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

12346

Replies

  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    CSARdiver 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.

    No it clearly is not.

    I'm beginning to suspect your credentials, despite repeated claims of a terminal degree.

    In Gale's defense, he isn't a medic and he has never claimed that to my knowledge; he is a non-practising optometrist from what I've seen in his posts.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Just read through this and wow...
    Painful.
  • NadNight
    NadNight Posts: 794 Member
    Well that article sounds very bitter! But the writer is right- 'diets' don't work. When people overly restrict or do strange things to try and lose weight, they mess up their body. I don't think 'Naturally Thin Nicky' has not confused her body by years of yo-yo dieting, and I also think she's probably fairly active and, as the article says, eats sensibly with the occasional junk! The key being consistency and the junk being a rarity, rather than periods of consuming very little food followed by 'giving up' or 'giving in' and eating a lot of junk.

  • bikecheryl
    bikecheryl Posts: 1,431 Member

    I did not have to learn what lead to my carb addiction forming sometime in the past. I just had to stop feeding the addiction Oct 2014 when I realized I was an addict.

    I'm surprised at this remark.

    Anything I know about addictions (and I'm not saying it is extensive) indicates understanding the trigger is key.

    "Breaking psychological addiction requires a commitment to understanding the root causes of one’s personal addictive behavior and getting free from the destructive cycle."



  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,389 Member
    edited January 2018
    NadNight wrote: »
    Well that article sounds very bitter! But the writer is right- 'diets' don't work. When people overly restrict or do strange things to try and lose weight, they mess up their body. I don't think 'Naturally Thin Nicky' has not confused her body by years of yo-yo dieting, and I also think she's probably fairly active and, as the article says, eats sensibly with the occasional junk! The key being consistency and the junk being a rarity, rather than periods of consuming very little food followed by 'giving up' or 'giving in' and eating a lot of junk.

    There is no way to know what she does because we have no context and she's just a metaphor that doesn't exist anyway. Ask around all the "naturally" thin people you know how they maintain their weight and you'll get a ton of different answers and many will actually have lost weight to boot.

    By the looks of it you would probably be considered "naturally thin" by others but have you always been "naturally thin", did you get to eat whatever you wanted? This is what I find offensive in the article as a person who was "naturally thin" for a long period of my life. I worked hard, yes people would see me eating pizza and ice cream, but I was always burning off my food because I was always on the go. I wasn't a genetic marvel just someone who could eat a lot because I burned a lot.

    I understand what you're saying, and agree.

    But, expanding on that, I think the misunderstanding of the role of "metabolism" (for lack of a more accurate word) is broader. (Here, I'm using fast/slow "metabolism" as shorthand for "having a statistically unusual calorie consumption for one's weight and/or rate of weight trend", where we're talking about medically normal people).

    For example, I've seen people here implicitly assuming that if they had a "faster metabolism", they'd be like their "naturally thin" friends, and be thin while eating all the foods, too ("slow metabolism" as excuse, basically).

    I've countered that on occasion by my n=1: I easily got fat then obese over a period of years, despite being well out on the happy end of the population stats, able to lose/maintain on 30%+ more than MFP or other calculators estimate. I get pushback: People argue with and "woo" that.

    Even to the extent that there's calorie-need variability among superficially similar people - and there definitely is - it's not that significant. It's a few hundred daily calories. It's a candy bar, or a sandwich. A higher "natural" calorie level is not a guarantee of penalty-free unconstrained consumption - not even close.

    I'm not saying it's a trivial thing if one is on the unhappy side of the averages. That makes things harder, sometimes much harder, no question. But it's not fully an an explanation. Even the lucky few don't get to pound down the pizza, soda, big macs, beer, candy and donuts (or steak, potatoes Anna, and crème brulé - whatever) all day every day.
  • cbohling1987
    cbohling1987 Posts: 99 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    Even to the extent that there's calorie-need variability among superficially similar people - and there definitely is - it's not that significant. It's a few hundred daily calories. It's a candy bar, or a sandwich. A higher "natural" calorie level is not a guarantee of penalty-free unconstrained consumption - not even close.

