The complexity of weight loss

jgnatca

The doctor who runs my weight loss clinic reposted an editorial that resonates with me and my experience. If I were to summarize the article, trashing the "eat less move more" mantra does not mean I blame carbs, or that I absolve people of personal responsibility. However, the way forward to meaningful change is found through small, permanent life changes.

MFP can help by educating people what the calorie load really is.

The article:

http://www.bodyforwife.com/eat-less-move-more-is-*kitten*/?utm_content=buffer851c8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

jgnatca

A graphic I am bookmarking.

http://www.bodyforwife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/contributors-to-obesity.jpg?x88132

SingingSingleTracker

jgnatca wrote: »

The doctor who runs my weight loss clinic reposted an editorial that resonates with me and my experience. If I were to summarize the article, trashing the "eat less move more" mantra does not mean I blame carbs, or that I absolve people of personal responsibility. However, the way forward to meaningful change is found through small, permanent life changes.

MFP can help by educating people what the calorie load really is.

The article:

http://www.bodyforwife.com/eat-less-move-more-is-*kitten*/?utm_content=buffer851c8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Page says that the link doesn't exist.

Gallowmere1984

jgnatca wrote: »

A graphic I am bookmarking.

http://www.bodyforwife.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/contributors-to-obesity.jpg?x88132

This graphic has led me to the ultimate conclusion, and one that is universal to most of the western world: insurance companies and lawsuits are making people fat.

jgnatca

Try this link.

http://www.bodyforwife.com/eat-less-move-more-is-*kitten*/

SingingSingleTracker

jgnatca wrote: »

Try this link.

http://www.bodyforwife.com/eat-less-move-more-is-*kitten*/

Nope. Still says...

404
THAT PAGE DOESN'T EXIST!

Could be your link is a subscribed site or login only site?

Annie_01

I think the word "kitten" has been inserted for a word that MFP doesn't like.

Annie_01

I google...replace "kitten" will bull....

the dots start with the letter s

sure you guys can figure out the rest

jgnatca

Hey, @Gallowmere1984 In my line of work it is important to get to the root cause of any failure. Applying the wrong fix just leaves the problem unsolved longer.

Consider the fate of the honeybee. It turns out that the cause of their decline is multi-factored. Fixing (or blaming) just one of the causes will not be enough to restore their numbers.

Similarly if the cause of the rise of obesity is multi-factored, fixing (or blaming) just one or two factors won't be enough to reverse the trend.

If the cause is multi factored, how exactly can an obese person make a legal claim for their obesity? In fact my former obesity was a barrier to insurability. I also found many weight loss aids to be uninsured as well. I felt I was in a catch-22 for a long time.

jgnatca

Aha! Colorful language.

Www.bodyforwife.com

Go to December 15.

JenHuedy

The MFP filters are messing up the link and subbing "kitten" for "bullish!t" . You can replace kitten with bullish!t (with an i instead of ! ) I n the link or If you google "body for wife eat less move more" it will be the top link.

lemurcat12

Here is the link: http://www.bodyforwife.com/eat-less-move-more-is-bull****/ but to make it work you have to add the missing letters.

I dunno -- I agree with all that he says (I do normally like the blogger) but the main point, but that's a pretty strong disagreement, no?

I mean, of COURSE it's complicated and obesity is multifactorial and figuring out HOW to eat less/move more or, as in my case, WHY or HOW I was eating too much/not moving enough for my personal desired level of fitness was extremely important.

I DON'T think that means that ELMM is wrong or unhelpful, and the claim that it is unhelpful annoys me. The fact is, many are in denial about it being the essence of the issue, that they are, yes, eating too much (in calories) or (should they want to eat what they do) too sedentary. Now, sure, many people will say "I know, but I don't know how" or "don't how how without being miserable" or "can't seem to make myself" and how to do this does require in many cases helpful advice (although like the blogger himself, once I forced myself to acknowledge this was the issue I figured out what to do based on my specific things and don't really see why everyone couldn't do this). We have numerous examples of people giving helpful hints on all these issues or responding to specific questions about them.

And that's the point: if you have a general question such as "how do I lose weight," the only correct answer is the most general one: "eat less and/or move more."

If this prompts follow-up questions or, ideally, more specific ones: how do I do that? But I try and get hungry and fall to temptation? I have no will power in the moment, what about that? -- then different answers will be helpful, but what those answers are depend on the person, so can't be the general response.

