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.

Commentary: What Thin People Don't Get About Dieting

12467

Replies

  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-thin-people-dieting-weight-food-resolutions-0101-20171227-story.html

    I am not sure what made me more mad when I saw this commentary piece in the Chicago Tribune this morning....

    The statement that "cutting calories alone doesn't lead to long-term weight loss".

    The myth that there are "naturally thin" people who just have good genetics and high metabolism.

    Or, the conclusion that if you are overweight, you do not have any chance of losing weight long term so you shouldn't even try.

    So angry right now....

    I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this dreary op-ed article.

    Not sure there are 'skinny' genes but it is true in a functional sense that cutting calories does not lead to long term weight loss for most people that I have ever known including myself.

    Finally at the age of 63 I decided to NEVER go on another diet to lose weight just to have another 100%+ regain. Now turning 67 I have lost 50 pounds and maintained that loss for over two and half years by changing the kind of calories that I eat.

    Cutting calories can be a short term fix in an emergency but it is not likely to fix the cause of the wrong way of thinking, eating and moving that lead to the need to go on a "diet" in the first place.

    For over three years now I have eaten only to improve my health and health markers. When I did that the weight started to normalize (decrease) after the first 45 days without any dieting effort yet staying stuffed most of the time.

    Thinking about losing weight seems to be a good way to gain weight for many people it seems perhaps.

    And do you know why your weight decreased? Because you were taking in less calories than you were burning. Whether you viewed what you were doing as cutting calories or not, that is exactly what you were doing if you lost weight. I'm sure you will spout all sorts of nonsense to try to explain otherwise, because that is what you do best around here, but the simple fact is your weight is directly affected by CICO.

    Do you know why I was taking in less calories when starting Oct 2014 (and still continue to eat that way today) cold turkey I cut add sugars and all forms of all grains that over time has resolved my binging, pain, IBS, limited health in general, etc?

    Did I know going LCHF Oct 2014 would functionally give me hope for a future? NO I did not but I was willing to try anything to avoid the medical side effects of starting on Enbrel injections Nov 2014. I did not even know what I was doing but just acting to a hunch that cutting out the sugar and grain that I might be able to dodge the Enbrel bullet coming my way. I added about a 1000 calories daily at the same time from coconut products trying to prevent Alzheimer's.

    That is how out of ignorance I accidently started the LCHF WOE. As noted before I had to leave sugar and grains cold turkey after trying to taper off of them for 60 days and failing. I learned I was a carb addict then I realized I was going to have to stop eat food containing added sugar and any form of any grain instead of just reducing these highly processed carb food sources.

    As I have stated for years how one eats is their own business and how I eat is my business. At the age of 63 I willfully decided to eat for longer life instead of eating for a premature death.

    Yep, there's the long, drawn out, nonsense explanation I was expecting and forgive me, but I am having trouble following. You say you were taking in less calories, but then say you added about 1000 calories a day at the same time. So which is it? Were you taking in less calories or more? Were the 1000 calories of coconut products included in your daily total which was less than before? If so, then it I have some news for you: it wasn't the fact that you were taking coconut products that helped you lose weight, it is the fact that you were taking in less calories overall. You could have been ingesting 1000 calories of pure sugar instead of coconut, and as long as your CI were less than your CO you would lose weight. You found something that worked for you which is great, but it blows my mind how you still try to argue that your weight loss was somehow not attributed to a caloric deficit. The fact of the matter is, what worked for you was eating at a deficit, and just because you don't view it that way, it doesn't make it any less true.

    CICO will never medically explain why some people overeat.

    No, but it will explain why they gain/lose weight. Lack of willpower and CICO are 2 completely different things.

    Would you agree 100% of people who legally log into these MFP forums already know it is calories or lack of calories from the food they eat that causes them to gain/lose weight?

    People need to know WHY they under/over eat and it has nothing to do with willpower long term. People that use willpower to lose weight are called yo-yo dieters. :)

    Are we really back to the 'everyone who is overweight has a physical or mental disorder' argument?

    No. It is a metabolic disorder medically speaking.

    Being overweight is not a metabolic disorder for the vast majority as their bodies are reacting exactly as designed i.e. seek food, and gain weight for the famine or illness that will come. We have only been in a food rich society for a blink of an eye.


    Then what kind of disorder is being overweight?

    It isn't a disorder. The body is processing excess calories the way it was designed - by storing them as fat.

    Calling it a "Disorder" suggests that a system is functioning outside of the norm, it is not working properly - but weight gain as result of consuming more energy than the system requires is not a malfunction of the system.

    If you have a cup, and you fill it with water such that it overflows, it is neither the design of the cup nor the fault of the liquid that you now have a mess to clean up. The cup holds what it holds. The act of you overfilling it does not mean that the cup is malfunctioning.

    Yeah, but, like, you totally didn't address WHY someone would fill the cup until it overflowed. Until we nail that, we'll live in water-drenched anarchy.