    And there are still NEAT differences that have nothing to do with your job so people discount them - i.e. being a fidgeter, living on the 6th floor of an apartment building with no elevator, etc - despite the fact that they could easily account for a small difference in TDEE in otherwise identical people.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    NadNight wrote: »
    Well that article sounds very bitter! But the writer is right- 'diets' don't work. When people overly restrict or do strange things to try and lose weight, they mess up their body. I don't think 'Naturally Thin Nicky' has not confused her body by years of yo-yo dieting, and I also think she's probably fairly active and, as the article says, eats sensibly with the occasional junk! The key being consistency and the junk being a rarity, rather than periods of consuming very little food followed by 'giving up' or 'giving in' and eating a lot of junk.

    There is no way to know what she does because we have no context and she's just a metaphor that doesn't exist anyway. Ask around all the "naturally" thin people you know how they maintain their weight and you'll get a ton of different answers and many will actually have lost weight to boot.

    By the looks of it you would probably be considered "naturally thin" by others but have you always been "naturally thin", did you get to eat whatever you wanted? This is what I find offensive in the article as a person who was "naturally thin" for a long period of my life. I worked hard, yes people would see me eating pizza and ice cream, but I was always burning off my food because I was always on the go. I wasn't a genetic marvel just someone who could eat a lot because I burned a lot.

    I understand what you're saying, and agree.

    But, expanding on that, I think the misunderstanding of the role of "metabolism" (for lack of a more accurate word) is broader. (Here, I'm using fast/slow "metabolism" as shorthand for "having a statistically unusual calorie consumption for one's weight and/or rate of weight trend", where we're talking about medically normal people).

    For example, I've seen people here implicitly assuming that if they had a "faster metabolism", they'd be like their "naturally thin" friends, and be thin while eating all the foods, too ("slow metabolism" as excuse, basically).

    I've countered that on occasion by my n=1: I easily got fat then obese over a period of years, despite being well out on the happy end of the population stats, able to lose/maintain on 30%+ more than MFP or other calculators estimate. I get pushback: People argue with and "woo" that.

    Even to the extent that there's calorie-need variability among superficially similar people - and there definitely is - it's not that significant. It's a few hundred daily calories. It's a candy bar, or a sandwich. A higher "natural" calorie level is not a guarantee of penalty-free unconstrained consumption - not even close.

    I'm not saying it's a trivial thing if one is on the unhappy side of the averages. That makes things harder, sometimes much harder, no question. But it's not fully an an explanation. Even the lucky few don't get to pound down the pizza, soda, big macs, beer, candy and donuts (or steak, potatoes Anna, and crème brulé - whatever) all day every day.

    Most people think thin people have faster metabolisms, but in fact the heavier person will have the faster metabolism under normal conditions. I say normal because there are people with metabolic conditions and there are some perfectly healthy people that have either unusually fast or unusually slow metabolic rates for their size, age and sex. Metabolic rates, that we use for the calculators are pretty narrow in range but there are outliers and there are some people that might have some other condition that shows up in metabolism but are otherwise benign.

    So you might be one of those outliers who have an unusually slow metabolism and Nicky might have an unusually fast metabolism, but this is far from the normal case because outliers are very rare by their very nature. The best way to determine this is to have your metabolism measured to be sure. If you suspect it's either very low or very high finding this out might also be a marker of a condition that you didn't even know you had.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    I love chiming in on the "naturally thin" posts, just to say that after being "naturally thin" for years, and having folks tell me "you'll be fat some day when you [get old/have kids/blah blah blah]," "you can't eat that way forever," and (accurately) "you have no idea what you're eating." Since "they" were right on that last one, I started tracking and continued because, honestly, I love playing with numbers and spreadsheets. The big take home after years of tracking is that......
    ......It turns out I eat an appropriate amount of food for my size and activity level.

    I've posted all that before. The new info that I have to add to this one in particular addresses this claim from the article: "Nicky thinks she’s thin because of the way she eats, but actually, genetics play a huge role in making her thin. Nicky gets all the credit, though, because people see the way she eats and they can’t see her genes."

    I just got the results back from one of the genetics tests that you can do. According to the report on genetic weight, of the DNA variants they tested for, I had 379 variants associated with lower weight and 347 variants associated with higher weight. 23andme's conclusion on this was that I was "genetically predisposed to weigh about average."

    z7k9kbkuveqy.png

    I weigh 117 lbs at the moment (currently working on a slow bulk).