Personally, I think there are some things that USUALLY help (having a plan is a big one I like, and understanding that and how you were overeating is another, which usually leads to an understanding of some easy way to cut calories). Often the plan involves small and gradual changes, but not always, some do do better with more dramatic change or a mindset change: for me, back in the day, understanding HOW I was overeating led me to realize I was eating lots of foods I don't even care about/like that much, which led to a more dramatic change and a focus (which has been hard and somewhat up and down) on the psychology of it (emotional eating). Did ELMM mean I didn't want to bury feelings in food sometimes? No, it's not an answer for that. But that does not mean it was less than useless. It just wasn't the whole answer or it was the answer to a different question that led me to the realization I had some others to work on.

jgnatca

@lemurcat12 your insightful post cools down this hot topic.

I remind people that simple does not mean easy. And I do believe that some households are hostile to weight loss (cases of sugar soda in the hall, deep fryer on the counter, and fast food showing up in the kitchen).

This winter when money was tight, hubby contributed more to the food budget than he does usually. As it was his money being squandered, he was parsimonious in doling it out. Then on payday he suggested we get our eggs from the local quickie mart. I gave him a little lecture on how a little investment up front saves him a whole load of money on the back end. No eggs from the quickie store!

Gallowmere1984

jgnatca wrote: »

Hey, @Gallowmere1984 In my line of work it is important to get to the root cause of any failure. Applying the wrong fix just leaves the problem unsolved longer.

Consider the fate of the honeybee. It turns out that the cause of their decline is multi-factored. Fixing (or blaming) just one of the causes will not be enough to restore their numbers.

Similarly if the cause of the rise of obesity is multi-factored, fixing (or blaming) just one or two factors won't be enough to reverse the trend.

If the cause is multi factored, how exactly can an obese person make a legal claim for their obesity? In fact my former obesity was a barrier to insurability. I also found many weight loss aids to be uninsured as well. I felt I was in a catch-22 for a long time.

I was more referring to all of the stuff on the bottom right that is killing the demand for physical exertion. I have a friend who works for a local municipality. They just sank millions into demolishing, regrading, and modifying a bunch of sidewalk and landscape, due to fatties and the elderly injuring themselves and subsequently suing the city.

AnvilHead

The human body is an incredibly complex organism. When you start digging into all the physiology behind weight loss (or weight gain, or increasing fitness, etc.) it seems unbelievably complicated. And that's not even factoring in the psychological issues which come with their own baggage. Yet much of it is really majoring in the minors, as there are many factors which we have little external control over and/or are relatively insignificant in the overall picture.

"Eat less, move more" is a gross oversimplification, yet at the same time it's glorious in its simplicity. Sure, there is a lot more to it than that - but if you make it happen, however you make it happen, you will lose weight. The people who unnecessarily complicate it are usually the hucksters who have something to sell you, and the way they do that is to convince you that it's something you can never accomplish on your own - you "need" whatever they're selling if you truly want to succeed. And it doesn't take anything more than a quick read through the MFP forums to see that a lot of people buy into their crap and are completely confused by all the conflicting information. Nobody can believe it's that simple because they've been convinced over and over again that it can't be that simple.

As you said, it's simple but it's not easy. And a lot of people make it a lot harder than it has to be.

Azdak

This article, like most of its kind, completely misses the point, IMO.

The essence of the CICO/ELMM argument is that, at its fundamental core, weight loss/gain is about energy balance. Nothing more. This is emphasized to differentiate from the hucksters and the alchemists who insist that a substance like cortisol can fundamentally alter the laws of physics, or that there are mystical foods and energy pathways that can do this as well.
Someone pounding the pulpit for CICO is doing so from the perspective of fighting against what they perceive as the mainstream promotion of things like fad diets, cleanses, low-carb ideologues, etc (not dismissing low-carb per se, but those who promote it as a "one true faith").

No one says that it is simple, or denies that there are complexities on both sides of the equation. When it comes to media or even national health organizations, the messages need to be simple and straightforward. Often that means oversimplified. If you are a professional in the field, it can sometimes be frustrating, but I always remind myself that it is a common denominator message, meant to be the "best fit" for as many people as possible, and meant to "do no harm".

As a fitness professional, I have often had issues with the public health recommendations for "increased activity", like the 10,000 steps message. I know the concepts are overly simplistic and it tends to get distilled down to "gardening is the same as running" in many cases. But I also understand the reasoning behind the message and also understand there would be much more dramatic improvements in public health if more people started gardening than if they started running. So I don't bother to post an overly dramatic article entitled "10,000 steps is Bullsh!t".

For all of it's shortcomings, the fact is that the VAST majority of the population in the US would benefit from "eat less, move more". If the author has a problem with what he feels is the over-prescription of that phrase as the ONLY approach to weight loss, then he should single those individuals or organizations out specifically, rather than engage in empty bluster.

jgnatca

Damn those elderly and those fatties. Let's blame the handicapped too while we are at it. Lowering elevator buttons so they can reach, ramps instead of three inch risers, and door-less public washroom access. Why should they get center stage? Back of the bus, all of you. The world is owned by those who have managed to avoid major mishap and as a consequence preserve their hubris undisputed.