    Please not that, Water World sucked. ;)
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-thin-people-dieting-weight-food-resolutions-0101-20171227-story.html

    I am not sure what made me more mad when I saw this commentary piece in the Chicago Tribune this morning....

    The statement that "cutting calories alone doesn't lead to long-term weight loss".

    The myth that there are "naturally thin" people who just have good genetics and high metabolism.

    Or, the conclusion that if you are overweight, you do not have any chance of losing weight long term so you shouldn't even try.

    So angry right now....

    I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this dreary op-ed article.

    Not sure there are 'skinny' genes but it is true in a functional sense that cutting calories does not lead to long term weight loss for most people that I have ever known including myself.

    Finally at the age of 63 I decided to NEVER go on another diet to lose weight just to have another 100%+ regain. Now turning 67 I have lost 50 pounds and maintained that loss for over two and half years by changing the kind of calories that I eat.

    Cutting calories can be a short term fix in an emergency but it is not likely to fix the cause of the wrong way of thinking, eating and moving that lead to the need to go on a "diet" in the first place.

    For over three years now I have eaten only to improve my health and health markers. When I did that the weight started to normalize (decrease) after the first 45 days without any dieting effort yet staying stuffed most of the time.

    Thinking about losing weight seems to be a good way to gain weight for many people it seems perhaps.

    And do you know why your weight decreased? Because you were taking in less calories than you were burning. Whether you viewed what you were doing as cutting calories or not, that is exactly what you were doing if you lost weight. I'm sure you will spout all sorts of nonsense to try to explain otherwise, because that is what you do best around here, but the simple fact is your weight is directly affected by CICO.

    Do you know why I was taking in less calories when starting Oct 2014 (and still continue to eat that way today) cold turkey I cut add sugars and all forms of all grains that over time has resolved my binging, pain, IBS, limited health in general, etc?

    Did I know going LCHF Oct 2014 would functionally give me hope for a future? NO I did not but I was willing to try anything to avoid the medical side effects of starting on Enbrel injections Nov 2014. I did not even know what I was doing but just acting to a hunch that cutting out the sugar and grain that I might be able to dodge the Enbrel bullet coming my way. I added about a 1000 calories daily at the same time from coconut products trying to prevent Alzheimer's.

    That is how out of ignorance I accidently started the LCHF WOE. As noted before I had to leave sugar and grains cold turkey after trying to taper off of them for 60 days and failing. I learned I was a carb addict then I realized I was going to have to stop eat food containing added sugar and any form of any grain instead of just reducing these highly processed carb food sources.

    As I have stated for years how one eats is their own business and how I eat is my business. At the age of 63 I willfully decided to eat for longer life instead of eating for a premature death.

    Yep, there's the long, drawn out, nonsense explanation I was expecting and forgive me, but I am having trouble following. You say you were taking in less calories, but then say you added about 1000 calories a day at the same time. So which is it? Were you taking in less calories or more? Were the 1000 calories of coconut products included in your daily total which was less than before? If so, then it I have some news for you: it wasn't the fact that you were taking coconut products that helped you lose weight, it is the fact that you were taking in less calories overall. You could have been ingesting 1000 calories of pure sugar instead of coconut, and as long as your CI were less than your CO you would lose weight. You found something that worked for you which is great, but it blows my mind how you still try to argue that your weight loss was somehow not attributed to a caloric deficit. The fact of the matter is, what worked for you was eating at a deficit, and just because you don't view it that way, it doesn't make it any less true.

    CICO will never medically explain why some people overeat.

    No, but it will explain why they gain/lose weight. Lack of willpower and CICO are 2 completely different things.

    Would you agree 100% of people who legally log into these MFP forums already know it is calories or lack of calories from the food they eat that causes them to gain/lose weight?

    People need to know WHY they under/over eat and it has nothing to do with willpower long term. People that use willpower to lose weight are called yo-yo dieters. :)

    Are we really back to the 'everyone who is overweight has a physical or mental disorder' argument?

    No. It is a metabolic disorder medically speaking.

    Being overweight is not a metabolic disorder for the vast majority as their bodies are reacting exactly as designed i.e. seek food, and gain weight for the famine or illness that will come. We have only been in a food rich society for a blink of an eye.


    Then what kind of disorder is being overweight?

    How is it a disorder if the body is working as intended? It causes disorders if you carry too much fat for too long but seems to me it's hardly a disorder when the body does what it was designed to actually do. The problem is that we aren't used to being in an abundant food environment. Our biggest issue is sedentary lifestyle coupled with too much food that leads people to overeat for their requirements. I have always disagreed with the disease model of obesity, in and of itself, unless it is caused by a medical condition. It's a condition, not a disorder or disease.

    The problem is that if it is a condition and not a disease, it is not sexy and people cannot get funding to wage wars against the dreaded obesity disease...

    Yes, we need to always have a war against something lol.
  • besaro
    besaro Posts: 1,858 Member
    i liked water world.
This discussion has been closed.