    But, but, but...you...you are NATURALLY thin...you are GENETICALLY BLESSED!

    I hate when science shows up and spoils my party! :wink:
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    edited January 2018
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    NadNight wrote: »
    Well that article sounds very bitter! But the writer is right- 'diets' don't work. When people overly restrict or do strange things to try and lose weight, they mess up their body. I don't think 'Naturally Thin Nicky' has not confused her body by years of yo-yo dieting, and I also think she's probably fairly active and, as the article says, eats sensibly with the occasional junk! The key being consistency and the junk being a rarity, rather than periods of consuming very little food followed by 'giving up' or 'giving in' and eating a lot of junk.

    There is no way to know what she does because we have no context and she's just a metaphor that doesn't exist anyway. Ask around all the "naturally" thin people you know how they maintain their weight and you'll get a ton of different answers and many will actually have lost weight to boot.

    By the looks of it you would probably be considered "naturally thin" by others but have you always been "naturally thin", did you get to eat whatever you wanted? This is what I find offensive in the article as a person who was "naturally thin" for a long period of my life. I worked hard, yes people would see me eating pizza and ice cream, but I was always burning off my food because I was always on the go. I wasn't a genetic marvel just someone who could eat a lot because I burned a lot.

    I understand what you're saying, and agree.

    But, expanding on that, I think the misunderstanding of the role of "metabolism" (for lack of a more accurate word) is broader. (Here, I'm using fast/slow "metabolism" as shorthand for "having a statistically unusual calorie consumption for one's weight and/or rate of weight trend", where we're talking about medically normal people).

    For example, I've seen people here implicitly assuming that if they had a "faster metabolism", they'd be like their "naturally thin" friends, and be thin while eating all the foods, too ("slow metabolism" as excuse, basically).

    I've countered that on occasion by my n=1: I easily got fat then obese over a period of years, despite being well out on the happy end of the population stats, able to lose/maintain on 30%+ more than MFP or other calculators estimate. I get pushback: People argue with and "woo" that.

    Even to the extent that there's calorie-need variability among superficially similar people - and there definitely is - it's not that significant. It's a few hundred daily calories. It's a candy bar, or a sandwich. A higher "natural" calorie level is not a guarantee of penalty-free unconstrained consumption - not even close.

    I'm not saying it's a trivial thing if one is on the unhappy side of the averages. That makes things harder, sometimes much harder, no question. But it's not fully an an explanation. Even the lucky few don't get to pound down the pizza, soda, big macs, beer, candy and donuts (or steak, potatoes Anna, and crème brulé - whatever) all day every day.

    And, from my perspective it is not merely non-trivial it is EVERYTHING. A few hundred calories is 1/5 to 1/4 my TOTAL daily calories. If I could eat 17xx calories a day and not gain weight I’d not have been overweight at all. I call strawman, no reasonable person on this side thinks anyone who is in the normal range “get to pound down the pizza, soda, big macs, beer, candy and donuts (or steak, potatoes Anna, and crème brulé - whatever) all day every day.”

    But one extra sandwich a day every day (or a glass of wine, or a potato with dinner, or two cookies after dinner) would be a HUGE change in my quality of life.

    At the the high end (which you say you are) a few hundred calories is what, 1/10 or 1/x of your daily calories. Yeah, if I were that lucky, maybe I could call it trivial or “not significant” too. But as a relative proportion of the calories you or I have to work with? It is a huge proportion of mine and a “not significant” proportion of yours.

    But saying so invites the extreme types of arguments here, so that what I’m really saying will be strawmanized and illogically “restated”.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    I have a genetic disorder and I have been thin most of my life up until my mid 30s. I never went over 140-145 lbs. I maintained my weight. I was active and on a medication that will speed up metabolism a bit. I was taken off that medication, stopped moving as much but ate the same amount I was before. I was always told as a kid that if your parents were thin you would be thin. that IS not the case.I gained 70 lbs over the years because I got sedentary and didnt change my calorie intake. I didnt think I had to.I thought genetics would keep me thin.

    my genetic disorder causes my body to store excess DIETARY fat and cholesterol if I eat too much ,I ended up with fat pads on some of my joints. I started eating less and moving more about 6 years ago and lost weight. first "diet" I have ever been on. I gained a little back but thats because my metabolism is wonky for some reason and now I have to eat even less calories than MFP is telling me.

