of you. But if they would believe it and study it maybe they would learn something about it. Every study right now has a contradictory study because in the end it seems we know so little that we know about as much as we did 100 years ago. Few more pieces of science maybe but it's not more accurate then snake oil since next week someone will prove it wrong.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    The most truth in a single post on that Reddit:
    "It doesn't really matter at this point as the damage is done... like starvation mode, people are going to be citing this study and their damaged metabolisms for the next few decades."

    Assume I have a damaged metabolism since I lost 45 pounds in just over 4 months over 2 years ago. I can either acquiesce to that or I can adjust my diet and exercise to compensate. So metabolism isn't destiny it just makes things a little more difficult but that's life and that's the hand I'm dealt.

    The "damage is done" in that quote referred to the press brouhaha over The Biggest Loser study, and what people think about "metabolic damage" now. That horse has left the barn. No one can close the door now by trying to point out the flaws in the study and undo the damage that the media sh!tstorm over the findings created.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    edited October 2016
    It's a good thing this type of attitude wasn't as prevalent 40-60 years ago. Otherwise we'd still have people swearing that it was their nitrogen damaged lungs that were responsible for their emphysema and lung cancer.
  • StrongGirlFitGirl
    StrongGirlFitGirl Posts: 183 Member
    StealthHealth wrote: »
    I've created a group http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/116620-bodyrecomposition-support-forum if you're interested msg me and I'll get you in.

    I just sent a request. I'm doing PSMF with medical supervision, but it's really close to Lyle's plan. There's not a lot of online support for it. So many people instantly write it off, which is a shame. It can be really effective.
  • Parkersspace
    Parkersspace Posts: 17 Member
    edited October 2016
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    It's a good thing this type of attitude wasn't as prevalent 40-60 years ago. Otherwise we'd still have people swearing that it was their nitrogen damaged lungs that were responsible for their emphysema and lung cancer.

    Exactly if we refuse to believe or give merit to a study, or repeated evidence of something because we want to believe otherwise then nothing is ever changed. You can all continue with what you are doing and the rest of the people that this way doesn't work for can never know the truth or get real information or progress for something that might have a much better success rate. Because we already know any study that disagrees with the current status quo that has full populations over weight must be wrong. Remember this is not about one study it's about all the studies that find this repeatedly and the medical community and drug companies want to shoot down as does the whole diet industry. I prefer to think research might find something that works like, quitting smoking.

    I will not be bullied into believing something, I prefer to keep an open mind and look at all the science, ideas and theories until something more definitive is figured out.
  • Barbs2222
    Barbs2222 Posts: 433 Member
    I've wondered about this forever. I figure I've always had a low metabolism because at rest my heart beat is at the very low end of normal. My blood pressure is at the low end of normal too. I don't take as many breaths per minute as other people either. I sleep a bit more than most people as well, most of the time. (lucky me) I embrace this because I think it will lead to longevity. So, if I have to exercise a bit more than other people to get to eat as much so be it. I do take food based vitamins. So why is slow metabolism a bad thing? Slow digestion maybe but that should be a different thread.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Barbs2222 wrote: »
    I've wondered about this forever. I figure I've always had a low metabolism because at rest my heart beat is at the very low end of normal. My blood pressure is at the low end of normal too. I don't take as many breaths per minute as other people either. I sleep a bit more than most people as well, most of the time. (lucky me) I embrace this because I think it will lead to longevity. So, if I have to exercise a bit more than other people to get to eat as much so be it. I do take food based vitamins. So why is slow metabolism a bad thing? Slow digestion maybe but that should be a different thread.

    You're clearly doing "slow metabolism" wrong. I'm sure you can find a doctor who will prescribe you some Twinkees and lots of sedentary passtimes. It just rounds out the whole regimen, ya know?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    Barbs2222 wrote: »
    I've wondered about this forever. I figure I've always had a low metabolism because at rest my heart beat is at the very low end of normal. My blood pressure is at the low end of normal too. I don't take as many breaths per minute as other people either. I sleep a bit more than most people as well, most of the time. (lucky me) I embrace this because I think it will lead to longevity. So, if I have to exercise a bit more than other people to get to eat as much so be it. I do take food based vitamins. So why is slow metabolism a bad thing? Slow digestion maybe but that should be a different thread.