Gallowmere1984

jgnatca wrote: »

Damn those elderly and those fatties. Let's blame the handicapped too while we are at it. Lowering elevator buttons so they can reach, ramps instead of three inch risers, and door-less public washroom access. Why should they get center stage? Back of the bus, all of you. The world is owned by those who have managed to avoid major mishap and as a consequence preserve their hubris undisputed.

Funny enough, the handicapped weren't the ones complaining or suing. It's almost like they face real challenges in life that aren't lifestyle oriented and self-imposed. Somewhere along the lines, those of us who have had it easiest (clearly demonstrated by the fact that we were able to get obese and/or physically weak to begin with) decided that society owed us an existence even more devoid of physical demand.

jgnatca

Former fatty here. My life was never easy, before or since. In my city entrances and public spaces were modified on the advice of a vocal advocacy group arguing for better public access for those with limited mobility. Guess what? We have all benefitted.

In the past few months two citizens have died in public cross walks in our city by left turning buses. One was a senior citizen active in local. charities and the second a thirteen year old girl. These sorts of errors in public safety should wake us up to make changes to our environment.

Gallowmere1984

jgnatca wrote: »

Former fatty here. My life was never easy, before or since. In my city entrances and public spaces were modified on the advice of a vocal advocacy group arguing for better public access for those with limited mobility. Guess what? We have all benefitted.

In the past few months two citizens have died in public cross walks in our city by left turning buses. One was a senior citizen active in local. charities and the second a thirteen year old girl. These sorts of errors in public safety should wake us up to make changes to our environment.

Oh, I agree with you 100% there. I wasn't talking about crosswalks. Whenever vehicle and pedestrian traffic are forced to meet, bad things often happen.

No, I am talking about petty (but expensive to change) things like grades of sidewalks being reduced, obsession over 1/8th" "trip hazards" at joints, and historical brick sidewalks being removed because "slightly uneven footing".

When 1/8" is the difference between a casual stride and eating concrete, I have to wonder if we haven't done too good of a job at hobbling natural selection.

Annie_01

Gallowmere1984 wrote: »

jgnatca wrote: »

Hey, @Gallowmere1984 In my line of work it is important to get to the root cause of any failure. Applying the wrong fix just leaves the problem unsolved longer.

Consider the fate of the honeybee. It turns out that the cause of their decline is multi-factored. Fixing (or blaming) just one of the causes will not be enough to restore their numbers.

Similarly if the cause of the rise of obesity is multi-factored, fixing (or blaming) just one or two factors won't be enough to reverse the trend.

If the cause is multi factored, how exactly can an obese person make a legal claim for their obesity? In fact my former obesity was a barrier to insurability. I also found many weight loss aids to be uninsured as well. I felt I was in a catch-22 for a long time.

I was more referring to all of the stuff on the bottom right that is killing the demand for physical exertion. I have a friend who works for a local municipality. They just sank millions into demolishing, regrading, and modifying a bunch of sidewalk and landscape, due to fatties and the elderly injuring themselves and subsequently suing the city.

Many of those local municipalities are also advocates of walking/cycling instead of driving. If they are going to encourage that then they need to provide safe ways for the "fatties" and the "elderly" to do so.

I live in a city that has hundreds of miles of bike lanes. They have spent "a lot" of money redoing streets to include bike lanes. They have done so to make it safer for not only the cyclist but also for the motorist. This city has not however done the same for walkers...even those that are not fat or old. Many of the sidewalks are not safe to even walk on in daylight...forget walking after dark.

They have however spent a few million to provide a trail along the river for those that want to walk, run or cycle. I live close to the trail so I use it often. Unfortunately...the sidewalks where many elderly live are not suitable safety wise for them to get out and walk.

Is any of this a hindrance to losing weight...no...but it can be a deterrent for someone being more active. I live a mile from the grocery store. I walk and haul back my groceries for the week. Some parts of the sidewalk are great and I just speed along. Other parts I am walking on dirt paths...stepping over cracked concrete that is sticking up 6" in the air or having to step over holes that someone could break an ankle in.

A year ago this elderly fatty tripped over a default in a parking lot...one year and almost $100,000 later my wrist and arm are still not back to the way it was before the fall. This elderly fatty did not sue anyone.

My point is...if cities are going to offer sidewalks to their residents then they have the responsibility to keep those sidewalks safe for all of their residents...whether they be physically fit...fat...old...handicapped.

Just my opinion