    Im starting to lose weight again where I was maintaining and gaining a little on more calories. but Im not blaming my genetic disorder.I blame it on eating more than my body needs at the time. Im still active but its slowed down a bit because of less energy due to a different health issue. so yeah I had to adjust my calories accordingly for that.

    if genetic disorders made you fat then I would have never lost weight doing CICO. same with all my sisters. everyone of them were thin like me as well. but we all gained weight over the years because we stopped being as active and eating the same or more. and none of them have the genetic defect I have as far as I know.
  • CharlieBeansmomTracey
    CharlieBeansmomTracey Posts: 7,682 Member
    I love chiming in on the "naturally thin" posts, just to say that after being "naturally thin" for years, and having folks tell me "you'll be fat some day when you [get old/have kids/blah blah blah]," "you can't eat that way forever," and (accurately) "you have no idea what you're eating." Since "they" were right on that last one, I started tracking and continued because, honestly, I love playing with numbers and spreadsheets. The big take home after years of tracking is that......
    ......It turns out I eat an appropriate amount of food for my size and activity level.

    I've posted all that before. The new info that I have to add to this one in particular addresses this claim from the article: "Nicky thinks she’s thin because of the way she eats, but actually, genetics play a huge role in making her thin. Nicky gets all the credit, though, because people see the way she eats and they can’t see her genes."

    I just got the results back from one of the genetics tests that you can do. According to the report on genetic weight, of the DNA variants they tested for, I had 379 variants associated with lower weight and 347 variants associated with higher weight. 23andme's conclusion on this was that I was "genetically predisposed to weigh about average."

    z7k9kbkuveqy.png

    I weigh 117 lbs at the moment (currently working on a slow bulk).

    I would take that test with a grain of salt though. I've heard a lot of negativity about those tests and that they are not accurate,to the fact where its telling some they are not predisposed to things like cancer and yet end up with it..if you really want genetic testing see a professional who tests for genetic issues and defects
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,389 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    NadNight wrote: »
    Well that article sounds very bitter! But the writer is right- 'diets' don't work. When people overly restrict or do strange things to try and lose weight, they mess up their body. I don't think 'Naturally Thin Nicky' has not confused her body by years of yo-yo dieting, and I also think she's probably fairly active and, as the article says, eats sensibly with the occasional junk! The key being consistency and the junk being a rarity, rather than periods of consuming very little food followed by 'giving up' or 'giving in' and eating a lot of junk.

    There is no way to know what she does because we have no context and she's just a metaphor that doesn't exist anyway. Ask around all the "naturally" thin people you know how they maintain their weight and you'll get a ton of different answers and many will actually have lost weight to boot.

    By the looks of it you would probably be considered "naturally thin" by others but have you always been "naturally thin", did you get to eat whatever you wanted? This is what I find offensive in the article as a person who was "naturally thin" for a long period of my life. I worked hard, yes people would see me eating pizza and ice cream, but I was always burning off my food because I was always on the go. I wasn't a genetic marvel just someone who could eat a lot because I burned a lot.

    I understand what you're saying, and agree.

    But, expanding on that, I think the misunderstanding of the role of "metabolism" (for lack of a more accurate word) is broader. (Here, I'm using fast/slow "metabolism" as shorthand for "having a statistically unusual calorie consumption for one's weight and/or rate of weight trend", where we're talking about medically normal people).

    For example, I've seen people here implicitly assuming that if they had a "faster metabolism", they'd be like their "naturally thin" friends, and be thin while eating all the foods, too ("slow metabolism" as excuse, basically).

    I've countered that on occasion by my n=1: I easily got fat then obese over a period of years, despite being well out on the happy end of the population stats, able to lose/maintain on 30%+ more than MFP or other calculators estimate. I get pushback: People argue with and "woo" that.

    Even to the extent that there's calorie-need variability among superficially similar people - and there definitely is - it's not that significant. It's a few hundred daily calories. It's a candy bar, or a sandwich. A higher "natural" calorie level is not a guarantee of penalty-free unconstrained consumption - not even close.