    More likely than not, you probably have a standard metabolism like many of us. Metabolism is highly driven by body composition (particularly lean body mass) not necessarily heart rate; respiration is more of a function of metabolism. Heart rate is more of a function of efficacy.
  • Parkersspace
    Parkersspace Posts: 17 Member
    I didn't miss the joke I was trying to open your mind. Your own experience should teach you there is probably more to this than the current studies explain. No matter how the person gained weight, the fact is, if you promise most people (some of us manage to work 8 hours a day and exercise 2 but not the vast majority) they will lose weight and have a great life and look like the stars they see on the magazine covers and then they never get anywhere close to that they tend to give up. If you promise them something real, like, you might stay large but you will live a vastly improved quality of life for exercising, feel good, sleep better, have healthier skin and as a side effect you might carry a lower weight while maintaining a reasonably healthy diet they might surprise you and do it for their health even though they won't realize the muscled or low fat body and even though they are over weight. All their health indicators will come into a normal range or better range. So for the weight issue... lets try hard to teach how not to gain it through healthy life styles, teach the truth of how hard it is to lose once that happens, and teach the benefits of exercise and healthy eating independently of the weight issue so people don't stop when they don't lose weight to the level they hoped.

    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    Parkersspace wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    It's a good thing this type of attitude wasn't as prevalent 40-60 years ago. Otherwise we'd still have people swearing that it was their nitrogen damaged lungs that were responsible for their emphysema and lung cancer.

    Exactly if we refuse to believe or give merit to a study, or repeated evidence of something because we want to believe otherwise then nothing is ever changed. You can all continue with what you are doing and the rest of the people that this way doesn't work for can never know the truth or get real information or progress for something that might have a much better success rate. Because we already know any study that disagrees with the current status quo that has full populations over weight must be wrong. Remember this is not about one study it's about all the studies that find this repeatedly and the medical community and drug companies want to shoot down as does the whole diet industry. I prefer to think research might find something that works like, quitting smoking.

    I will not be bullied into believing something, I prefer to keep an open mind and look at all the science, ideas and theories until something more definitive is figured out.

    Uhhh...I think you missed the joke.
    Yes, as one loses weight, metabolic requirements are reduced. Yes, people who have always been lean have notably higher maintenance intakes than those who dieted down. However, this doesn't change the fact that people get fat from eating too much and moving too little, with a few relatively rare exceptions. The actual problems appear to be far more psychological, and far less physiological. Looking for an exterior (or perhaps a different kind of interior, in this case) villain doesn't change any of that.
    I have said before, and will say again, when you can take some of these people that "this stuff doesn't work for", put them in a metabolic ward, with 100% controlled deficit intake, and they still don't drop weight, I'll bite. Until then, they're lying out of one side of their mouth, while sneaking Krispy Kremes into the other.

    ETA: this is coming from someone who's maintenance calories are about 400 lower, while weight training seven days per week, than his expected TDEE when sedentary. Going from 265 to 150 tends to have that effect, especially when one has been fat for their entire life. Watch the scale, feed the machine, stop making excuses for excessive eating habits, and one can avoid joining the majority of failures.

  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited October 2016
    Parkersspace wrote: »
    I didn't miss the joke I was trying to open your mind. Your own experience should teach you there is probably more to this than the current studies explain. No matter how the person gained weight, the fact is, if you promise most people (some of us manage to work 8 hours a day and exercise 2 but not the vast majority) they will lose weight and have a great life and look like the stars they see on the magazine covers and then they never get anywhere close to that they tend to give up. If you promise them something real, like, you might stay large but you will live a vastly improved quality of life for exercising, feel good, sleep better, have healthier skin and as a side effect you might carry a lower weight while maintaining a reasonably healthy diet they might surprise you and do it for their health even though they won't realize the muscled or low fat body and even though they are over weight. All their health indicators will come into a normal range or better range. So for the weight issue... lets try hard to teach how not to gain it through healthy life styles, teach the truth of how hard it is to lose once that happens, and teach the benefits of exercise and healthy eating independently of the weight issue so people don't stop when they don't lose weight to the level they hoped.

    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    Parkersspace wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    It's a good thing this type of attitude wasn't as prevalent 40-60 years ago. Otherwise we'd still have people swearing that it was their nitrogen damaged lungs that were responsible for their emphysema and lung cancer.

    Exactly if we refuse to believe or give merit to a study, or repeated evidence of something because we want to believe otherwise then nothing is ever changed. You can all continue with what you are doing and the rest of the people that this way doesn't work for can never know the truth or get real information or progress for something that might have a much better success rate. Because we already know any study that disagrees with the current status quo that has full populations over weight must be wrong. Remember this is not about one study it's about all the studies that find this repeatedly and the medical community and drug companies want to shoot down as does the whole diet industry. I prefer to think research might find something that works like, quitting smoking.

    I will not be bullied into believing something, I prefer to keep an open mind and look at all the science, ideas and theories until something more definitive is figured out.

    Uhhh...I think you missed the joke.
    Yes, as one loses weight, metabolic requirements are reduced. Yes, people who have always been lean have notably higher maintenance intakes than those who dieted down. However, this doesn't change the fact that people get fat from eating too much and moving too little, with a few relatively rare exceptions. The actual problems appear to be far more psychological, and far less physiological. Looking for an exterior (or perhaps a different kind of interior, in this case) villain doesn't change any of that.
    I have said before, and will say again, when you can take some of these people that "this stuff doesn't work for", put them in a metabolic ward, with 100% controlled deficit intake, and they still don't drop weight, I'll bite. Until then, they're lying out of one side of their mouth, while sneaking Krispy Kremes into the other.

    ETA: this is coming from someone who's maintenance calories are about 400 lower, while weight training seven days per week, than his expected TDEE when sedentary. Going from 265 to 150 tends to have that effect, especially when one has been fat for their entire life. Watch the scale, feed the machine, stop making excuses for excessive eating habits, and one can avoid joining the majority of failures.

    So you disagree with the science and not only think you know not only that it's wrong but how it is wrong? Is that what I'm getting? This isn't new, adaptive thermogenesis has been known for a while and been studied for quite some time so to think that scientist just started looking at this and is still getting it's bearing is rather misguided. While I don't disagree that we need to educate people on not getting overweight in the first place it's rather naïve to think that people think they'll look like models or that they think it's easy to lose and maintain that loss. A great many people, probably most, who lose weight have lost it before and a very well aware at the struggles.

    The only thing people can and must do is maintain a healthy lifestyle with proper diet and fitness that is conducive of maintaining a more healthful weight and body composition.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    Those are all ideas that I could get behind. It appears that most people cannot though. No one seems to want to put effort into "normal". If they did, it would sell better, and Oz would have been out of a job decades ago. No, it's apparently much easier to just crusade to make obese the new normal.

    The problem, in all reality, is we are discussing this as if all fat people need the same thing to fix their problem. Once again, I am an example of someone who needed something that most people swear they don't want. I needed someone to actually tell me what a fat, disgusting, slovenly heap of *kitten* I had allowed myself to become. I needed brutal honesty. From what I see from reading these boards though, when most landwhales get that, they go cry into a tub of Ben and Jerry's for the rest of the night.
    Truthfully, I don't believe that this is a problem that can be solved, short of literal mind control measures.

    Humans are adaptable to their situations so they adapt to being heavier than they should be. I know a lot of people that are overweight by several pounds yet think they would look great "unhealthy" if they lost a bit more because they've never seen themselves at a lower weight. They tend to come from heavier families and aren't used to seeing people who are fit in their normal lives except on TV etc.

    I remember when I first came back from my deployment in Bosnia and I couldn't believe how heavy people in my city looked after living in a country where the vast majority were in the ideal weight range. After a week or so I adjusted and everything looked normal again. I also have a lot of pictures and films of when I was growing up in the 70's and people were definitely much thinner back then. I saw a show with Eric Estrada, an actor on the TV show CHiPs back in the 70's who was on a beach in board shorts and he was considered to have an ideal physique back then (thin and lightly muscled) yet he would look scrawny by today's standards.
  • StealthHealth
    StealthHealth Posts: 2,417 Member
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    Those are all ideas that I could get behind. It appears that most people cannot though. No one seems to want to put effort into "normal". If they did, it would sell better, and Oz would have been out of a job decades ago. No, it's apparently much easier to just crusade to make obese the new normal.

    The problem, in all reality, is we are discussing this as if all fat people need the same thing to fix their problem. Once again, I am an example of someone who needed something that most people swear they don't want. I needed someone to actually tell me what a fat, disgusting, slovenly heap of *kitten* I had allowed myself to become. I needed brutal honesty. From what I see from reading these boards though, when most landwhales get that, they go cry into a tub of Ben and Jerry's for the rest of the night.
    Truthfully, I don't believe that this is a problem that can be solved, short of literal mind control measures.

    Humans are adaptable to their situations so they adapt to being heavier than they should be. I know a lot of people that are overweight by several pounds yet think they would look great "unhealthy" if they lost a bit more because they've never seen themselves at a lower weight. They tend to come from heavier families and aren't used to seeing people who are fit in their normal lives except on TV etc.

    I remember when I first came back from my deployment in Bosnia and I couldn't believe how heavy people in my city looked after living in a country where the vast majority were in the ideal weight range. After a week or so I adjusted and everything looked normal again. I also have a lot of pictures and films of when I was growing up in the 70's and people were definitely much thinner back then. I saw a show with Eric Estrada, an actor on the TV show CHiPs back in the 70's who was on a beach in board shorts and he was considered to have an ideal physique back then (thin and lightly muscled) yet he would look scrawny by today's standards.

    ^^so true!!!

This discussion has been closed.

Categories