    I'm not saying it's a trivial thing if one is on the unhappy side of the averages. That makes things harder, sometimes much harder, no question. But it's not fully an an explanation. Even the lucky few don't get to pound down the pizza, soda, big macs, beer, candy and donuts (or steak, potatoes Anna, and crème brulé - whatever) all day every day.

    Most people think thin people have faster metabolisms, but in fact the heavier person will have the faster metabolism under normal conditions. I say normal because there are people with metabolic conditions and there are some perfectly healthy people that have either unusually fast or unusually slow metabolic rates for their size, age and sex. Metabolic rates, that we use for the calculators are pretty narrow in range but there are outliers and there are some people that might have some other condition that shows up in metabolism but are otherwise benign.

    So you might be one of those outliers who have an unusually slow metabolism and Nicky might have an unusually fast metabolism, but this is far from the normal case because outliers are very rare by their very nature. The best way to determine this is to have your metabolism measured to be sure. If you suspect it's either very low or very high finding this out might also be a marker of a condition that you didn't even know you had.

    Standard deviation for RMR is somewhere around 5-8% of the mean. About 68% of the population will be within plus or minus 5-8% of the mean, and about 96% within plus or minus 10-16%, by definition. Which, of course, leaves about 4% out in the tails somewhere.

    Someday, I'll get around to having my RMR tested. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure I'm healthy - docs keep a very close eye on us cancer survivors, especially when we lose weight faster than expected. ;) And I'm not "heavier" these days, at BMI 22 this morning. Theory would suggest that I might even be likely to be "metabolically" suppressed after losing around 1/3 of my body weight in less than a year. So: Yeah, probably statistically an outlier (possibly partly because modern lifestyles distort the population stats for my older age group, I suspect).

    But that's not the point: The point is that being an outlier really changes very little, when it comes to becoming obese. Even at an extreme degree of outlier-hood in the lucky direction, there's no ability to eat whatever, whenever. It's not an automatic "naturally thin" outcome. Outlier-hood is a few hundred calories, making around the same difference as most people can achieve with a little more exercise, or improving their non-exercise daily activity.

    Even the best possible (though still statistically improbable) healthy "metabolic" advantage is not a magic ticket. People who assume it is, aren't thinking through the numbers.
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    edited January 2018
    CSARdiver 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.

    No it clearly is not.

    I'm beginning to suspect your credentials, despite repeated claims of a terminal degree.

    Is it my real photo, real name and real profile data that confuses you or is my willingness to support my posts in a court of law if required?

    I am not into fake medical dieting info from fake profiles. I could care less about fake profiles but I draw the line on harmful eating advice from any source. There are hurting people coming to MFP for real info and to give them fake advice is just plain wrong. Not all of them have the background to filter out the fake stuff.


    What does "willingness to support my posts in a court of law if required" even mean? Seriously -- what scenario are you picturing here?

    I consider the theory that every single overweight person has a metabolic disorder to be "fake stuff," by the way. Isn't that one of your pet ideas?

    Now I am imagining @lemurcat invoking Daubert and tearing him up on the stand six ways from Sunday.

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/daubert-challenge/

    edit: added an "and" and corrected idiom
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    CSARdiver 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.

    No it clearly is not.

    I'm beginning to suspect your credentials, despite repeated claims of a terminal degree.

    Is it my real photo, real name and real profile data that confuses you or is my willingness to support my posts in a court of law if required?

    I am not into fake medical dieting info from fake profiles. I could care less about fake profiles but I draw the line on harmful eating advice from any source. There are hurting people coming to MFP for real info and to give them fake advice is just plain wrong. Not all of them have the background to filter out the fake stuff.


    What does "willingness to support my posts in a court of law if required" even mean? Seriously -- what scenario are you picturing here?

    I consider the theory that every single overweight person has a metabolic disorder to be "fake stuff," by the way. Isn't that one of your pet ideas?

    Now I am imagining @lemurcat invoking Daubert and tearing him up on the stand five ways to Sunday.

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/daubert-challenge/

    edit: added an "and"

    Oh my gosh, internet court would be entertaining in so many ways!
This discussion has been closed.